Bombay High Court
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd vs Krushnadev Bhagwan Inamkar on 29 April, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:19640
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4768 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Shivaji Tukaram Gawari ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4771 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Gulab Suresh Patil ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4785 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Krushnadev Bhagwan Inamkar ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4787 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Dhanraj Namdev Avassarmol ] Respondent
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4774 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Rahul Vilas Bankar ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4788 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Pramod Pandurang Mankar ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4789 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Vijay Mahadev Suryawanshi ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4779 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Jagatkishor Ramvatar Prasad ] Respondent
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4343 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Sunilkumar Sudan Shahu ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4339 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Pradip Mahavir Shirdhone ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4353 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Rajesh Shrinath Mourya ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4347 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Rajendrakumar Anirudhad Mishra ] Respondent
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4350 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Sakharam Bhanudas Ingale ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4345 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Sagar Vishwambhar Jadhav ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4781 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Deepak Kamalakar Jain ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4340 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Sureshkumar Shamsundar Patel ] Respondent
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4351 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Mahesh Pramod Nikam ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4772 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Kuldip Vasant Kakade ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4776 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Arvind Shivaji Suryawanshi ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4773 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Gulab Ramjatan Chand ] Respondent
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4777 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Ranjit Nityanand Sing ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4769 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Sunil Bundi Yadav ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4780 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Shardul Rashid Shaikh ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4775 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Santosh Baban Shivale ] Respondent
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4790 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Ramdas Bhaguji Utale ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4784 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Satish Damodar Shiwale ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4778 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Bisuddin Abdul Shaikh ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4782 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Shahaalam Manovvar Huseen ] Respondent
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4770 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Pirpasha Gulab Pakali ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4786 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Vardhaman Shridha Shirdhone ] Respondent
Alongwith
WRIT PETITION NO. 4783 OF 2025
Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd. ] Petitioner
: Versus :
Rambadan Harishankar Yadav ] Respondent
FOR THE PETITIONER: Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate with Mr.
Gaurav Gawande i/by. Ms. Mitali Dhoble, for the
Petitioner.
FOR THE RESPONDENTS: Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni with Ms. Amruta More
and Mr. Dhananjaya Joshi, for the Respondents.
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Coram : Sandeep v. marne, j.
Judgment reserved on : 23 April 2025.
Judgment pronounced on : 29 April 2025.
Judgment :
1) These petitions are filed by the Petitioner-employer
challenging Part-I Award (order on preliminary issues) passed by the
Presiding Officer, Labour Court-4, Pune on 17 October 2024 relating to
perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The Labour Court has
held that the departmental enquiries conducted against the
Respondent-workmen are legal, fair and proper. However, it has held
that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse.
2) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacturing
compact fin heat exchangers, plate heat exchangers, single tube heat
exchangers, transformer cooling system etc and also provides solutions
to various industries, including transportation, energy, oil, gas etc.
Respondents were working with the Petitioner in various positions as
workmen. Respondents were served with the chargesheets on 3 March
2020 in connection with incident that allegedly occurred on 19 February
2020. It was alleged in the chargesheets that on 19 February 2020 at
about 7.00 a.m. office bearers of Shivkranti Kamagar Sanghtana called
upon the workmen to gather at the gate of the factory. Instead of
starting the work and performing normal duties, the workmen gathered
in front of the gate of the factory. That the Managing Director of the
Company attempted to pacify the union leaders, as well as the entire
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
mob of the workmen and repeatedly requested them not to resort to any
indiscipline and to commence the work. However, the mob of the
workmen refused to act on the request of the Managing Director and
later became violent. It is alleged that the mob broke glasses, threw
stones on the bus and security cabin. The Company was left with no
option but to call the police. The crowd went on rampage till arrival of
the police at 9.00 a.m. The police disbursed the mob and arrested the
union leader and few others. It was alleged that since 20 February 2020,
the Respondent-workmen did not report for work. It was alleged in the
chargesheet that the acts committed by the Respondent-workmen
amounted to illegal strike causing unprecedent damage and loss to the
Company. It was alleged in the chargesheet that the Respondent
workmen committed serious misconduct under Clauses-24(a), 24(b),
24(k) and 24(l) of the Model Standing Orders.
