Tata Motors Limited vs Chandrakant Krishnaji Shewate
2017 Latest Caselaw 9577 Bom

                                          1 / 17                         LPA-241-06.odt

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.241 OF 2006
                                       IN
                          WRIT PETITION NO.7589 OF 2000

    Chandrakant Krishnaji Shewate
    Indian Inhabitant of Ajmera Housing
    Society, MC-1-304, Pimpri,
    Pune 411 018.                                            .... Appellant

                     versus

    Tata Motors Limited
    Formerly known as M/s. Tata
    Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd.
    A company incorporated under the
    Companies Act, 1956, having its
    Factory at Pimpri, Pune 411 018.                         ... Respondent


                                      WITH
                       LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.31 OF 2006
                                       IN
                          WRIT PETITION NO.7589 OF 2000

    Tata Motors Limited
    Formerly known as M/s. Tata
    Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd.
    A company incorporated under the
    Companies Act, 1956, having its
    Factory at Pimpri, Pune 411 018.                         ... Appellant

                     versus

    Chandrakant Krishnaji Shewate
    Indian Inhabitant of Ajmera Housing
    Society, MC-1-304, Pimpri,
    Pune 411 018.                                            .... Respondent


Nesarikar




   ::: Uploaded on - 19/12/2017                     ::: Downloaded on - 20/12/2017 01:01:49 :::
                                          2 / 17                         LPA-241-06.odt



                                     .......

 •      Mr.V.H. Shekdar, Advocate for the Appellant in LPA No.241/06 and
        for Respondent in LPA No.31/06.
 •      Mr.K.S. Bapat a/w Mr.Rushil Mathur i/b. Mulla & Mulla & CBC, 
         Advocate for the Appellant in LPA No.31/06 and for Respondent in
         LPA No.241/06.

                         CORAM               :  SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
                                                SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ.
                         DATE                :  13th DECEMBER, 2017

 JUDGMENT (PER : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) :

1. Since both these Letters Patent Appeals challenge the

same judgment dated 23/12/2005 passed by a learned Single

Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.7589 of 2000, both these

Letters Patent Appeals are decided by this common judgment.

By the said impugned judgment the learned Single Judge of this

Court had set aside the award part II passed by the Labour Court

at Pune, dated 04/01/2000. For the sake of brevity, the

appellant in LPA No.241/06 is referred by his name Shewate

and the respondent in LPA No.241/06 is referred as TELCO. LPA

No.31/06 is filed by TELCO against Shewate. The Labour Court,

Pune had dismissed the Reference made by the Deputy Commissioner

3 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

of Labour, Pune u/s 10(1)(c) r/w 12(5) of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court had passed the said

Award part II in Reference (ID) No.28 of 1991. Thereby

Shewate's dismissal was confirmed. While allowing the Writ

Petition, the learned Single Judge did not pass the order of

reinstatement with continuity of service and back-wages to

Shewate and granted only compensation in the form of 40

months wages calculated at his last drawn wages and also

granted gratuity and Provident Fund accordingly. Both parties

were aggrieved by the said order to the extent to which it

affected them. Hence the parties have filed the present appeals.

2. The brief facts necessary for the decision of these

appeals are as follows;

Shewate was a member of TELCO Kamgar

Sanghathana (TKS), which was one of the trade unions

functioning in TELCO. The other union i.e. TELCO Employees'

Union (TEU) was formed on 19/02/1989. TELCO entered into

4 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

an agreement with TEU in respect of certain pending demands.

The presence of rival unions led to acrimony between the

members of the unions. On 14/03/1989 there was a quarrel

between two workmen belonging to the rival unions and heated

exchange of words between them ensued, culminating in their

suspension from service pending enquiry.

3. On 15/03/1989 the incident which was the subject

matter of the enquiry initiated against Shewate took place. It is

the case of TELCO that on 15/03/1989 Shewate along with

other workmen prevented others from entering factory premises

at Pimpri. Shewate and others assaulted one Gulab Shankar

Nevale and Prakash Mahadeo Warade at 08.15 a.m. thereby

preventing them from attending work. Gulab Nevale and

Prakash Warade went to Pimpri Police Station, and thereafter

they were treated in Sasoon Hospital.

4. Aforesaid Warade made complaint to TELCO on

21/03/1989. TELCO issued chargesheet to Shewate on

5 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

16/05/1989 for violation of certain clauses of the model

standing orders including:

(1) Disorderly and riotous beahviour on the premises of the factory;

(2) Instigating and abetting an illegal strike; (3) Commission of an act contrary to discipline and rude behaviour.

5. Before the Inquiry Officer, TELCO examined in all 8

witnesses including their Security Officer, Human Resources

Officer, Photographer, Security Inspector, Doctor and some

workmen. Shewate examined himself and some other witnesses

in support of his case. The Inquiry Officer gave his report on

01/01/1991, holding that the charges levelled against Shewate

were fully established. TELCO thereafter made approval

application before the Industrial Court u/s 33(2)(b) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, praying for approval for dismissal

of Shewate w.e.f. 30/04/1991 and accordingly TELCO

subsequently dismissed Shewate from services.

