Bombay High Court
Vitthal Ramchandra Sasane vs Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd on 21 January, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:3149
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4196 of 2008
Pravin V. Desai ...Petitioner
V/s.
Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1434 OF 2007
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1462 OF 2019
AND
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2954 OF 2009
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.1434 OF 2007
Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Vitthal Ramchandra Sasane ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4085 OF 2008
Vitthal R. Sasane ...Petitioner
V/s.
MEGHA
SHREEDHAR
PARAB
Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd. ...Respondents
Digitally signed by
MEGHA
SHREEDHAR PARAB WITH
Date: 2025.01.22
20:57:28 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO.1426 OF 2007
Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Mr. Pravin Vijay Desai ...Respondent
Page No. 1 of 20
21 January 2025
::: Uploaded on - 23/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2025 22:00:46 :::
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
______________
Mr. A.S. Rao for the Petitioners in WP/4196/2008 and
WP/4085/2008 and for Respondent in WP/1434/2007
&WP/1426/2007.
Mr. Piyush Shah with Mr. Aditya V. Tayade for Respondent
in WP/4196/2008 and 4085/2008 and for Petitioner in
WP/1434/2007 & WP/1426/2007
______________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment reserved on : 9 January 2025.
Judgment pronounced on : 21 January 2025.
Judgment:
1. These are cross Petitions filed by the Employer-Bank
and its ex-employees challenging the judgment and order dated
24 January 2007 passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune
partly allowing Revision Petitions filed by the employees and
setting aside the judgment and order dated 27 February 2006
passed by the Labour Court, Pune. The Labour Court had
dismissed the complaints of unfair labour practices relating to
termination of the employees by order dated 27 February 2006.
While setting aside the order of the Labour Court, the Industrial
Court has directed reinstatement of the employees with
continuity of services and 25% backwages from the date of
dismissal.
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
2. Writ Petition Nos.1434 of 2007 and 1426 of 2007 are
filed by the Bank challenging the order of reinstatement with
25% backwages whereas Writ Petition Nos.4196 of 2008 and
4085 of 2008 are filed by the employees to the limited extent of
denial of full backwages.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the Petitions are that
Bharati Sahakari Bank Ltd. (the Bank) is a co-operative society
registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 and is engaged in banking business. The two
employees- Shri Pravin V. Desai and Shri Vitthal R. Sasane were
employed in the bank. They were apparently members and office
bearers of the union formed by the bank employees. Five reports
were submitted by the security officer of the Bank to its Chief
Executive Officer reporting that on 22 December 1995, 29
December 1995, 1 January 1996, 2 January 1996 and 3 January
1996 several employees had conducted demonstrations at the
Head Office of the Bank by shouting slogans against bank
officials. The Bank accordingly issued show cause notice dated 1
January 1996 in respect of the incidents dated 22 December 1995
and 29 December 1995 to the employees. It appears that further
show cause notice dated 6 January 1996 was issued in respect of
the incident dated 1, 2 and 3 January 1996. On 6 January 1996
similar demonstrations were held and accordingly third show
cause notices dated 15 January 1996 were issued to the
employees. It appears that such show cause notices were issued
to total 5 employees viz., Mr. Pravin Vijay Desai Mr. Vitthal R.
Sasane, Mr. R.B. Mali, Mr. V.V. Jadhav and Mr. Sanjay K.
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
Dharme. Thereafter charge-sheets dated 15 February 1996 were
issued to the said five employees. After receipt of charge-sheets,
one of the employees-Mr. Sanjay K. Dharme tendered apology for
his conduct and he was accordingly let-off by merely suspending
him for two days. The Enquiry was however, continued in respect
of balance four employees viz. Mr. Pravin Vijay Desai Mr. Vitthal
R. Sasane, Mr. R.B. Mali and Mr. V.V. Jadhav. The Enquiry
Officer held the charges levelled against the said four employees
to be proved. The Bank therefore proceeded to terminate the
services of the said four employees. The termination orders were
questioned by the said four employees by filing complaints of
unfair labour practices before the Labour Court, Pune.
