D.D. Bhatt vs M/S. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd
2017 Latest Caselaw 7016 Bom

                                                                 wp 4631-05 judgment.doc

                                    
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 4631  OF 2005


      D.D.Bhatt
      Block No.20, 4th floor,
      Vatsalaya Gopal Nagar,
      Dombivali (East), 
      District Thane                                                  ..Petitioner

                     v/s.

      M/s. Indian Organic Chemicals Ltd.,
      Bhupati Chambers, 3rd Floor,
      13 Mathew Road, Opera House,
      Mumbai 400 004               `                                  ..Respondents


      Mr. Mahendra Agvekar i/b. Rajesh Gehani for the Petitioner
      Mr. P.C.Pavaskar for the Respondent.
        
                                   CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.

DATED : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2017.

JUDGMENT.

1. The petitioner herein has challenged the validity of part I

award dated 21st December, 2001 and final award dated 29 th January

2002 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 82

of 1997.

pps                                                                                      1 of 7


                                                                    wp 4631-05 judgment.doc

2. The brief facts necessary to decide this petition are as under:-

The petitioner was employed with the respondent no.1 company as a

Despatch clerk. In addition to his duty as a Despatch Clerk, he was

also required to order stationery as per the requirement of the

respondent company, from the approved suppliers.

3. The petitioner came to be suspended on 29 th march, 1994. The

said suspension order was followed by charge memorandum dated

7th April, 1994 alleging that the petitioner was involved in taking

money from the suppliers for purchasing different stationery and

other related items, which constituted mis-conduct under 22(d) and

22(e) of the Model Standing Orders. The petitioner refuted all the

charges leveled against him. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated,

during the pendency of which the respondent company issued

another charge memorandum dated 6 th June, 1994 making similar

allegations. The Inquiry Officer after completing the inquiry vide

report dated 14th March, 1996 held the petitioner guilty of the

charges. By order dated 27th February, 1996 the respondent

pps 2 of 7

wp 4631-05 judgment.doc

terminated the services of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred

for adjudication in IDA No.82 of 1997. The petitioner, as well as the

respondent company filed their statement of claim/written

statement. The learned Judge, by Part I award dated 21 st February

2001 held that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and that the

findings of the Inquiry Officer were not perverse. Thereafter, after

considering the evidence on merits, the learned Judge passed final

award dated 29th January 2002 holding that the termination order

was justified and thus rejected the reference. Being aggrieved by

these orders, the petitioner has filed this petition.

5. Mr. Agvekar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has

submitted that the charge memorandum does not mention the bribe

amount allegedly received by the petitioner as bribe or illegal

gratification. The charge memorandum also does not specify the

names of the suppliers from whom the petitioner had allegedly

received the said amount. He, therefore, claims that the charges

pps 3 of 7

wp 4631-05 judgment.doc

were vague and that the enquiry was not fair and proper. The

learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the

respondent had not examined the suppliers who had allegedly paid

the bribe amount to the petitioner. He therefore claims that the

respondent failed to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Judge

was therefore not justified in holding that the inquiry was fair and

proper and that the charges were proved.

6. Mr. Pavaskar, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted

that the chargesheet was preceded by a show cause notice wherein

all the details were given. He has further submitted that the

petitioner had proceeded with the inquiry without asking for any

details about the charges. He claims that the charges leveled against

the petitioner were not vague. The learned Counsel for the

respondent further submitted that the petitioner had admitted having

received money from the suppliers and hence the onus was on the

petitioner to prove his defence that he had received the said money

as loan. He submits that the petitioner had not discharged the said

pps 4 of 7

wp 4631-05 judgment.doc

onus. He therefore contends that the charges leveled against the

petitioner have been proved. He has submitted that the learned

Judge has considered all the relevant aspects and that the award

does not warrant any interference.

7. I have perused the records and considered the submissions

advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

Counsel for the respondent. The petitioner herein was employed

with the respondent no.2 as Despatch Clerk. It is not in dispute that

in addition to his duty as Despatch Clerk, he was also required to

place orders for stationery from the approved suppliers. The

petitioner was served with the chargesheet alleging that he had taken

bribe and illegal gratification from the suppliers. The records reveal

that the petitioner herein was fully aware and had understood the

charges leveled against him. Even otherwise, he had not raised the

issue about the vagueness of charges before the Inquiry Officer. The

records further reveal that the petitioner was given ample

opportunity to controvert the charges and/or to defend himself. The

principles of natural justice have been fully complied with.

pps                                                                                       5 of 7


                                                                     wp 4631-05 judgment.doc

Considering all the above facts and circumstances, in my considered

view, the learned Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the

Inquiry was fair and proper.

8. It is to be noted that the petitioner herein had not disputed

having received money from the suppliers. He had taken A specific

defence that the said money was not received as bribe or illegal

gratification, but was received as loan. In view of the afore stated

defence set up by the petitioner, non examination of the suppliers is

hardly of any consequence. The petitioner having admitted receipt of

money from the suppliers, it was for him to prove that the said

amount was received by way of loan. In this regard the petitioner

has failed to prove that the said amount was received by way of loan.

It is not the case of the petitioner that he had friendly relationship

with the said suppliers or that the said suppliers were involved in

business of financial transaction. In the circumstances, there was

absolutely no reason for the petitioner to avail loan either friendly, or

commercial, from the said suppliers. In view of the above, the

learned Judge was perfectly justified in discarding the defence set up

pps 6 of 7

wp 4631-05 judgment.doc

by the petitioner. The findings of the learned Judge that the

petitioner had failed to establish that he had received the said money

as loan is based on evidence on record. There is no error of law

which is apparent on the records, which warrants correction in writ

jurisdiction. .

9. As regards the quantum of punishment, the records reveal that

the petitioner has failed to act as per the expected standard of

conduct, which has resulted in betrayal of trust and confidence.

Considering the seriousness and the misconduct, the punishment is

not disproportionate much less shockingly disproportionate. In such

circumstances, the learned Judge was justified in not interfering with

punishment of termination of services. I do not find any merit in the

petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                                                 (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)  




pps                                                                                        7 of 7