Bombay High Court
Valeo India Pvt Ltd, Through Its ... vs Ranjit Balu Hande on 8 May, 2024
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2024:BHC-AS:21452
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
VRJ
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.1854 OF 2024
VAIBHAV
RAMESH
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
JADHAV
Date: 2024.05.08
18:49:24 +0530
Veleo India Pvt. Ltd.
A company duly incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its plant at
Gat No.24, 744, 745,
At Post - Lonikand, Tal. Haveli,
Dist. Pune - 412 216
Through its authorised representative
Shashank Shankar Moghe, Head - HR,
Age : 51, Konark Exotica,
Flat No. E-601, Kesnand Road, Wagoli,
Pune - 412207. ... Petitioner
V/s.
Ranjit Balu Hande
Age : Adult, Occupation : Nil,
R/At : 231/6, Sant Tukaram Nagar,
Dighe Road, Bhosari,
Pune : 411 039 ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.3560 OF 2024
Ranjit Balu Hande
Age. 40 year, Occupation : Nil
C/o. MB Ambre, R/at : 231/6,
Sant Tukaram Nagar, Dighe Road,
Bhosari, Pune - 411 039 ... Petitioner
V/s.
Valeo India Pvt. Ltd.
Gat No.24, 744 & 745,
Village Lonikand, Tal.: Haveli,
District Pune - 412 216 ... Respondent
1
::: Uploaded on - 08/05/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 09/05/2024 20:56:06 :::
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
Mr. Varun R. Joshi i/by Mr. Chetan A. Alai with Ms.
Rama Somani for the petitioner in WP/1854/2024 and
for the respondent in WP/3560/2024.
Ms. Seema Chopda with Mr. T. R. Yadav for the
petitioner in WP/3560/2024 and for the respondent in
WP/1854/2024.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : APRIL 4, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : MAY 8, 2024
JUDGMENT.:
1. The employer has challenged the order passed by the Labour
Court directing the reinstatement of the workman with continuity
of service and consequential benefits in Writ Petition No.1854 of
2024. While workman before the Court in Writ Petition No.3560 of
2024 has challenged order of denial of the back wages and the
finding of misconduct held to be proved. For convenience of
reference, the parties will be referred to as employer and
workman.
2. According to the workman, he was in employment with
employer as Quality Inspector from 1 November 2010. His last
drawn salary was Rs.24,700/-. His past service record was clean
and unblemished. He was General Secretary of the Maharashtra
Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh in 2011. He had played important
role in rising the wages and payment of bonus. Due to the above
reasons, officials of the employer compelled one girl to lodge a
case against a workman at Lonikand Police Station. The employer
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
issued him a charge sheet dated 17 March 2015. An inquiry was
conducted against the workman without giving the opportunity for
a hearing, wherein he was held guilty, and his services were
illegally terminated with effect from 25 July 2016.
3. The employer filed a written statement and stated that the
workman was working the first shift after the market inspection
and parking area on the shop floor on 16 March 2015. At around
08:00 a.m., he left the workplace without informing his superior.
At about 08:00 a.m., he went to the Metallurgical Laboratory room
and started pointing fingers towards complainant Sheetal Patil.
Due to this, she asked the workman a reason for such an act.
Resultantly, the workman talked and threatened her with dire
consequences. He threatened her with slapping and chopping her
body parts. She, therefore, started crying. At that time, many
employees had gathered on the shop floor. This incident prompted
the employer to issue a charge sheet dated 17 March 2015 alleging
misconduct under Clauses (a), (k), (l) and (z) of Order 24 of the
Model Standing Orders. The employer suspended him and started
an inquiry. According to the employer, the procedure was followed
during the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer recorded the finding that
the charges were proved, and considering the nature and
seriousness of the misconduct, the workman's services were
terminated by letter dated 25 July 2016.
4. An industrial dispute was raised and referred to
adjudication. The Labour Court, by order dated 26 June 2019,
held the inquiry to be legal, fair and proper, but the findings
recorded by the Inquiry Officer are perverse and not based upon
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
evidence on record. The Labour Court, therefore, permitted
employer to prove misconduct by leading evidence. The employer
examined six witnesses to prove misconduct. The workman
examined himself in support of his defence.
