Bombay High Court
M/S. S. K. F. India Ltd. vs Shri. Suresh Ananta Gaikwad on 22 July, 2025
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2025:BHC-AS:31284
33.WP.1564.21.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1564 OF 2021
M/s. S.K.F. India Limited, Chinchwad, Pune .. Petitioner
Versus
Suresh Ananta Gaikwad .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Gaurav S. Gawande,
Advocate i/by M/s. Desai & Desai Associates for Petitioner.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : JULY 22, 2025.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Bapat, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner.
2. This Writ Petition is filed by Petitioner - Company to
challenge the legality and validity of the Judgment and Award dated
11.09.2019 passed by the Labour Court, Pune in Reference (IDA)
No.175 of 2008. The said Judgment and Award is appended at Exhibit
'H' - page No.38 of the Petition.
3. Petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act,
1956. Respondent - Employee was appointed as an Operator in the
Petitioner - Company on 01.11.1983. Between November 2006 and
February 2007, Respondent - Employee remained unauthorizedly
absent without sufficient cause for a period of 60 days on 4 different
occasions. It is argued that Petitioner - Company is a continuous
1 of 8
33.WP.1564.21.doc
process industry and any unauthorized absence of an employee and
more particularly of an Operator causes serious inconvenience and
financial loss in the production lines of the products which are
manufactured. Thus unauthorised and uninformed absence of
Respondent - Employee for long period caused grave and serious
prejudice to the Petitioner leading to Petitioner issuing a charge-sheet
dated 12.02.2007 to Respondent calling upon him to explain the
charges against him. Enquiry was conducted during which Respondent
- Employee remained absent, neither did he file any Reply to the
charge-sheet. Proceedings were conducted ex-parte and report of
enquiry proceedings was furnished to Respondent - Employee on
16.04.2017. Respondent - Employee refused to accept the copy of the
report of enquiry proceedings and did not submit his Reply thereto.
4. According to Mr. Bapat, learned Senior Advocate for
Petitioner - Company, Enquiry Officer primarily observed that
principles of natural justice were duly followed by giving a full
opportunity to Respondent to present his defense to the charge-sheet.
He would submit that past record of the Petitioner between 1983 i.e.
his date of appointment and 2006 was not completely unblemished in
as much as he was given repeated warnings and advisory memos from
time to time for his repeated misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism
during the years 1987, 1988, 1991 and 1992. He has drawn my
attention to the dismissal order dated 10.10.2007 appended at Exhibit
2 of 8
33.WP.1564.21.doc
'B' - page No.15 of the Writ Petition which records previous
punishments inflicted on Respondent - Employee being taken into
account in the present misconduct resultantly leading to his dismissal
from service. He would vehemently submit that gravity of misconduct
of Respondent - Employee is such that it affected the business and
production line of the Petitioner - Company leading to slowing down
of the production line and resulting in financial loss to the Company.
5. He would submit that Respondent - Employee raised
industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication to the Labour
Court, Pune under Reference (IDA) No.175 of 2008. According to
Petitioner - Company, services of Respondent - Employee were
terminated by following the due process of law after giving him a fair
opportunity to defend himself.
6. It is seen that Award Part-I dated 10.05.2018 of Labour
Court held that the enquiry conducted against Respondent was not
legal and proper, hence it stood vitiated. In that view of the matter,
Respondent - Employee led evidence of Dr. Ramesh Sonawane who
had issued Medical Certificate to Respondent - Employee during his
absenteeism from work. Through the first witness Petitioner placed on
record details of his continuous absence of 60 days from 26.11.2006 to
06.02.2007 to prove that Respondent refrained from coming to work
without intimation and sufficient cause leading to impugned action
3 of 8
33.WP.1564.21.doc
against him. He also examined himself. Dr. Sonawane, treating Doctor
issued Medical Certificates to him dated 27.11.2006 and 04.02.2007
which were placed on record to explain the reasons for not attending
work. According to Respondent - Employee due to severe illness and
medical condition suffered by him he was not in a position to attend
to work regularly during the 4 month period between November 2006
and February 2007 and Petitioner - Company was aware about his
condition. According to Respondent - Employee, he was suffering
from cervical spondylitis and jaundice during the said period. Learned
Labour Court framed the issue as to whether the evidence presented
before the Court was insufficient to prove the misconduct? If yes,
whether the punishment awarded was disproportionate to the
misconduct? Further issue framed was whether Petitioner - Company
illegally terminated the services of Respondent - Employee? Answers
to both these issues was returned in the affirmative by the learned
Labour Court.
