Bombay High Court
Precision Camshafts Limited vs Namdeo Nagnath Navgire on 6 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:11649
Digitally
signed by
CHAITANYA
CHAITANYA ASHOK
ASHOK
JADHAV
JADHAV
Date:
2025.03.12
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
18:58:58
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1855 OF 2022
Precision Camshafts Limited
E-90, MIDC, Akkalkot Road,
Solapur - 413 006. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Amol Gopinath Kamble,
Age : 33 Years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o : At Madare, Post Kumthe,
South Solapur, Solapur. ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1860 OF 2022
Precision Camshafts Limited
E-90, MIDC, Akkalkot Road,
Solapur - 413 006. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Namdeo Nagnath Navgire,
Age : 30 Years,
R/o : 173, Rahul Nagar, Majarewadi,
Hotgi Road, District Solapur. ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1858 OF 2022
Precision Camshafts Limited
E-90, MIDC, Akkalkot Road, Solapur
- 413 006. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Page No. 1 of 16
6 March 2025
::: Uploaded on - 12/03/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2025 07:34:29 :::
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
Parshuram Amogi Jadhav,
Age : 43 Years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. 11, Subhash Shah Nagar Colony,
Jule Solapur, Solapur. ...Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 1857 OF 2022
Precision Camshafts Limited
E-90, MIDC, Akkalkot Road, Solapur
- 413 006. ...Petitioner
V/s.
Chandrakant Shivchalappa Bondage,
Age : 31 Years, Occu.: Nil,
R/o. 362, Bharatratna Indira Nagar,
Near Sharan Math, MIDC Akkalkot
Road, Dist. Solapur ...Respondent
______________
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Sarang Aaradhye, Ms.
Gauri Velankar, Mr. Gaurav Gawande for Petitioner.
Mr. Shafi Kazi with Ms. Sneha Pokle, Adv. Biju Joseph, Mr. T. V.
Loris, Ms. Anjali Nair i/b KLT Law Associates for Respondent.
______________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Dated : 6 March 2025.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1) These Petitions are filed by the Petitioner-employer
challenging the Judgment and Order dated 12 October 2021,
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Solapur, allowing the
Revision Applications filed by the Respondent-workmen and
setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 3 March 2016
passed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court while allowing
the Revision Applications, has directed reinstatement of the
Respondent-workmen with full back wages from the date of their
discharge i.e. 28 June 2014.
2) The Petitioner is engaged in manufacture and supply of
camshafts in automobile sector. Petitioner used to operate two
foundry units at Akkalkot Road MIDC and Chincholi MIDC
within Solapur District. According to the Petitioner, there was
reduction in the production activity, on account of which decision
was taken to shift the employees working in Akkalkot Road unit
to Chincholi unit. In respect of those employees who have not
willing to work at Chincholi unit, they were offered voluntary
retirement. According to Petitioner, a notice dated 27 January
2014 was published at the Akkalkot Road unit giving three
options of alternate employment at Chincholi MIDC, voluntary
retirement or retrenchment. Along with the notice, copy of
agreement executed with the recognized unit was also appended.
3) It is Petitioner's case that most of the employees working
at Akkalkot Road unit either accepted the option of alternate
employment at Chincholi unit or voluntary retirement. The four
workmen involved in the present Petitions, however, did not
respond to the Notice dated 27 January 2014. One of them
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
apparently lodged First Information Report, under the provisions
of the Scheduled Castes And the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Atrocity Act"), against one of the
managerial employees of the Petitioner. Petitioner terminated
the services of the Respondents by orders dated 28 June 2014
alleging various misconducts, such as threatening the
management representatives, defaming the company by giving
false interviews and misbehavior etc. It was stated in the
termination order that the employer had loss of confidence in the
workmen and that therefore it was not possible to conduct
domestic enquiry against them.