4. The Labour Court decided preliminary point of
perversity in the findings of the Enquiry Officer by order dated
30 January 2024 and held that the findings of the Enquiry
Officer were not perverse. The Labour Court thereafter
proceeded to decide the Complaints by its judgment and order
dated 27 February 2006 and dismissed the same upholding the
termination of the employees. Three out of four employees viz.,
Mr. Pravin Vijay Desai Mr. Vitthal R. Sasane and Mr. R.B. Mali
filed Revision Applications before the Industrial Court, Pune. It
appears that fourth employee- Vikas V. Jadhav decided not to
pursue the matter further and did not file revision challenging
the decision of the Labour Court.
5. The Industrial Court has partly allowed Revisions
preferred by the three employees by judgment and order dated 24
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
January 2007 and has set aside the order of the Labour Court
dated 27 February 2006. The Industrial Court has directed
reinstatement of the three employees with continuity of service
and 25% backwages from the date of dismissal. The Bank has
filed Writ Petition No.1434 of 2007 in respect of the order passed
by the Industrial Court in Revision preferred by Mr. Vitthal
Ramchandra Sasane and Writ Petition No.1426 of 2007 in
respect of order of the Industrial Court in Revision preferred by
Mr. Pravin Vijay Desai. By order dated 2 March 2007, this Court
admitted Writ Petition Nos. 1426 of 2007 and 1434 of 2007 and
stayed the execution and implementation of the order of the
Industrial Court.
6. It appears that the Bank has not filed any Petition
challenging the order of Industrial Court qua third employee -
Mr. R.B. Mali as he has apparently given up his claim against
the Bank. After Bank's Petitions were admitted by this Court
vide order dated 2 March 2007, the two employees viz. Mr.
Pravin Vijay Desai and Mr. Vitthal R. Sasane have filed Writ
Petition Nos.4196 of 2008 and 4085 of 2008 claiming full
backwages consequent to the order of the reinstatement. The
Petitions filed by the two employees came to be admitted by this
Court by order dated 21 July 2008. All the four Petitions are
called out for final hearing.
7. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the
employer-Bank would submit that the Industrial Court has erred
in reversing the well-considered decision of the Labour Court,
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
which had dismissed the complaints filed by the two employees.
That the Industrial Court has erred in comparing the cases of
two employees-Pravin V. Desai and Vitthal R. Sasane with that
of Mr. Sanjay Dharme. That Mr. Sanjay Dharme had tendered
apology for misconduct committed by him whereas the said two
employees continued claiming innocence leading to conduct of
enquiry against them, in which the charge was held to be proved.
He would rely upon judgment of the Apex Court in Obettee Pvt.
Ltd. V/s. Mohd. Shafiq Khan 1 in support of his contention that
employee who expresses remorse and tenders apology for
indulgence in strike cannot be placed on par with another
employee, who justifies the conduct and presses for conduct of
enquiry to prove the charges. He would submit that there is no
discrimination between the two employees and Shri Dharme in
the present case. Mr. Shah would submit that Petitioners have
otherwise committed serious misconduct by shouting slogans in
abusive language and by creating an atmosphere of terror. He
would submit that such a conduct on the part of the employees is
not conducive to the business of the Bank. That therefore the
conduct of the employees cannot be considered as constituting
minor misconduct. That therefore punishment of dismissal
imposed on them is commensurate with the misconduct
committed by them. He would therefore pray for setting aside
order passed by the Industrial Court.
8. So far as Writ Petition Nos.4196 of 2008 and 4085 of
2008 are concerned, Mr. Shah, without prejudice to the
2005 III CLR 569
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
contention that entire order of the Industrial Court is liable to be
set aside, would contend that there is no question of granting any
further backwages to the employees considering the seriousness
of misconduct committed by them.
9. Mr. Rao, the learned counsel would appear on behalf
of the employees opposing Writ Petition Nos.1426 of 2007 and
1434 of 2007 filed by the Bank. He would submit that the
Industrial Court has rightly appreciated the position that the
Bank discriminated amongst two sets of similarly placed
employees. That the two employees were not on strike and
agitations were conducted in a peaceful manner after working
hours of the Bank, without affecting the business of the Bank in
any manner. He would submit that agitations were held
essentially on account of appeal made by the Union and the two
employees participated in the agitations arranged for by the
union. That the employees have been deliberately targeted on
account of audacity shown by them to challenge the decision of
the management by joining the Union. He would submit that Mr.
Sanjay Dharme also participated in shouting of slogans during
the course of agitations and the fact that he was let-off with
suspension of only two days speaks volumes about gravity of
misconduct, which is held to be proved against the two
employees. That if similar misconduct committed by Mr.