3) The Respondent-workmen submitted their respective
replies to the chargesheets on/or about 16 March 2020. The
supplementary chargesheet was issued on 20 January 2021 alleging
unauthorised absence from 20 February 2020 and misconduct under
Clause-24(f) of the Model standing orders. By the supplementary
chargesheet, a practising advocate was also appointed as Enquiry
Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and submitted report
dated 28 September 2021 holding that misconduct under Clauses-24(a),
(k) (l) and (f) was fully proved. The misconduct alleged under Clause-
24(b) was held to be disproved. The Petitioner passed orders dated 29
September 2021 dismissing the Respondent-employees from service
based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
4) At the instance of the Respondents, References were made
by the appropriate Government to Labour Court-4, Pune relating to
termination of services of the Respondent-workmen under Section 10 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Respondent-workmen filed their
Statements of Claim, which were resisted by filing Written Statements
by the Petitioner-employer. The Labour Court proceeded to frame
preliminary issues relating to fairness in the enquiry and perversity in
the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. By the impugned orders
dated 17 October 2024, the Labour Court has held that departmental
enquiry conducted against the Respondent-workmen is legal, fair and
proper. However, issue no.2 is answered by the Labour Court against
the Petitioner-employer by holding that the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer to the extent of charges under Clauses-(a), (k), (l) and (f)
of MSO, 2024 are perverse. Petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated 17
October 2024 passed by the Labour Court on preliminary issue relating
to perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer and has accordingly
filed the present petition.
5) I have heard Mr. Bapat, the learned senior advocate appearing
for the Petitioner. He would submit that the Labour Court has erred in
holding that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. That there
is sufficient evidence on record to prove all the four allegations under
Clauses-(a), (k), (l) and (f) of the MSO, 2024. He would submit that the
enquiry has been held to be legal, fair and proper and therefore the
entire evidence recorded during the course of enquiry will have to be
considered and consideration of which would clearly indicate existence
of sufficient material to bring home the charges levelled against the
Respondents. He would submit that the Labour Court has completely
misdirected itself in recording the finding that the Respondent-
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
workmen were not involved in the act of pelting of stones and indulging
in violence. He would submit that the Respondent-workmen were never
charged with the misconduct of pelting stones or being violent. That the
charges were restricted to gathering in front of the gate of the factory by
leaving work, insubordination, indiscipline and disorderly behaviour.
That these elements of charges are clearly proved in the present case as
Respondent-employees themselves admitted that they had gathered at
the gate and had left the work. So far as the allegation of disorderly
behaviour, insubordination and indiscipline is concerned, the same is
clearly proved in the light of deposition of witness, Balu Zodge, who
has personally witnessed the incident. However, the Labour Court
erroneously assumed that the allegation of pelting stones and being
violent was also levelled against the Respondent-workmen and held the
findings of the Enquiry Officer to be proved on such erroneous
presumption.
6) So far as the allegation of remaining unauthorisedly absent
since 19.2.2020, Mr. Bapat would contend that absence from duties from
19.2.2020 is not seriously disputed. That the Management examined the
witness, Shri. Swapnil Mahamuni, Ex.HR who led evidence about
Respondent-workmen not reporting for duties after 20.2.2020. That they
were absent for long period from 20.2.2020 till 20.1.2021. That the said
witness was competent to give evidence relating to absence of the
Respondent-workmen by producing the records maintained by the
company. That therefore witness joining employment with the
Petitioner in March 2020 would not render him incapable of leading
evidence about absence of Respondent-workmen from service. He
would submit that witness-Swapnil Mahamuni was examined
essentially to prove unauthorised absence of the respondent-workmen.
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
The incident which occurred on 19.2.2020 was witnessed by Balu Zodge
and he has led evidence about the same. Mr. Bapat would accordingly
submit that there is sufficient evidence on record to prove the charges.
