Garware Marine Industries ... vs Ramchandra Vasantrao Aadkar
2021 Latest Caselaw 7635 Bom

                                                    Writ Petition No.2215/2019
                                      :: 1 ::


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                      WRIT PETITION NO.2215 OF 2019



 Garware Marine Industries Limited
 and another                                         ... PETITIONERS

          VERSUS

 Ramchandra Vasantrao Aadkar                         ... RESPONDENT


                             .......
 Shri Parag V. Barde, Advocate for petitioners
 Shri S.R. Choukidar, Advocate for respondent
                             .......


                                  CORAM :       R. G. AVACHAT, J.

                   Date of reserving order : 8th March, 2021
                   Date of pronouncing order : 10th June, 2021



 ORDER:

The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the

judgment and order on preliminary issue, dated 25/7/2018,

passed by the Judge, IInd Labour Court, Ahmednagar in

Reference (IDA) No.17/2015.

2. The petitioner No.2 is a Company incorporated

under the Companies Act. The petitioner No.1 is a

Writ Petition No.2215/2019 :: 2 ::

manufacturing unit situated at Ahmednagar. The petitioners

are hereinafter referred to as the Company. The respondent

was a workman of the Company - employer. As such, there

was employer - employee relationship between them. The

respondent employee joined the service with the petitioner

Company in November 1978. He was permanent employee

on the post of Operator. In October 1996, the respondent

was served with a charge sheet on account of his absence

from duties for about 113 days in the year 1995-1996. A

domestic enquiry was held against the respondent. The

charge was proved against him and therefore, he came to be

terminated from service on 27/12/1996. Aggrieved by his

termination, the respondent raised a reference after 18 years.

The conciliation proceedings failed. The Conciliation Officer,

therefore, submitted his report to the Government, which in

turn referred the dispute to the Labour Court. The petitioner

Company appeared in the proceedings before the Labour

Court. On hearing the petitioner and the respondent, the

Learned Judge, Labour Court gave a finding on the

preliminary issue, holding the enquiry conducted against the

respondent to have been illegal, improper and against the

principles of natural justice. The Labour Court also found the

findings recorded by the enquiry officer to be perverse. The

Writ Petition No.2215/2019 :: 3 ::

petitioner Company has, therefore, preferred this Writ

Petition.

3. Heard. Shri Parag V. Barde, learned counsel for

the petitioner Company would submit that, the claim raised by

the respondent employee was stale as he raised the reference

18 years after his termination from service. The charge sheet

had in fact been served on the respondent employee. He has

admitted the same in his statement of claim before the

Labour Court. Still, the Labour Court has found the charge

sheet to have not been served on the respondent employee.

These observations are ex facie perverse. The respondent

employee had appeared before the enquiry officer and

admitted the charge. There was, therefore, no necessity to

proceed with the enquiry. The petitioner Company, however,

to be on safer side, went ahead with the enquiry. The

respondent did not appear before the enquiry officer. The

petitioner Company proved the charge against the respondent

employee by producing necessary evidence. The learned

counsel took me through the enquiry proceedings to

ultimately submit that the finding recorded by the Labour

Court do need to be interfered with.

Writ Petition No.2215/2019 :: 4 ::

4. Shri S.R. Choukidar, learned counsel for the

respondent would, on the other hand, submit that, the

respondent employee had never been served with the charge

sheet. The petitioner Company was bent upon to ensure that

the respondent employee was terminated from service. A

fake enquiry was, therefore, conducted. The learned counsel

took me through the reasons given by the Labour Court in

support of the impugned order. According to the learned

counsel, no interference is called for with the impugned

judgment and order.

5. Admittedly, the respondent employee had joined

the service with the petitioner Company way back in

November 1978. He appears to have continuously served

with the petitioner Company until 1996. There is prima facie

nothing to indicate that his service record except one enquiry,

was blemished. The respondent employee allegedly remained

absent from duty for about 113 days during the year 1995-

1996. He was, therefore, issued a charge sheet with a view

to initiate a domestic enquiry against him. The respondent

employee, in his statement of claim before the Labour Court,

has specifically denied to have ever been served with the

charge sheet. He also denied to have appeared before the

Writ Petition No.2215/2019 :: 5 ::

enquiry officer on 18/10/1996 and admitted the statement of

imputation. The Labour Court, after having gone through the

enquiry proceedings, found that the enquiry was not posted

for 18/10/1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner

Company also could not point out roznama of the proceedings

to suggest that some proceedings did take place on

18/10/1996 before the enquiry officer.

6. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings to

find that on 22/11/1996, the representative of the petitioner

Company was present before the enquiry officer. His evidence

was recorded. The same day he produced before the enquiry

officer the record regarding absenteeism of the respondent

employee. On the said date, the respondent employee was

reported to be absent. The enquiry officer, therefore,

concluded the enquiry and reserved the matter for his enquiry

report. As such, it does appear that the enquiry officer did

not offer the respondent employee a reasonable opportunity

of hearing. The respondent employee was, therefore, justified

in contending that the principles of natural justice have not

been followed. The enquiry, therefore, vitiates.

7. It has also been averred by the respondent

Writ Petition No.2215/2019 :: 6 ::

employee that the enquiry officer was none other than a

person of the petitioner Company. This statement appears to

have not been traversed or proved to be wrong. The

respondent has specifically denied to have ever appeared

before the enquiry officer on 28/10/1996 and admitted the

statement of charge. If this was the fact, the petitioner

Company had no reason to proceed with the enquiry. Be that

as it may, since the enquiry officer concluded the enquiry

without giving the respondent employee a reasonable

opportunity of hearing, the learned Judge of the Labour Court

was justified in observing the finding recorded by the enquiry

officer to be perverse.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner Company

has relied on the following two authorities :-

(1) North West Karnataka Road Transport Corpn. Vs. H.H. Pujar [ AIR 2008 SC 3060 ]

(2) Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Bhushan Jagannathrao Bulbule [ 2018 (4) Bom.C.R. 497 ]

9. In case of H.H. Pujar (supra), a Conductor was

found guilty of carrying ticketless passengers. Punishment of

dismissal was, therefore, imposed. The delinquent therein

Writ Petition No.2215/2019 :: 7 ::

had conceded to the fairness of domestic enquiry. He had

also admitted to have had not issued tickets to some of the

passengers. The Hon'ble Apex Court refused to interfere with

the punishment on the ground that the ticketless passengers

were not examined. The petitioner Company would not be

benefited by relying on the judgment in case of H.H. Pujar

(supra) since the same is based on peculiar facts and

circumstances of that case.

10. Same is the case as regards reliance on the

judgment in Bhushan Bulbule's case (supra). In the said

case, the judgment of the Labour Court was set aside on

account of non framing of the issues regarding compliance of

principles of natural justice or as to perversity of finding of the

enquiry officer. I am afraid as to how the petitioner Company

would be benefited by relying on the judgment since in the

case in hand, the Labour Court framed the following two

preliminary issues :-

(1) Does the complainant prove that the enquiry conducted against him is illegal, improper and against the principles of natural justice ?

(2) Does he further prove that the findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse ?

Writ Petition No.2215/2019 :: 8 ::

11. It is reiterated that, the Labour Court, after having

gone through the papers of enquiry, came to the conclusion

that the principles of natural justice had not been followed.

On appreciating the material on record, I do not find any

reason to take a different view. The Writ Petition, therefore,

fails and is thus, dismissed.

( R. G. AVACHAT ) JUDGE

fmp/-