5. By order dated 1 November 2023, the Labour Court
concluded that the workman's misconduct was established;
however, the punishment was held to be shockingly
disproportionate. In the circumstances, the management has been
directed to reinstate the workman without back wages, imposing
the punishment of withholding three increments.
6. On behalf of management, it has been submitted that the
finding of misconduct arrived at in the course of disciplinary
inquiry has been held to be duly proved. The inquiry has been held
to be fair and proper. The Charge of threatening a woman
employee by slapping her below her ear and chopping her entire
body on the premises of the establishment, which is proved to be a
serious charge. In these circumstances, it was submitted that there
was absolutely no warrant or justification for the Labour Court to
conclude that punishment is shockingly disproportionate. On the
other hand, on behalf of the workman, it has been submitted that
the past record of the workman was clean and unblemished. The
testimony of management witness Satish Chavan in the domestic
inquiry indicates that all other eyewitnesses deposed before the
Labour Court were not present and, therefore, there was no
admissible evidence before the Labour Court to arrive at a finding
of proof of misconduct. The finding of the Labour Court of the
workman's gainful employment during the pendency of the
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
complaint is perverse as it is his helplessness to accept monthly
help from his union, and helping his father in agricultural activities
would not amount to gainful employment.
7. The inquiry in the present case has been held to be fair and
proper; however, the findings were held to be perverse. In these
circumstances, consistent with the well-settled position in law, it
was open to the Labour Court to peruse the proceedings in the
inquiry and allow the employer to lead the evidence. The Labour
Court, in its judgment, adverted to the evidence of six
eyewitnesses to the incident and held that testimony of all the
witnesses of the employer proves that on 16 March 2015 at 08:10
a.m. at Metallurgical Laboratory, the workman threatened the
woman employee of slapping her below her ear and chopping her
entire body. The witnesses who deposed before the Labour Court
were eyewitnesses to the incident. The proceedings before the
Labour Court, while considering evidence led under section 11A of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, were not governed by strict rules
of a criminal trial. The Charge of misconduct was required to be
proved on preponderance or probabilities.
8. In so far as the contention raised on behalf of the workman
that the testimony of management witness Satish Chavan in
domestic inquiry indicates that the eyewitnesses testified before
the Labour Court were not present at the time of the incident.
However, the Labour Court, in paragraphs Nos.13 to 21,
scrutinised the evidence of eyewitnesses and recorded a finding of
fact that testimony of all witnesses of the employer establishes that
on 16 March 2015 at 08:10 a.m. the workman threatened the
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
woman employee of slapping her below her ear and chopping her
entire body.
9. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Union of India vs. P. Gunasekaran reported in
(2015) 2 SCC 610, the Supreme Court delineated parameters of
exercise of power of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India by observing that the High Court, in exercise
of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India,
shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The Supreme
Court observed that the High Court shall not go into the reliability
of the evidence or shall not re-appreciate the evidence. It is
observed in paragraph Nos.12 and 13 as under:
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully
disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an
appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings,
reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer.
The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary
authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the
High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first
appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under
Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not
venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court
can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;
(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure
prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in
conducting the proceedings;
(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from
reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
to the evidence and merits of the case;
(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be
influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;
(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly
arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever
have arrived at such conclusion;
(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to
admit the admissible and material evidence;
(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted
inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;
(i) The finding of fact is based on no evidence.
13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
the High Court shall not:
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case
the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which
findings can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact, however grave it may appear
to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it
shocks its conscience."
10. Keeping in view parameters laid down by the Apex Court, it
is not possible for this Court to accept submissions on behalf of the
workman that the testimony of the management witness Satish
Chavan in domestic inquiry rules out the possibility of the presence
of eyewitnesses deposed before the Labour Court. Accepting such
submission would amount to a reappreciation of evidence or
examining the reliability of the testimony of witnesses deposed
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
before the Labour Court, which is impermissible, particularly in
view of the detailed discussion by the Labour Court accepting their
testimony in paragraphs Nos.13 to 21 of the judgment. Therefore,
I do not find perversity in the finding recorded by the Labour
Court regarding the Charge of misconduct of threatening a woman
employee by slapping her below her ear and chopping her entire
body.