7) Mr. Bapat would further submit that since the Respondent-
workmen had engaged themselves in disorderly behaviour and serious
incident had occurred on 19 February 2020, the Management was in its
right to ask for undertaking/bond of good behaviour. He would
submit that several similarly placed employees gave such
undertakings/bonds and were immediately permitted to resume duties.
That Respondent-workmen are responsible for their absence from
duties as they refused to submit undertaking/bond as they were never
interested to work with the Petitioner. In support of his contention that
the Petitioner-employer was entitled to insist on bond of good
behaviour, Mr. Bapat would rely upon judgment of this Court in
Maharashtra Labour Union Versus. Pride Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. 1 Mr.
Bapat would further submit that it was incumbent on the Respondent-
workmen to raise a specific prayer in the Statement of claim for a
declaration that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse and
that in absence of such a declaration, it was beyond the jurisdiction of
the Labour Court to issue the same. In support he would rely upon
judgment of this Court in Maharashtra State Co-operative Cotton
Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. & Anr. Versus. Vasant Ambadas
Deshpande2. Mr. Bapat would accordingly pray for setting aside the
impugned orders dated 17 October 2024 to the extent of findings of
perversity.
1 2001 SCC Online Bom 1266
2 2014 SCC Online Bom 16
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
8) The petitions are opposed by Mr. Kulkarni, the learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent-workmen. He would submit that
the Labour Court has rightly held the findings of the Enquiry Officer to
be perverse. He would submit that none of the Respondent-workmen
have committed any misconduct who were unnecessarily embroiled in
disciplinary proceedings and later thrown out from service. That there
is no allegation in the chargesheet that any of the Respondent-workmen
indulged in any violent act. The Respondent-workmen had merely
gathered at the gate and did not associate themselves with any of the
violent activities. However, the Petitioner-Management forced all the
workmen to sign undertakings by admitting acts which were not
committed by them. That the Respondent-workmen rightly refused to
sign such undertakings which would have amounted to admission of
something which was never done by them. He would take me through
the undertakings submitted by the other workers in support of his
contention that the undertakings were prepared by the Management
and contained admissions of acts not performed by the workmen. He
would submit that about 120 workmen were restrained from joining
duties. Nine out of them submitted undertakings and 57 workmen later
settled with the Management and were allowed to resume work. The
dispute was raised in respect of 36 workmen. In respect of four
workmen, the entire enquiry is held to be vitiated and the said findings
are not questioned by the Petitioners. In respect of one workmen, the
Labour Court held that the enquiry was fair and proper and the
findings were not perverse. It is only in case of 31 present respondents
that the findings of the Enquiry officer are held to be perverse though
enquiry against them is held to be fair and proper.
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
9) He would submit that the Labour Court has rightly
appreciated the entire evidence on record. That witness-Mahamuni was
not even in employment was examined to lead evidence about the
incident of 19.2.2020. That the other witness-Balu Zodge was one of the
similarly placed workmen and his evidence does not bear out any act of
misconduct on the part of the Respondent-Workmen. That the
chargesheet did suggest involvement/role of the respondent-workmen
in the violent act of stone pelting but no evidence could be led by the
Petitioner in support of the said evidence. So far as the submission of
undertakings as a precondition for resumption of duties is concerned,
Mr. Kulkarni would rely upon judgment of this Court in Stardent
Laboratory (Private) Ltd. Versus. Shramik Sahakar Sangh and Ors. 3
He would submit that findings of facts recorded by the Labour Court on
appreciation of evidence do not warrant any interference by this Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He would pray for
dismissal of the petitions.
10) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
11) The Labour Court has held the enquiry to be fair and
proper and the said findings are not questioned by the Respondent-
workmen. It is only Issue no.2 relating to perversity, which has been
answered against the Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent-
workmen. Therefore, the limited issue involved in the present petitions
is whether the findings recorded by the Labour Court on preliminary
Issue No.2 relating to perversity are sustainable or not?
3 2004 (2) L.L.N. 955
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
12) Petitioner issued two chargesheets to the Respondent-
workmen. The first chargesheet dated 3.3.2020 issued to one of the
Respondent-Shivaji Tukaram Gawari is as under:
CHARGE SHEET
You are working in the company as Press Operator. On 19/2/2020 at about
7:00 a.m. the office bearers of Shiv Kranti Kamgar Sanghatana asked you to
come to the gate of the factory. Instead of starting work and performing
your normal duties you gathered in front of the gate of the factory.