Dharme was worth suspending him for two days, it is
inconceivable that the other four employees could have been
dismissed from service. That mere tendering of apology by Mr.
Sanjay Dharme could not be the sole factor for practising hostile
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
discrimination qua the two employees involved in the present
Petitions. In support of his contention, Mr. Rao would rely upon
judgment of the Apex Court in Anand Regional Co. Op Oil
Seeds Growers' Union Ltd vs Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai
Shah2 and Rajendra Yadav vs State Of M.P.& Ors3. He would
therefore submit that it was clearly impermissible for the Bank
to accord different treatment to similarly placed employees.
Lastly, Mr. Rao while opposing the Petitions filed by Bank, would
submit that the Industrial Court has merely awarded
reinstatement with 25% backwages and therefore no interference
is warranted in the said order.
10. In support of Writ Petition Nos.4196 of 2008 and 4085
of 2008 filed by the two employees, Mr. Rao would contend that
the Industrial Court has erred in denying full backwages to the
employees. That grant of full backwages is necessary corollary of
setting aside the termination order. That since the Industrial
Court compared cases of the two employees with Mr. Sanjay
Dharme, who is let-off with suspension for only two days,
dismissal of the two employees became unjustifiable and once the
dismissal is set aside, only corollary is to award full backwages to
the employees, who are erroneously kept away from the duties
due to illegal and arbitrary actions of the Bank management. He
would therefore urge that this Court should modify the order of
the Industrial Court by awarding 100% backwages to the two
employees.
(2006) 6 SCC 548
(2013) 3 SCC 73
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
11. Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
12. As observed above, these two cross Petitions are filed
by the Bank and its two employees challenging the judgment and
order dated 24 January 2007 passed by the Industrial Court
directing reinstatement of the two employees with 25%
backwages. While the Bank is aggrieved by orders of
reinstatement and 25% backwages and claims that the employees
cannot be reinstated, the two employees contend that denial of
full backwages to them consequent to the order of reinstatement
is erroneous. It would therefore be necessary to first examine
correctness of the directions issued by the Industrial Court
directing reinstatement with 25% backwages.
13. It appears that initially five employees were sought to
be held responsible in respect of the repeated agitations held at
the Head Office of the Bank on 22 December 1995, 29 December
1995, 1 January 1996, 2 January 1996, 3 January 1996 and 6
January 1996. The charge-sheet issued to the said five employees
alleged misconduct of (i) willful insubordination; (ii) riotous,
disorderly and indecent behaviour in the premises of the Bank
having nexus to the business and affairs of the Bank; (iii)
indulging in acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank; and (iv)
commission of acts subversive of discipline and good behaviour.
Alongwith the charge-sheet, three show cause notices were
appended for the purpose of indicating the particulars of each
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
article of charge. In the show cause notices, it was alleged that
the five employees held demonstrations on 22 and 29 December
1995 and 1, 2, 3 and 6 January 1996 at the entrance of the head
office of the Bank at various timings and shouted slogans in a
vulgar and objectionable manner. The show cause notices
reproduced the slogans shouted by the said five employees
alongwith the other employees of the Bank. The slogans were
abusive towards the directors and officers of the Bank. The show
cause notices also allege creation of atmosphere of terror and
tension among the employees in the premises of the Bank and
lowered the image of the management personnel as well as the
management in the eyes of public at large. It must be observed
that the agitations were held in the busy building (Bharti
Bhavan) at the office of the headquarter of the Bank and the
agitations were held on six different dates shouting abusive and
indecent slogans against the management and the bank. This
Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Family Courts,
Pune also operated in the premises situated in the same
building. The building was thus frequented throughout the day
and therefore the defence that the agitations were held after
banking business hours would not cut any ice. Since the
establishment is engaged in banking business, repeated
demonstrations held by its employees by shouting abusive and
indecent slogans on the road at the entrance of the headquarter
undoubtedly spreads bad image of the Bank in the eyes of the
public and is bound to affect its business. Therefore, the
misconduct committed by all the five employees in repeatedly
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
shouting indecent and abusive slogans against the management
cannot be taken lightly.
14. The sheet anchor of the employees is the action of the
Bank management in letting-off fifth employee-Mr. Sanjay
Dharme, who had also shouted similar slogans on each of those
dates. It appears that after initiation of domestic enquiry, Mr.