11. The Labour Court, thereafter, considered the applicability of
Clauses (a), (k), (l) and (z) of Order 24 of the Model Standing
Orders. The Labour Court rightly concluded that threatening to
slap below the ear and chopping the entire body of a female
employee by a male employee is not sexual harassment, and it
does not fall under the purview of Clause (z) of Order 24 of the
Model Standing Orders. The Labour Court also rightly held that
the woman employee was not a superior officer of the workman
and she was a trainee engineer. Therefore, the Charge of
insubordination or disobedience of any lawful and reasonable
order of superior is not proved and, therefore, acts alleged against
the workman do not fall within the purview of misconduct under
Clause (a) of Order 24 of the Model Standing Orders. The Labour
Court was further justified in recording a finding that the act
committed by the workman amounts to riotous, disorderly
behaviour and subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the
premises of the establishment and, therefore, the act will fall
within the purview of misconduct enumerated in Clauses (k) and
(l) of Order 24 of the Model Standing Orders.
12. However, in the present case, it has been urged on behalf of
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
the workman that the Labour Court was in error in holding that
the articles of Charge were established. There is no merit in the
submission. For one thing, in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has to consider
whether a finding of misconduct is based on some evidence on
record. In holding that the Charge of misconduct was established,
the Labour Court relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses whose
testimony was held to be credible and trustworthy.
13. On the point of punishment of dismissal inflicted on the
workman being shockingly disproportionate, the Labour Court
appears to have taken into consideration various factors such as
the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record of the employee
and other extenuating or aggravating circumstances. The Labour
Court has recorded a finding that there is no evidence on record of
the petitioner's past record being extremely poor. There are no
aggravating circumstances to be taken into consideration against
the workman for awarding punishment of dismissal. The Labour
Court rightly came to the conclusion that the act of threatening a
woman employee by slapping her below her ear and chopping her
entire body is somewhat serious but does not appear grave enough
to dismiss him. The Labour Court, in my opinion, has struck a
balance between the interest of the workman and the bona fide
concerns of the employers by imposing the punishment of
stoppage of three increments and denial of back wages.
14. The Labour Court, in paragraph No.43, has taken into
consideration a fact admitted in cross-examination of the workman
that he has a commercial car and might be getting income from
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
such a commercial car. The workman admitted in his cross-
examination that the employees' union paid him money from time
to time to make his livelihood. The workman further admitted that
he had agricultural land to maintain the livelihood of his family,
and, therefore, the Labour Court correctly recorded a finding that
he was gainfully employed.
15. The Supreme Court in North East Karnataka Road Transport
Corporation v. M. Nagangouda, reported in 2007 (I) CLR 939, took
the view that the Industrial Tribunal was not justified in granting
full back wages as the workman was self-employed in agricultural
activity to maintain himself. The Court held as under:
"17. On the said question, we are unable to accept the
reasoning of the Labour Court that the income received by the
respondent from agricultural pursuits could not be equated with
income from gainful employment in any establishment. In our
view, "gainful employment" would also include self-employment
wherefrom income is generated. Income either from
employment in an establishment or from self-employment
merely differentiates the sources from which income is
generated, the end use being the same. Since the respondent
was earning some amount from his agricultural pursuits to
maintain himself, the Labour Court was not justified in holding
that merely because the respondent was receiving agricultural
income, he could not be treated to be engaged in "gainful
employment."
16. Moreover, in the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti
Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.Ed.) and Others reported in
(2013) 10 SCC 324, the Supreme Court in paragraph No.38.4 held
that the Labour Court shall have discretion not to award full back
wages in case punishment was held to be disproportionate to the
misconduct proved.
32-wp3560-2024&Anr.f.doc
17. For all these reasons, I am of the view that the writ petitions
filed by the employer and the workman will have to be dismissed.
18. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. In the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