Mr.Virendra Jhamb, Managing Director of the company tried to talk to the
leaders and the entire mob of the workmen. He repeatedly requested them
not to resort indiscipline and start the work. "The entire mob was unwilling
to listen. The mob became violent. They broke the glasses, threw stones on
the bus and security cabin i.e. resorted to violence.
In view of the same the company was left with no other option but to call
the police who came to the gate of the factory at around 9:00 am.. Till that
time the crowd was on rampage and we heard Sandeep, the declared
leader was talking to one Mr. Vijay Palekar who was issuing instructions.
Our MD requested the phone from Sandeep and talked to Mr. Vijay
Palekar and asked him to stop instigating and request all workers to come
inside and talk all peacefully the reason of this stoppage, we fail to
understand the reason. As the time and again untenable pressure tactics
are spoiling the discipline and work ethics in the workers and we are
loosing the productivity and bringing liability, this will not help us to help
the worker's interests. The police then disposed the mob and arrested
Union Leader and others. Since that day i.e. 19/2/2020 you have not
reported for work
The aforementioned act on your part amount to an illegal strike. It is
causing unprecedented damage and loss to the company.
All these/acts on your part amounts to serious misconducts under Clause
24 (a), 24 (b) 24 (k) & 24 (l) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to
your category which are as under:
24(a) :Willful insubordination or disobedience, whether or not in
combination with another, or any lawful and reasonable order of a
superior,
24 (b) : Going on an illegal strike or abetting, inciting, instigating or acting
in furtherance thereof,
24(k): Drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behavior on the
premises of the establishment.
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
24 (l): Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behavior on
the premises of the establishment.
You are hereby charged of the aforementioned misconducts and are
directed to submit your written explanation to the aforementioned charges
and show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against
you. In the event you do not reply within one week from the receipt of this
charge sheet, it shall be presumed that you have no explanation to offer
and the management shall then be free to take such action as deemed fit.
For Kelvion India Pvt. Ltd.
13) The second chargesheet was issued on 20 January 2021
which was a composite document of alleging additional charge, as well
as appointing enquiry officer. The relevant part of the chargesheet dated
20.1.2021 reads thus :
दि नांक १९/०२/२०२० रोजी घडले ल्या घटनेचे गांभीय दि चारात घेता व्य स्थापानाने
कंपनीच्या एकूण सुरक्षि(तेतच्या दृष्टीने तसेच कंपनीच्या मालमत्तेचे नुकसान हो ू नये
म्हणून तुम्हास स र घटनेत सहभागी असले ल्या इतर कामगारांना रास्त योग्य असे
चांगल्या ागणुकीचे हमी पत्र े न ू कामा र रूजू होण्यास सुचीत केले होते . त्या नूसार
तुमचे काही सहकामगार हमी पत्र े न ू कामा र रुजू झाले . तथादिप, तुम्ही दि नांक
२०/०२/२०२० पासून आजतागायत कोणतीही रजा मंजूर करून न घेता
अनक्षि:कृतरिरत्या कामा र गैरहजर राहीला आहात. कोव्हीड १९ च्या कारणे कंपनीचे
कामकाज हे लॉक डा ून काला :ीत सुध् ा दिनयदिमत सूरू होते स र काला :ीत
तुमची कामा रील हजेरी ही अत्यंत आ श्यक होती परंतु स र काळातही र नमु
केल्या प्रमाणे तुम्ही अदिनक्षि:कृतरिरत्या गैरहजर राहीलात.
14) This is how Respondents were accused of committing
misconducts under Clauses -24(a), 24(b), 24(k), 24(l) and 24(f) of the
MSO. The Enquiry Officer held that the misconduct under MSO-24(b)
(proceeding on illegal strike) was not proved in the enquiry. Thus, the
allegation of proceeding on strike under MSO-24(b) is held to be
disproved in the enquiry itself. Therefore, the Labour Court was
required to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Enquiry Officer only in respect of Clauses-24(a), 24(k), 24(l) and 24(f) of
the MSO.