Dharme expressed remorse in respect of his actions and tendered
apology to the Bank. The Bank accepted the apology and
retained Mr. Sanjay Dharme in services by merely suspending
him for a period of two days. It is sought to be contended that
punishment of suspension of two days meted out to Mr. Sanjay
Dharme shows the real gravity of the misconduct allegedly
committed by the other employees. I am unable to agree. Non
infliction of punishment of dismissal on Mr. Sanjay Dharme after
tendering of apology by him cannot be construed to mean as if
the misconduct committed by the other employees was not
worthy of dismissal. The case involved shouting slogans in vulgar
language against the directors, senior officers and bank manager.
Considering the nature of allegations levelled against the
employees which essentially involved personal attack on directors
and officials of the Bank tendering of apology by one of them
assumes great significance. It is possible that the founder
director and other senior officials of the Bank thought it
appropriate to show forgiveness towards the employee seeking
apology and expressing remorse for his actions. This is not a case
where the employees are accused of committing any
misappropriation of Bank funds, in which case letting-off of an
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
employee committing similar misconduct after acceptance of
apology may have same effect on quantum of punishment
imposed on the rest of the employees. Here the main charge was
that of insubordination and attempting to lower the image of the
management in the eyes of the public. Therefore, tendering of
apology by one of the employees indulging in such misconduct
plays vital effect on mind of the management. It is therefore not
unnatural that the management decided not to dismiss Mr.
Dharme on account of his apology and instead retained him in
service with punishment of suspension for two days.
15. Reliance of Mr. Shah in this regard on judgment of
Obettee Pvt. Ltd. (supra) appears to be apposite. In the case
before the Apex Court, the circumstances involved were almost
similar where the workmen therein were accused of similar
misconduct of proceeding on strike, instigating others to remain
on strike and threatening others. In the light of the above
position, the Apex Court held in paragraphs 4 to 9 as under:
4. It is to be noted that while Chunnu and Vakil accepted the
correctness of the charges levelled against them and tendered
apology, the Respondent-workman continued to contest the
charges levelled against him. On appreciation of evidence the
Tribunal came to hold that merely because no action was taken
against Chunnu and Vakil, the position is not the same so far as
the Respondent-workman is concerned. The distinctive features,
so far as the Respondent-workman and the other two namely
Chunnu and Vakil are concerned were highlighted by the
Tribunal. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the termination of
the Respondent-workman was legal and proper.
5. In the writ petition filed before the High Court the primary
stand was that there were no distinctive features so far as writ
petitioner was concerned. The High Court accepted the stand of
the Respondent- workman and held that the distinction made by
the Tribunal was clearly an artificial distinction. It was further
held that though there was no subsequent apology tendered, the
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
Respondent-workman had in letter and spirit shown his bona
fides by not resorting to any strike subsequent to 2.5.1980 and
there is clearly "inferred apology" on the part of the Respondent-
workman. Accordingly the order of termination was set aside and
it was directed that the Respondent-workman was to be
reinstated in service if he had not attained the age of
superannuation and was to be paid 50% of the back wages from
the date of termination till reinstatement. It was further
indicated that in case the Respondent-workman had attained the
age of superannution, then he will be awarded 50% of the back
wages from the date of termination till he attained the age of
superannuation.
6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that the view of the High Court is clearly untenable.
The Tribunal had rightly noted the distinctive features so far as
the Respondent-workman and the other two are concerned. While
in the case of Chunnu and Vakil they had given undertakings and
had expressed regrets for resorting to illegal strike, there was no
such regret expressed by the Respondent- workman. On the
contrary he tried to justify his action and even termed the strike
on 2.5.1980 to be legal one.
7. In response, learned counsel for the Respondent-workman
submitted that the Tribunal had taken a hyper technical view.
Even though he had not given undertaking as given by Chunnu
and Vakil, there was no allegation that he had resorted to any
illegal act thereafter. Mere fact that he had tried to justify his
action in the proceedings cannot be taken as a distinctive features
to make a departure from the benevolence shown to Chunnu and
Vakil.
8. On consideration of the rival stand one thing becomes clear that
Chunnu and Vakil stood at different footing so far as the
Respondent-workman is concerned. He had, unlike the other two,
continued to justify his action. That was clearly distinctive
feature, which the High Court unfortunately failed to properly
appreciate. The employer accepted to choose the unqualified
apology given and regrets expressed by Chunnu and Vakil. It
cannot be said that the employer had discriminated so far as the
Respondent- workman is concerned, because as noted above he
had tried to justify his action for which departmental proceedings
were initiated. It is not that Chunnu and Vakil were totally
exonerated. On the contrary, letter of warning dated 11.4.1984
was issued to them.
