M/S Ankur Seeds Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Its ... vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7183 Bom

 Judgment                                            1                                wp4801.11.odt




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                 

                          NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 4801  OF 2011



 M/s. Ankur Seeds P. Ltd., 
 27, New Cotton Market Layout, 
 Opp. Bus Stand, Nagpur, 
 through its Personal Officer. 
                                                                         ....  PETITIONER.

                                      //  VERSUS //

 1. Presiding Officer,
    Labour Court, Oppo. Indira Market,
    Wardha.  

 2. Damodar Kohale,
    C/o. Shri Nale Saheb, 
    Jalaram Nagar, Galli No.1, 
    Near Deepak Dalan Kendra,
    Amravati. 

                                                                      .... RESPONDENTS
                                                                                    .

  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri J.L.Bhoot, Advocate for Petitioner. 
 Shri A.A.Madiwale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1.
 Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
 ___________________________________________________________________


                              CORAM : S.C.GUPTE, J.

DATED : SEPTEMBER 14, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Judgment 2 wp4801.11.odt

2. The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by

Labour Court at Wardha in a reference under the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. The reference concerns termination of employment of respondent No.2

after an enquiry into his alleged misconduct by the petitioner. The Labour

Court, by its initial award dated 09/05/2007, held that the enquiry was not

fair and proper or in compliance of the principles of natural justice and that

the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. This part of the order has

not been challenged before this Court. The Labour Court, thereafter,

permitted the petitioner-employer to prove misconduct by leading evidence

in Court. After the evidence was led, the Labour Court held the misconduct

to be proved but that the punishment of dismissal awarded to respondent

No.2 was shockingly disproportionate. The punishment of dismissal was,

accordingly, set aside and the petitioner- employer was directed to stop three

increments of respondent No.2 as and by way of punishment for proven

misconduct and directed respondent No.2 to be reinstated in service without

back wages. This order is challenged by the petitioner in the present writ

petition.

3. The record of the case bares out that though for the two periods

respondent No.2 was absent, that is to say, between 30 th November, 1998

and 10th December, 1998 and 22 nd December, 1998 to 2 nd January, 1999 for

Judgment 3 wp4801.11.odt

illness, it was not a serious illness. The Court held that it was proved that he

availed of the leave without prior intimation of the petitioner-employer. The

Labour Court held that it was also proved that the petitioner could not

unload the paddy seeds at the godown at Kisan Nagar because of the

unauthorized absence of respondent No.2 and that this act of respondent

No.2 caused inconvenience to the petitioner. The Court held that though

award of absenteeism without prior permission stands proved, the quantum

of punishment, namely, dismissal from service, was grossly disproportionate

to the misconduct In the first place, Labour Court found that the absence

was not very long and was intermittent and that in the premises, lesser

punishment, i.e. stoppage of 3 increments permanently and denial of back

wages, would serve the ends of justice.

4. There are two serious infirmities in the impugned order of the

Labour Court. In the first place, the complaint was not simply of

unauthorized absence, but of leaving the place of duty unauthorizedly,

thereby causing damages to the employer. Respondent No.2 was appointed

and working as a watchman at the Kisan Nagar godown of the petitioner. He

was put in charge of watch and guard of the godown. Here is not a case of

any ordinary employee being absent without intimation, but a person who

was on such watch and guard duty leaving the place unauthorisedly and

without intimation and resulting into the place being left unattended without

anyone taking a charge thereof. Even after his unauthorised absence between

Judgment 4 wp4801.11.odt

22nd December, 1998 and 2nd January, 1999, when someone from the office

of the petitioner went to take charge at Kisan Nagar on 4 th January, 1999,

respondent No.2 was not present. As a result of these acts of unauthorised

absence, the work of the petitioner was adversely affected. This aspect of the

matter appears to have been completely lost sight of by the Labour Court.

5. Secondly, the impugned order of termination was passed not

merely on account of the proved charges, but also in the light of the past

conduct of respondent No.2. Such past conduct admittedly includes

submission by respondent No.2 of forged bills of electricity charges by

making alterations in the bills. This lapse was unconditionally admitted by

respondent No.2, assuring the petitioner not to repeat such misconduct in

future. This aspect of past conduct (which was anyway not a matter of

dispute), which weighed with the petitioner whilst dismissing the employee,

is completely overlooked by the Labour Court whilst reducing the

punishment.

6. The approach of the Labour Court as well as the conclusion

arrived at by it in the impugned order on the basis of such approach, is, thus,

not in keeping with the established principles of law on the point. In the

premises, the matter calls for a remand.

Judgment 5 wp4801.11.odt

7. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute by quashing and setting

aside the impugned order and remanding the matter to the Labour Court for

a fresh decision in accordance with law, after taking into account the

matters referred to above.

JUDGE

RRaut..