15) Mr. Bapat has fairly submitted that the Petitioner never
accused the Respondent-workmen of pelting stones or engaging in acts
of violence. He would submit that so far as the incident of 19 February
2020 is concerned, the same is restricted to the acts of gathering at the
gate by leaving the work and acts of insubordination, indiscipline and
disorderly behaviour. On account of fair submission made by Mr.
Bapat, the task is now easier as this Court needs to consider whether
there is sufficient evidence on record in support of the allegations of
(i)gathering at the gate by leaving work and (ii)insubordination,
indiscipline and disorderly behaviour. Both these elements of charges
are pertaining to the incident that occurred on 19 February 2020.
16) So far as the first element of gathering at the gate by leaving
the wok is concerned, the allegation appears to have been admitted by
the Respondent-workmen. In this regard, it would be apposite to
reproduce the relevant portion of the reply submitted by Respondent-
Shivaji Tukaram Gavari on 16 March 2020:
स रची बाब कामगारांना मला कंपनीत कळल्यानंतर स उपस्थिस्थत असेलेल्या कामगारांनी
प ाक्षि:का-यांना कंपनीच्या आत का घेत नाहीत म्हणून कामगार स् यंस्फुतGने कंपनीच्या बाहेर
आलो. त्याच ेळेला कंपनीचे मॅनेजिंजग डायरेक्टर श्रीयुत दि रेंद्र जाम हे कंपनीच्या गेट रती आले
तेव्हा त्यांच्या काना रती युदिनयनच्या प ाक्षि:का-यांना न घेतल्याबाबत काय कारण आहे तसेच
५० कामगारांना का पगार दि ला नाही, याचे रुन दि चारणा करीत असताना काही गुंड प्र ृत्तीच्या
माणसांनी कंपनीच्या गेट रती गडफेक केली त्याचा युदिनयनच्या प ाक्षि:का-यांचा तसेच
आमचा /माझा काहीही संब: ं नाही. के ळ युदिनयनच्या प ाक्षि:का-यांना कामा रती प्रक्षितबं:
केल्यामुळे आतमध्ये गेलेल्या कामगारांनी स् यंस्फुतGने काम सोडल्यामुळे आपण क्षिचडू न जा ून
खोटे आरोपपत्र दि ले आहे. त्यातील मजकूर हा :ा ांत खोटा आहे. बना ट आहे
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
17) Thus, the Respondent-workmen admit that they came out
of the factory and gathered at the gate on their own volition. It has also
been admitted that the office bearers of the union were terminated from
performing duties and therefore other workmen had left the work on
their own volition. Thus, the elements of gathering at the gate and
leaving the work are expressly admitted in the reply to the chargesheet.
These, allegations are also proved by the deposition of Management
Witness No.2-Balu Zodge. In my view, therefore the first element of
charge relating to gathering at the gate by leaving work is clearly
established and to this extent, finding of the Labour Court is clearly
perverse. The Labour Court apparently did not appreciate this position,
possibly on account of non-clarification by the Petitioner that the
allegation of pelting stones and indulging in violent conduct was never
pressed against the Respondent-workmen. On account of failure on
Petitioner's part to give such clarification, the Labour Court
unnecessarily took the exercise of examining whether there was
evidence of pelting stones and indulging in violent acts against the
Respondent-workmen. As observed above, the allegation was restricted
to gathering at the gate by leaving work, which is clearly established on
account of admission given by the Respondent-workmen.
18) So far as the second element of the charge relating to the
incident of 19 February 2020 is concerned, the same relates to
insubordination, indiscipline and disorderly behaviour. Here again,
disorderly behaviour is not to be confused with riotous behaviour. Mr.
Bapat has clarified that insubordination, indiscipline and disorderly
behaviour is attributable to the conduct of the Respondent-workmen in
not reporting back to work despite being requested by Managing
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
Director. The evidence of Management Witness-Balu Shantaram Zodge
would indicate that the Managing Director did attempt to pacify the
workers and repeatedly requested them to join the work. Therefore,
there appears to be some evidence in support of this element of charge.