9. In Union of India v. Parma Nanda 1989 II CLR 1 SC the
Administrative Tribunal had modified the punishment on the
ground that two other persons were let out with minor
punishment. This Court held that when all the persons did not
stand on the same footing, same yardstick cannot be applied.
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
Similar is the position in the present case. Therefore, the High
Court's order is clearly unsustainable and is set aside.
Thus, the Apex Court held that mere tendering of apology by one
of the delinquent employees and the management letting him off
with insignificant punishment cannot be formed a ground for
raising issue of discrimination.
16. Therefore, merely because the employer decided to
reinstate Mr. Sanjay Dharme by suspending him for two days
after tendering of apology by him cannot be a ground for setting
aside the punishment of dismissal imposed on the other two
employees.
17. Mr. Rao relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in
Anand Regional Co. Op Oil Seeds Growers' Union (supra) in
which Respondent therein had conducted a meeting in the
premises of the employer without permission and levelled false
allegations against the senior officer of the management and
forcibly entered into the cabin of the said officer by misbehaving,
shouting slogans and threatening the said officer. It appears that
the similar allegations were levelled against total 7 persons and
the management did not take any action against 6 similar other
persons. Those employees were allowed to opt for voluntary
retirement scheme. In the light of the above position the Apex
Court held that even Respondent therein ought to have been
granted voluntary retirement on par with the other six
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
employees. The Apex Court held in paragraphs 27 and 28 as
under:
27. There is, however, another aspect of the matter which
cannot be lost sight of. Identical allegations were made against
seven persons. The management did not take serious note of
misconduct committed by six others although they were
similarly situated. They were allowed to take the benefit of the
voluntary retirement scheme.
28. The first respondent might not have opted therefor.
However, having regard to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, he should be, in our opinion, treated
on a similar footing. In view of the fact that the first
respondent has succeeded in the Labour Court and the learned
Single Judge as also the Division Bench; we are of the opinion
that having regard to the overall situation, the interest of
justice would be subserved if the award of the Labour Court
dated 31-1-2003 as affirmed by the High Court is substituted
by a direction that the first respondent shall also be given the
benefit of voluntary retirement scheme from the month in
which the other workmen were given the benefit thereof.
18. Mr. Rao has also relied upon judgment of the Apex
Court in Rajendra Yadav (supra) in which the Apex Court in
paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 has observed as under:-
10. The principle stated above is seen applied in a few
judgments of this Court. The earliest one is DG of Police v.
G. Dasayan wherein one Dasayan, a police constable,
along with two other constables and one Head Constable
were charged for the same acts of misconduct. The
disciplinary authority exonerated two other constables,
but imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on
Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on the Head
Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice,
substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of
the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying
the principle of parity in punishment among co-
delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise,
violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
11. In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case the
workman was dismissed from service for proved
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
misconduct. However, few other workmen, against whom
there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of
the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such
circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also
be treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of
voluntary retirement from service from the month on
which the others were given the benefit.
12. We are of the view that the principle laid down in the
abovementioned judgments would also apply to the facts of
the present case. We have already indicated that the
action of the disciplinary authority imposing a
comparatively lighter punishment on the co-delinquent
Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment
on the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they
were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we
are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the
punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the
appellant and order that he be reinstated in service
forthwith. The appellant is, therefore, to be reinstated
from the date on which Arjun Pathak was reinstated and
be given all consequential benefits as were given to Arjun
Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no
order as to costs.
19. In my view, both the decisions in Anand Regional
Co. Op Oil Seeds Growers' Union and Rajendra Yadav
(supra) would have no application to the facts and circumstances
in the present case. In Anand Regional Co. Op Oil Seeds
Growers' Union six out of seven similarly placed employees
were allowed to retire voluntarily. They were not exonerated or
retained in service. It appears that the Respondent therein did
not opt for voluntary retirement and the Apex Court extended
special treatment to him by opting for voluntary retirement on
par with other 6 similarly placed employees. The case did not
involve issue of tendering of apology. In Rajendra Yadav
(supra) another employee-Arjun had committed graver
misconduct demanding and receiving bribe but was inflicted
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
comparatively lighter punishment. Petitioner therein, who had
merely passive role, was however dismissed from service. It is in
the light of the above facts that Apex court held that even the
persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of
treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing
punishment. In my view therefore, both the judgments relied
upon by Mr. Rao do not assist the employees in the present case.