7. I have heard Mr. Bapat, learned Senior Advocate for
Petitioner - Company and perused the twin Awards passed by the
Labour Court dated 10.05.2018 and 11.09.2019 and the record of the
case.
8. It is seen that case of Petitioner - Company is for alleged
4 of 8
33.WP.1564.21.doc
unauthorized absenteeism for 4 days in the month of November 2006,
26 days in the month of December 2006, 27 days in the month of
January 2007 and 3 days in the month of February 2007. Essentially
Respondent - Employee did not attend work mainly during December
2006 and January 2007.
9. It is seen that the issue relating to fairness of enquiry and
propriety of the Enquiry Officer was decided by Award dated
10.05.2018 and the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that
the enquiry conducted against Respondent - Employee was itself not
legal, fair and proper and therefore stood vitiated.
10. Thus once the enquiry conducted itself stood vitiated,
Petitioner - Company was given an opportunity to prove the
misconduct of Respondent - Employee. For that reason, Petitioner led
the evidence of its sole witness namely its Assistant Manager working
in the Human Resources Department. Said Assistant Manager merely
placed on record the details of absenteeism as delineated herein above
during the contentious period alongwith the past record of
Respondent-Employee. In rebuttal, Respondent - Employee examined
himself and the treating Doctor i.e. Dr. Ramesh Sonawane. The copies
of the Medical Certificate issued by the said Doctor were placed on
record and the Doctor's deposition proved that the Respondent -
Employee was under his treatment during the contentious period since
5 of 8
33.WP.1564.21.doc
he was undertaking treatment for cervical spondylitis and jaundice and
was not in a position to attend work during the said period. Though it
is argued on behalf of Petitioner - Company that the said certificates
produced are a complete afterthought and they are not true, however
no such question whatsoever is put to the treating Doctor neither the
evidence of the treating Doctor is discredited by Petitioner - Company
before the Labour Court. Defence of Respondent - Employee
pertaining to his illness during the contentious period namely
December 2006 and January 2007 has been adequately proven and
brought on record and proved by him justifying his absence from duty.
11. In this regard, it is seen that absence may sometime be
inevitable in the facts and circumstances of a given case if the said
absence is due to a valid and genuine reason. Hence in such cases
while deciding proportionality of punishment, several factors are
required to be considered like seriousness of misconduct, past service
record of the charge-sheeted employee and all other aggravating
factors. The Petitioner - Company in the present case has heavily relied
upon the discredit and credentials of the Respondent - Employee in
the past. According to Petitioner - Company, in the past Respondent -
Employee was issued warning letters dated 17.09.1991, 07.12.1991
and 05.08.1992 which were exhibited below Exhibits '45 to 47' for
similar act of misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism. The details of
the same are appended in the dismissal order which is issued to the
6 of 8
33.WP.1564.21.doc
Respondent - Employee. It is seen that Respondent - Employee was
issued two Advisory letters dated 17.06.1987 and 24.07.1990 for
absenteeism on medical grounds and four warning letters dated
29.03.1988, 17.09.1991, 07.12.1991 and 05.08.1992 for absenteeism
on account of either illness of health or unauthorized absenteeism. The
present contentious action pertains to December 2006 and January
2007. From 1992 until December 2006, record of the Respondent -
Employee is unblemished even according to the Petitioner's evidence.
12. Thus the evidence led by Respondent-Employee and the
circumstances in the present case pertaining to him have weighed with
the learned Labour Court while deciding the Reference (IDA) and the
proportionality of the punishment awarded to him treating his length
of service and all above facts. Merely because in the past Respondent
was issued warning letters for similar misconduct cannot be a sole
attributory factor to accept the Petitioner's case. The timeline of that
action speaks for itself.
13. While taking into account the overall circumstances, the
learned Labour Court has given cogent and reasoned findings in
paragraph Nos.18 to 21 of the impugned Award dated 11.09.2019
which cannot be faulted with or call for any interference of this Court.
14. Respondent - Employee having working for more than 23
years in continues employment of Petitioner - Company and having
7 of 8
33.WP.1564.21.doc
been given 2 advisory memos and 4 warning letters / memos between
the year 1987 and 1992 and thereafter being dismissed from service in
the year 2007 on account of genuine medical grounds and illness duly
proved by him for being absent due to jaundice and cervical spondylitis
in December 2006 and January 2007 has been rightly considered by
the learned Labour Court while deciding the Reference by returning
cogent and reasoned findings.
15. The impugned Award dated 11.09.2019 therefore does not
call for any interference whatsoever and the same is upheld and
confirmed. Resultantly Writ Petition fails.
16. Writ Petition is dismissed.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN Date:
AMBERKAR 2025.07.26
14:37:31
+0530
8 of 8