In fact, the statements made in the reply about non-resumption of work
by gathering at the gate also contains an implicit admission in respect of
the element of not responding to the repeated requests of the Managing
Director. In my view, therefore there is some evidence in support of the
second element of charge relating to disorderly behaviour, indiscipline
and insubordination. However, it is clarified that disorderly behaviour
is not to be confused with any violence or riotous act. The misconduct
of disorderly behaviour is restricted only to the element of not listening
to the repeated requests of the Managing Director.
19) The Labour Court has failed to take into consideration that
there was sufficient evidence on record with regard to the elements of
charges relating to (i) gathering at the gate by leaving the work and
(ii)insubordination/indiscipline and disorderly behaviour.
20) Coming to the additional charge of unauthorised absence
from 20 February 2020 onwards, it appears that the Petitioner put a
condition of signing and submitting undertaking/bond of good
behaviour for letting the Respondent-workmen resume the work. This
fact is borne out by the reply filed to the chargesheet. In his reply,
Respondent-Shivaji Tukaram Gavari specifically contended that after the
police left, the Petitioner did not permit the Respondents to resume
duties. It is further contended in the reply that after 20 February 2020,
Petitioner put a condition of submitting undertaking as a precondition
for joining services. As observed above, nine workers had submitted
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
undertakings and were allowed to resume duties. I have gone through
the two undertakings submitted by the Workmen-Balu Shantaram
Zodge, who also happened to be the Management witness. The
undertaking contains an admission that he proceeded on illegal strike
on 20 February 2020. He expressed an apology for his misconduct. He
further undertook to obey order of superior officers, maintaining
discipline and deliver requisite production. There is a further admission
that he committed illegal acts on the advice of Shri. Vijay Pandurang
Palekar. The first undertaking given by Balu Shantaram Zodge is as
under:
हमीपत्र
मैं.........................दिटकट न (पचिंचग न.) ...................शपथपू क सत्यकथन करता
हूं के
मैं केल् ीन इंडीया प्रा.लिल. कंपनीका आ र रखता है और मुझे भलीभांती पता है के कंपनीमे
सभी कमचारीयोंका अच्छे से खयाल रखा जाता है।
ले कीन फीर भी मैने एक सामान्य कारण और आम समझ के तहत काम के लिलए रिरपोटGग
नही करके एक अ ै: और साथ ही अनुक्षिचत हडताल का दि .१९.०२.२०२० को सहारा
लिलया था।
मैने घोषणां दिक है दिक मैं अपनी गलती के समथन, सलाह और ाक्षियत् पर अपनी गलती
का एहसास कर चुका हू।ं मैं अपने कृत्यों के लिलए माफी मांगता हूं और प्राथना करता हूं दिक
कंपनी मुझे (मा करें और मुझे कारखाने के परिरसर करेन के बा , मैं रिरष्ठों के ैद्य और उक्षिचत
आ श े ों का पालन और दिनयमन करूंगा। मैं अनुशासन बनाए रखुंगा और उत्पा न और
उत्पा कता गं ू ा । मैं अनुशासन के दिकसी भी कृत्य में लिलप्त नहीं रहूगं ा या कोई क ाचार नहीं
करूंगा।
मैं यह कबुल करता हूँ के, मुझ से गलती हो गई की, मैंने श्री. दि जय पांडुरंग पाळे कर के
सलाह से अनुक्षिचत काम कीया।
इसके आगे कंपनी में सभी सेफ्टी उपकरणो का इस्तेमाल करूंगा। कंपनी मे प्र ेश करते
समय मोबाईल साथ मे नही रखूंगा। एच.आर. और एम.डी. साहब के दिन bशों का शालीनता
पु क पालन करूंगा।
मैं दिकसी भी राजनैतीक पाटG या व्यदिc के साथ दिमलकर कंपनीके खिखलाफ कीसी भी
आं ोलन, बातचीत मे शामील नही रहूगं ा, और नाही दिकसी स ु रे व्यदिc को कंपनीके खिखलाफ
काय के लिलए उत्तेलिजत करूंगा। अगर मैं इस उहापोह का उल्लंघन करता हू ं तो मैं कंपनी को
मेरे खिखलाफ सख्त से सख्त कार ाई करने का अक्षि:कार ेता हू।ं
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
21) It appears that one more undertaking was obtained from
Balu Shantaram Zodge which reads thus:
हमीपत्र
दि नांक १९.०२.२०२० से दि नांक २५.०२.२०२० के ौरान हमने कतव्यों के बारे में
केल् ीन इंडीया प्रा.लिल. कंपनी को रिरपोट नहीं दिक है। इसलिलए हम आपसे अनुरो: करते है दिक