20. I am, therefore, not inclined to hold that the
punishment of dismissal from services deserved interference by
the Industrial Court merely on account of comparison with the
role of Mr. Sanjay Dharme. However, if the misconduct proved
against the two employees is taken into consideration on
standalone basis, the issue is whether the said misconduct can
be considered as serious enough for imposition of extreme
penalty of dismissal. The employees have not denied
participation in the agitations, but gave an explanation that
agitations were conducted outside the Bank on a footpath, that
too after closing hours of the Bank. The management examined 5
witnesses to prove the charges. Though there is an allegation of
creating an atmosphere of terror in the show cause notices dated
15 January 1996, the same is not repeated in the charge-sheet.
Also there appears to be no evidence to suggest that the
employees threatened any particular witness examined by the
management. Therefore, there appears to be no evidence in
support of the allegations of threatening any other employee or
customer or creating an atmosphere of terror. In my view, these
are few mitigating circumstances in favour of the two employees.
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
Ordinarily, holding peaceful agitations in support of demand may
not always constitute misconduct, specially when the same are
held outside the premises of the establishment and after working
hours, not affecting working of such establishment. However, in
the present case, the agitations are apparently held at the
entrance of the Bank and the slogans shouted by the employees
were bound to be heard and noticed by passersby. In that view of
the matter, it cannot be contended that the employees have not
committed any misconduct at all. At the same time, the
agitations in which the employees participated did not result
prevention of anybody's entry into the Bank. In my view
therefore, it cannot be held that the Petitioners-employees
obstructed working of the Bank. True it is that in shouting
vulgar and abusive slogans addressed to the founder of the Bank
as well as to other key managerial persons, the employees have
committed serious misconduct. However, the misconduct did not
assume the character of grave misconduct on account of failure
to prove the allegations of obstructing the work of the Bank. In
my view, therefore, the two employees deserve to be awarded
lumpsum compensation in lieu of reinstatement or backwages.
Denial of reinstatement and backwages would serve sufficient
penalty to the two employees, who have long crossed the ages of
retirement. Since their reinstatement is otherwise not possible
and considering the gravity of misconduct committed by them,
payment of backwages would also not be appropriate in the
present case. Though letting-off Mr. Sanjay Dharme may not
have a direct bearing of right to claim reinstatement in service,
the fact that the management was willing to forgive employees
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
upon tendering apology would have some bearing on the nature
of relief, which could be granted in favour of two employees for
their incalcitrant attitude of not tendering apology as was done
by Mr. Sanjay Dharme. The two employees have already suffered
a lot as they remained out of services of the Bank after their
dismissal from services effected on 1 January 1998. The two
employees have been litigating since the year 1997 i.e. for the last
28 long years and have learnt a lesson for misconduct of shouting
vulgar slogans against the Bank management. In that view of
the matter, award of lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- to
each of the two employees would meet the ends of justice.
21. I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
(i) Judgment and order dated 24 January 2007 passed
by the Industrial Court, Pune, in Revision ULP
Nos. 45 of 2006 and 46 of 2006 is set aside.
(ii) The Bank shall pay to Pravin Vijay Desai and
Vitthal R. Sasane lumpsum compensation of
Rs.3,00,000/- each in lieu of reinstatement or
backwages. Beyond the lumpsum compensation so
awarded, the Petitioners-employees shall not be
entitled to any further service related benefits from
the Bank.
(iii) The amount of compensation shall be paid to the
two employees by the Bank within a period of two
21 January 2025
Megha wp_4196_2008 with_fc.docx
months, failing which the Bank shall pay interest of
8% per annum on the amount of compensation from
the end of two months till the date of actual
payment.
22. With the above directions all the four Petitions are
disposed of.
23. Rule is made partly absolute in Writ Petition
Nos.1426 of 2007 and 1434 of 2007 and rule is discharged in Writ
Petition Nos.4196 of 2008 and 4085 of 2008. There shall be no
orders as to costs.
24. In view of disposal of the Writ Petitions, Civil
Applications do not survive and hence stand disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
21 January 2025
