Bombay High Court
Mr. Santosh Vithoba Kode vs M/S. Shipping Services on 4 August, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:33305
10.WP.8865.2017.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8865 OF 2017
Santosh Vithoba Kode .. Petitioner
Versus
M/s. Shipping Services .. Respondent
....................
Mr. G. J. Ramchandani, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Purav a/w. Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Advocates for
Respondent.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : AUGUST 04, 2025
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Ramchandani, learned Advocate for Petitioner
and Ms. Purav, learned Advocate for Respondent.
2. This is case where there are concurrent judgements dated
04.08.2018 (passed by Fourth Labour Court, Mumbai) and
29.09.2015 (passed in Revision by the Industrial Court) rejecting the
claim of Petitioner - employee. Claim of Petitioner was that he was in
continuous service of Respondent - Company for 23 years and between
14.01.2013 and 30.01.2013 expressing loss of confidence in him, he
was issued notice of termination alongwith all appropriate dues due
and payable to him by virtue of his termination.
3. Mr. Ramchandani would submit that both the learned
Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in dismissing the Complaint
and Revision Application filed by Petitioner. He would submit that
1 of 7
10.WP.8865.2017.doc
Petitioner had been in continuous and uninterrupted service for the
last 23 years. He would submit that Petitioner had an unblemished
record during his tenure with no disciplinary action or misconduct
against him. He would submit that as Respondent had to shut down
their import Department where Petitioner was in service, he was
directed to work in the Export Department where he lacked knowledge
and experience as no training was imparted to him with respect to the
said work and hence no work was assigned to him. He would submit
that both the subordinate Courts have failed to consider that
Respondent failed to maintain muster roll with respect to attendance
of employees to prove Petitioner's absence. He would submit that
notice issued to Petitioner was illegal as no retrenchment
compensation or notice pay was paid to him. He would submit that no
enquiry was conducted before termination. Hence he would urge the
Court to allow the Writ Petition and quash and set aside both
impugned judgements and orders dated 04.08.2014 and 29.09.2015.
4. Ms. Purav, learned Advocate for Respondent would argue in
support of both the impugned judgements passed by the Courts below.
She would submit that services of Petitioner are terminated by
following the due process of law. She would submit that Petitioner
was working as a senior clerk in the Import Department / Section of
the Company. She would submit that from 01.12.2012 due to
insufficient workload, he was directed to work in Export Department.
2 of 7
10.WP.8865.2017.doc
However, he refused to work in the said Department. She would
submit that the Company issued him several letters in this regard but
Petitioner refused to accept them. She would submit that from March
- 2012, Petitioner used to mark his attendance in the morning on the
Biometric Attendance System and used to leave the office premises for
the remaining hours of duty which is evident from the fact that no
leaving time was even marked on the Biometric Attendance Machine
for more than eight months. Therefore due to Petitioner's consistent
misconduct, Company lost confidence in him and terminated his
services with effect from 14.01.2014 after giving him adequate
opportunity. She would submit that Company paid compensation to
Petitioner at the rate of 15 days salary per year for his completed years
of service and all other statutory dues by cheque alongwith his
termination letter dated 12.01.2013. She would submit that
misconduct of Petitioner was serious such that the employer was not
bound to issue charge-sheet to him and hold any enquiry in the above
facts. She would submit that the aforesaid misconduct was admitted
by the Petitioner in his own evidence and cross-examination which led
to the passing of the twin concurrent orders. Hence, she would urge
the Court to dismiss the Petition.
5. I have heard Mr. Ramchandani, learned Advocate for
Petitioner and Ms. Purav, learned Advocate for Respondent and with
their able assistance perused the record of the case. Submissions made
3 of 7
10.WP.8865.2017.doc
by the learned Advocates have received due consideration of this
Court.
6. Specific charges were alleged in the notice issued which
when seen from the evidence on record, stand proved on the basis of
deposition of Petitioner himself namely; refusal on the part of
Petitioner to work; refusal to accept letters of communicating different
orders; refusal to attend work in the office in morning after marking
his presence on Biometric Attendance Machine and leaving the office
for the remaining duration of his shift / duty. This continued
admittedly as per Petitioner's own admissions in cross-examination for
more than 8 months. The Company produced documentary evidence
of the Biometric Attendance which did not have the Office Leaving
time earmarked for more than 8 months.
7. Record shows that in his deposition as also suggestions put
to him in cross-examination, Petitioner has categorically accepted his
aforesaid misconduct and behaviour of his of not spending the day in
office and leaving the office premises immediately after marking his
biometric attendance. Complainant's act of insubordination and
getting salary without doing any work thus over a consistently long
period, led to loss of confidence in the Petitioner and the resultant
action.
8. Record shows that Petitioner was given opportunity to
4 of 7
10.WP.8865.2017.doc
defend the charges against him which formed part of the termination
notice which was issued to him despite which Petitioner did not
respond thereto or take any steps in that regard. Points of
determination framed by the Labour Court have been effectively
answered on the basis of incriminating material available on record,
rather incriminating evidence in the form of his attendance record and
deposition of Petitioner himself wherein he admitted to the act of
misconduct of insubordination of leaving the office everyday after
marking his attendance in the morning. Record further negates the
claim of Petitioner that he served the Company for 23 years. In the
Respondent Company, he worked for a little over four and half years
tenure during which his output was NIL. Petitioner did not produce
any material / evidence on record to show his work tenure of 23 years
and refused to accept the statutory dues paid by the Respondent or his
termination.
9. Grievance of Petitioner that he was not paid any dues is also
found to be incorrect on the basis of material evidence placed on
record and considered by the Labour Court thoroughly. In Revision,
the learned Industrial Court has done adequate justice to the case of
Petitioner by examining his complaint in the widest possible sphere
despite the restriction and amplitude under Section 44 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947, but did not find favour with the Petitioner.
Admissions given by Petitioner himself to the suggestions put to him in
5 of 7
10.WP.8865.2017.doc
cross-examination have been found sufficient to prove his misconduct
which is borne out from the record. It is seen that despite Petitioner
having been repeatedly called back to the work, he still refused to join
work. These misdemeanors and misconduct of Petitioner have been
adequately dealt with in paragraph No.15 onwards of the decision of
the Industrial Court in Revision with regard to the material on record.
10. No case whatsoever has been made out by Petitioner to seek
interference of this Court for dislodging the findings returned either by
the learned Labour Court or the learned Industrial Court. Both
judgments and orders dated 04.08.2014 and 29.09.2015 are
appropriate and well reasoned which cannot be faulted with
considering the evidence on record which has been considered by the
Labour Court thoroughly.
11. Resultantly Writ Petition fails. Both judgments and orders
dated 04.08.2014 and 29.09.2015 are upheld and confirmed. Petition
is dismissed.
12. Needless to state that if Petitioner's dues have not been
paid / received by him, the same shall be paid over to him within a
period of two (2) weeks from today by the Respondent - Company
since one of the grievance advanced by Mr. Ramchandani is that his
dues should be paid to him.
13. All contentions of Petitioner are expressly kept open in so far
6 of 7
10.WP.8865.2017.doc
as acceptance of his dues at this stage are concerned since it is argued
across the bar that the dues are not computed in accordance with law.
In that regard Petitioner shall be at liberty to take out appropriate
proceedings strictly in accordance with law as available to him.
14. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2025.08.05
17:02:36 +0530
7 of 7