आप हमे कतव्यो के लिलए रिरपोट करने की अनुमती े। हम , एतद्वारा आश्वासन ेते है और
कहते हैं दिक कारखाने के परिरसर में प्र ेश करने पर, हम सामान्य कतव्यों का पालन करेंगे और
स्थापना के दिनयमों का पुरी तरह पालन और दिनयमन करेंगे। हम आ श्यक उत्पा न और
उत्पा कता गें े।
22) Perusal of the above undertakings would indicate a clear
admission on the part of the workman that he participated in illegal
strike. As observed above, the misconduct of proceeding on illegal
strike under Clause-24(f) was not proved in the enquiry itself. Thus, the
charge which was subsequently found to be disproved was sought to be
admitted through undertaking prepared by the Petitioner. Without
signing and submitting the said undertaking, the petitioner refused to
let the Respondent-workmen resume duties.
23) In my view, there are atleast two reasons why the action on
the part of Petitioner prescribing condition of submission of
undertaking/bond is absolutely illegal in the facts and circumstances of
the present case. Firstly, the undertaking required admission of charge
which was subsequently held to be disproved by Petitioner's own
Enquiry Officer. Secondly, the undertaking was mainly with reference
to the incident of 19 February 2020 in which the only allegation, as now
clarified by Mr. Bapat, was relating to gathering at the gate by leaving
work and insubordination/indiscipline/disorderly behaviour. The
chargesheet is so vaguely worded that the Labour Court itself got
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
confused as to whether the Petitioner proposed proof of charge of
pelting stones and violent behaviour against the Respondent-workmen.
Therefore, it appears that on 19/20 February 2020, when insistence was
made for submission of undertakings/bonds, the employer carried an
impression as if the Respondent-workmen were a part of mob which
pelted stones and indulged in violent behaviour. However, it has now
transpired that the Petitioner-employer accused the Respondent-
workmen only of misconduct of gathering at the gate by leaving work
and disorderly behaviour/indiscipline/insubordination. Submission of
undertaking/bond of good behaviour for this kind of misconduct as a
precondition for resumption of duties was clearly unwarranted. In my
view therefore, Petitioner-employer was not justified in not allowing
Respondent-workmen to resume duties either on 19 April 2020 or from
20 April 2020 onwards on the ground of non-submission of
undertaking/bond of good behaviour.
24) Reliance by Mr. Kulkani on judgment of this Court in Stardent
Laboratoty Pvt. Ltd. (supra) is apposite. This Court held as under:
3. Apart from the fact that the finding arrived at by the Industrial Court about
refusal to allow the employees to resume to their duties being based on
assessment of the materials on record and being essentially a finding of fact
the same cannot be subjected to judicial review in the writ petition, bare
reading of the format of the undertaking would justify rejection of the
petition in limine. It is well settled that though the employer may be
justified in asking for undertaking in case of the workmen having been
found to have indulged in violent activities, to ensure the smooth
functioning of the industry, the employer cannot insist upon obtaining
confession from the employees about the illegality of the strike or the
unruly acts on their part nor about waiver of their right to claim wages
without even holding any inquiry in that regard in accordance with the
provisions of law.
(emphasis added)
In the present case as well, the Petitioner has sought to extract
admission of something which is not done by the Respondent-workmen
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
through the undertaking. Therefore insistence on the part of the
Petitioner in submitting undertakings in format as a precondition for
resuming work and thereafter accusing the workmen of unauthorised
absence is clearly erroneous.