6 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

6. After failure of the Conciliation Proceedings, Shewate

submitted his statement of claim in Reference (ID) No.28/91

before the Labour Court, Pune. In the said proceedings Shewate

raised demand for reinstatement with continuity of service and

full back-wages. After the pleadings were completed, the Labour

Court came to the conclusion that the enquiry held against the

petitioner was fair and illegal. The Award Part I was delivered

on 09/05/1995. The Labour Court then considered the

correctness of the findings of the Inquiry Officer and also

considered the question as to whether punishment of dismissal

was shockingly disproportionate and by passing the final

Judgment and Award Part II, the Labour Court recorded the

findings in favour of TELCO. It was held that, the findings of the

Inquiry Officer were not perverse and the punishment of

dismissal was not shockingly disproportionate and harsh.

7. Shewate challenged the said Award by filing Writ

Petition No.7589/00 under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India before this Court. The learned Single Judge vide her

7 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

Judgment and order dated 23/01/2005 was pleased to pass the

order as mentioned earlier, which is challenged by both the

parties separately by way of the present appeals mentioned as

earlier.

8. We have heard the learned counsel Mr.V.H. Shekdar

for Shewte and the learned counsel Mr.K.S. Bapat for TELCO.

With their assistance we have perused the impugned judgment

and order as well as all the relevant documents which were

produced along with both these appeals.

9. The learned counsel Mr.Shekdar for Shewate

submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the

Award passed by the Labour Court by giving sufficient reasons

and the material on record was properly considered in arriving

at the finding recorded in favour of Shewate in the Writ Petition.

He submitted that however, the learned Single Judge should

have passed the order directing reinstatement with continuity of

services with back-wages. He submitted that the entire material

8 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

produced before the Inquiry Officer shows that Shewate was not

present when the incident on 14/03/1989 had taken place and

therefore the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, which

were accepted by the Labour Court, were perverse and therefore

the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered with the said

findings.

10. As against these submissions advanced on behalf of

Shewate, Mr.Kiran Bapat learned counsel for TELCO submitted

that the conclusions arrived at, by the Labour Court as well as

the Inquiry Officer were based on proper consideration of the

material before them. He submitted that the learned Single

Judge should not have interfered with the findings on fact,

which were based on the cogent material before the Labour

Court as well as the Inquiry Officer. Mr.Bapat submitted that the

learned Single Judge should not have set aside the Award which

was based on the findings of facts, particularly when the view

taken by the Labour Court was a possible view and the

reasoning given by the Labour Court was not perverse.

9 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

11. We have gone through the impugned Judgment and

Order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single

Judge considered the rival submissions and made certain

observations on the factual aspects. The learned Single Judge

accepted the fact that the victim of the incident Mr.Nevale might

not be knowing the name of Shewate, when he had given the

complaint to TELCO in respect of the incident dated

14/03/1989 and he had identified Shewate after two months

from the incident. The learned Single Judge has observed that

since TELCO had number of factories employing more than

10,000 workers, it was not expected that every person would

know names of his co-employees. After making such

observations, the learned Single Judge then proceeded to

consider the question of Shewate's presence at the scene of

occurrence at the time when the incident had taken place. In

fact, from the impugned order it appears that the learned Single

Judge has based his reasoning mainly on this aspect of the

matter. The learned Single Judge has observed that, Shewate

10 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

was on the night shift on 14/03/1989 which ended at 06.30

a.m. on 15/03/1989. The learned Single Judge has further

observed that after 06.30 a.m. Shewate could have been present

at the factory premises for another 15-20 minutes only and

therefore it was not possible that Shewate would have been

present at the scene at 08.15 a.m. on 15/03/1989.

12. The learned Single Judge has observed that the Labour

Court's conclusion that the petitioner was present at about 08.00

a.m. at the scene of offence was not acceptable. The learned

Single Judge has further observed that TELCO had examined

Nevale and Warade, who were the members of rival unions of

Shewate's union. The other witnesses were employed with

TELCO and therefore no independent witnesses were examined.

It was observed that, Shewate was implicated because of trade

unions rivalry. The learned Single Judge has accepted that

Shewate's evidence that he returned home at 07.45 a.m. was

believable. The learned Single Judge also referred to the

observations of the Inquiry Officer that there was a strong

11 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

possibility that Nevale had wrongly mentioned name of Shelke

instead of Shewate in his complaint. Thus, according to the

learned Single Judge, the Inquiry Officer's findings on the issue

were perverse. The Labour Court was in error in holding that

Shewate was guilty of committing misconduct of assault on

Nevale and Warade. The learned Single Judge also took into

consideration the fact that Shewate's name was not mentioned

in the complaint lodged with police by Nevale and Warade,

immediately after the assault and Nevale had implicated

Shewate almost two months after the incident.