25) Reliance by Mr. Bapat on the judgment of this Court in
Maharashtra Labour Union is inapposite. In that case, the concerned
workmen were working in a five-star hotel and indulged in improper
activities like wearing red bands over the uniform provided by the hotel
while on duty, shouting slogans, making false complaints to police,
abusing staff members on duty and not responding to the call to resume
work. They also restrained other workers, who were intending to
resume duty. This behaviour put the Hotel to huge financial losses and
tarnishing its image. This Court therefore upheld the action of the hotel
in demanding undertakings and bonds of good behaviour for the
purpose of maintaining discipline for internal business. In the present
case, the undertaking was not restricted to good behaviour but
contained admission of something which is ultimately held to be
disproved in the enquiry. Also, the nature of misconduct that is proved
against the Respondent-workmen was not worthy of demanding such
undertaking as pre-condition for resumption of duties. Therefore,
reliance by Mr. Bapat on judgment of this Court in Maharashtra
Labour Union would not assist his case.
26) I am therefore of the view that the Labour Court has rightly
held that the additional charge vide Clause-24(f) of MSO relating to
unauthorised absence has not been proved in the enquiry. The absence
of the Respondent-workmen is clearly attributable to the illegal act of
the Petitioner in demanding submission of undertakings/bonds as a
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
precondition for joining duties. The conclusion of the Labour Court
about perversity in enquiry officer's finding relating to charge of
unauthorised absence therefore deserves to be upheld.
27) Mr. Bapat has contended that in absence of prayer in the
Statement of Claim for declaration that the enquiry is vitiated, such a
declaration cannot be issued by an industrial adjudicator. Reliance is
placed on judgment of this Court in Maharashtra State Co-op. Cotton
Growers Marketing Federation Ltd. (supra). In the present case, the
Appropriate Government made references relating to termination of
services of the Respondent-workmen and their entitlement for
reinstatement with continuity of service and backwages. The
Respondent-workmen filed their Statements of Claim challenging the
order of dismissal and seeking reinstatement with backwages and
consequential benefits. In my view, these prayers are sufficient for
deciding the validity of order of dismissal. While adjudicating a prayer
challenging the order of dismissal, the Court is bound to examine to
whether the enquiry is conducted by following the principles of natural
justice and whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse or
not. In the event either of the issue being answered against the
employer, the enquiry automatically becomes vitiated and such a
declaration can be made while answering the preliminary issues.
Therefore, mere absence of prayer in the Statement of Claim seeking
declaration of vitiation of inquiry cannot be a ground for holding that
the Labour Court could not have gone into the issue of perversity in the
findings of the enquiry officer.
28) Considering the overall conspectus of the case, I am of the
view that the Petitioner-employer has been able to prove only the twin
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
Neeta Sawant WP-4768-2025&GROUP-FC.docx
(Kelvion india pvt. Ltd v/s. Shivaji Tukaram Gawari & Ors.)
elements of charges namely, (i) gathering at the gate by leaving work,
and (ii)insubordination/indiscipline and disorderly behaviour (as
clarified above). The charge of unauthorised absence under Clause-24(f)
of the Model Standing Orders is not proved. Therefore, the order
passed by the Labour Court deserves to be interfered with only partly
while upholding the same with regard to the charge of unauthorised
absence.
29) The petitions succeed partly and I proceed to pass the
following order:
(i) The judgment and order dated 17 October 2024 passed by the
Labour Court is modified qua the issue of perversity in the
findings of the Enquiry Officer.
(ii) It is held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on element of
charges of (i) gathering at the gate by leaving work and (ii)
insubordination, indiscipline and disorderly behaviour are
held to be not perverse.
(iii) The findings of the Enquiry Officer on charge relating to
unauthorised absence under Clause-24(f) is held to be
perverse.
30) All the petitions are partly allowed to the above extent. There
shall be no order as to costs.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA [Sandeep V. Marne, J.]
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date:
2025.04.30
15:07:34
+0530
__________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, 29 April 2025