13. After taking into consideration the Inquiry Officer's

report, the reasonings given by the Labour Court in passing the

Award and after perusing the impugned judgment and order

passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, we are unable

to agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the

impugned order labelling findings of the Inquiry Officer as

perverse and observing that the Labour Court had committed an

error in accepting such report. As mentioned earlier, the learned

12 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

Single Judge had appreciated the facts which were brought on

record during the enquiry held by the Inquiry Officer and had

observed that Shewate could not have been present at the scene

of offence when the incident had taken place. We find that the

view taken by the learned Single Judge that Shewate could have

been present at the factory premises at the most for 15-20

minutes after the end of his shift at 06.30 a.m., is unreasonable

and is without any basis.

14. Shewate's statement during the enquiry itself shows

that he had admitted that, on 15/03/1989 at 07.00 a.m. he

came to the gate of the company for going home. Thereafter he

had gone to meet one Jaysingh Pawar, who was the Leader of

his union and who was accompanied by some workmen.

Thereafter he had a talk with him and discussed the

circumstances prevailing outside. Thereafter Jaisingh Pawar had

told him that a meeting was scheduled at the gate and thereafter

Shewate had gone home. According to Shewate he reached

home at 07.40 a.m. and then he attended his company on

13 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

16/03/1989. This statement clearly shows that the observation

made by the learned Single Judge that Shewate could not have

been present at the factory after more than 15-20 minutes after

06.30 is not correct. According to his own statement, he met his

leader at 07.00 a.m. and then had a discussion which also must

have consumed some time. He claims to have reached home at

07.45 a.m. The time mentioned is closer to the time of the

alleged incident, which had taken place at around 08.00 a.m.

Therefore in our opinion the view taken by the Inquiry Officer

which was accepted by the Labour Court, Pune was a possible

view and there was nothing perverse about such conclusion.

15. The another aspect referred to by the learned Single

Judge regarding not mentioning of Shewate's name in the

complaint given by the victim to the police as well as to TELCO

initially, does not have much significance. In fact the learned

Single Judge himself has observed that not every employee was

expected to know names of his fellow employees in such a large

establishment. Therefore when the occasion arose to identify

14 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

Shewate, which was after two months, the victim identified him.

We do not find any irregularity or illegality in this identification

going to the root of the matter and on the basis of this

circumstance it was not possible to hold that Shewate had not

assaulted the victims. Thus, on this count also we find that the

view taken by the Inquiry Officer and the Labour Court was a

possible view and there was nothing perverse about such view

and even on this count also, the learned Single Judge should not

have interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the Inquiry

Officer and the Labour Court.

16. It is also important to note that Shewate had not

challenged the fairness of the enquiry. The Labour Court in

paragraph No.8 of the Award has observed that as per the pursis

filed on behalf of Shewte at Ex.17 of the proceedings before the

Labour Court, Shewate has conceded the issue regarding the

procedural fairness of the enquiry.

17. It is well settled that, when the workman does not

15 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

challenge the correctness, legality or validity of the enquiry

conducted, it is not open for the Labour Court to go into the

findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. In support of this

proposition we refer to the judgment of the Honourable

Supreme Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport

Corporation Vs. Vinod Kumar, reported in (2008) 1 Supreme

Court Cases 115.

18. In the present case also the Labour Court has rightly

not interfered with the finding of the Inquiry Officer; which was

the correct approach. Therefore, the learned Single Judge also

should not have interfered with such findings.

19. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Surya

Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Ors. reported in (2003) 6

Supreme Court Cases 675, has considered the scope of powers

which can be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 and

227 of the Constitution of India. It was laid down that the High

Court in exercise of such power cannot convert itself into a

16 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

Court of appeal and indulge in reappreciation or evaluation of

evidence or correct errors of mere formal or technical character

or those made in drawing inferences.

20. In our view, the learned Single Judge has clearly fell in

error in re-appreciating the evidence to hold that the findings

recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Labour Court were

perverse. In our opinion this was not a correct approach and in

any case reasoning given by the learned Single Judge to reach

her conclusions are not reasonable neither are they supported by

the material on record. Hence we set aside the impugned

judgment and order dated 23/12/2005 passed by the learned

Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.7589/00.

Consequently the Letters Patent Appeal No.241/06 is dismissed

and the Letters Patent Appeal No.31/06 is allowed and the

Award part II dated 04/01/2000 passed by the Labour Court at

Pune in Reference (ID) No.28 of 1991 is restored.

21. At this stage, the learned counsel for Shewate stated

17 / 17 LPA-241-06.odt

that, during the pendancy of the present appeals TELCO has

deposited some amount in this Court as directed and some part

of it is withdrawn by Shewate. It was prayed on behalf of

Shewate that Shewate may not be directed to repay the said

amount. Mr.Kiran Bapat on behalf of TELCO fairly submits that

he has no objection if such amount is retained by Shewate. In

this view of the matter, it shall not be necessary for Shewate to

refund such amount. The balance amount, if any, deposited by

TELCO in this Court shall be refunded to TELCO.

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J.)