4) The termination orders were challenged by the
Respondents by filing complaints of unfair labour practice before
the Labour Court, Solapur. The complaints were resisted by the
Petitioners by filing written statements. Both the parties led
evidence in support of respective cases. After considering the
pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Labour Court
proceeded to dismiss the complaints by Judgments and Orders
dated 3 March 2016. In Revision, however, the Industrial Court,
Solapur, has reversed the decisions of the Labour Court and has
set aside the same. By its Judgments and Orders dated 12
October 2021, the Industrial Court has directed reinstatement of
the Respondents with full back wages w.e.f. 28 June 2014.
Petitioner-employer has filed these Petitions challenging the
Judgments and Orders passed by the Industrial Court on 12
October 2021.
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
5) The Petitions came to be admitted by order dated 1
February 2024 and implementation of the orders of the
Industrial Court was stayed. At the instance of the Respondent-
employees, the Petitions are taken out for final hearing.
6) I have heard Mr. Bapat, the learned senior advocate
appearing for Petitioner. He would submit that the Respondents
were duly offered three options vide notice dated 27 January
2014. That the Petitioner was willing to offer alternate
employment to the Respondents at Chincholi MIDC foundry and
since such offer was voluntarily not accepted by them, the
Industrial Court could not have directed reinstatement with
back wages. He would submit that almost all workmen in the
Petitioner-factory at Akkalkot Road accepted either options 'A' or
'B' and accordingly started working at Chincholi MIDC or took
voluntary retirement. That despite giving such fair offers to all
the employees rather than going ahead with retrenchment, the
four Respondent-employees deliberately did not accept the said
offer and started misbehaving with the managerial staff with a
view to cause damage to the reputation of the company. He would
submit that instead of exercising the options as per notice dated
27 January 2014, the four Respondents-workmen were found to
have indulged in activities of lodging false FIRs under the
Atrocities Act, repeatedly threatened the managerial staff and
insisting that they must be offered work at Akkalkot MIDC unit.
That on account of atmosphere of terror created by the
Respondent-workmen, it was not feasible to conduct a domestic
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
inquiry against them and after waiting for more than four
months, the Petitioner-employer was left with no other option,
but to terminate the services of the four Respondents.
7) Mr. Bapat would further submit that the Labour Court
has rightly appreciated the evidence on record while dismissing
the complaints. He would submit that the Petitioner-employer
justified the termination by leading evidence before the Labour
Court. That the Industrial Court has exceeded the revisional
jurisdiction under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U and P.U.L.P. Act,
1971 in reversing well considered decisions of the Labour Court.
He would accordingly pray for setting aside the Orders passed by
the Industrial Court.
8) The Petitions are opposed by Mr. Kazi, the learned
counsel appearing for the Respondent-workmen. He would
submit that the Petitioner failed to follow due process of law,
while terminating the services of the Respondents. That there is
neither any show cause notice nor a warning and directly their
services are terminated by arbitrary orders dated 28 June 2024.
He would submit that conduct of domestic enquiry was
mandatory in the facts and the circumstances of the present case
since termination was stigmatic. He would submit that the
management has not been able to justify its allegations about
commission of misconduct by the Respondent-workmen. That
their services could not have been terminated unceremoniously
by later trying to justify the action of termination by leading
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
evidence before the Labour Court. That there is nothing on
record to indicate that the four workmen were communicated any
options by the Petitioner.
9) Mr. Kazi would further submit that the workmen were
interviewed by a TV Channel while they were waiting outside
the factory premises and that there was no malafide intention on
their part to harm the reputation of the company. That the
Labour Court's Order was without application of mind. He would
rely upon the provisions of clause 25(iv) of the Model Standing
Order, under which issuance of charge-sheet to the delinquent
employee is mandatory condition before termination of services.
He would submit that past record of the Respondents was not
even considered where they were rewarded with several awards.
That in any case, there is total absence of evidence relating to the
allegations levelled in the termination notice.
10) In support of his contentions Mr. Kazi would rely upon
the following Judgments.
(i) Sandeep Kumar V/s. GB Pant Institute of Engineering
and Technology Ghurdauri & Ors., reported in 2024 II
CLR 246.
(ii) L. Michael And Anr. V/s. M/s. Johnson Pumps India
Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 1605 of 1972, dated 10 th
February, 1975).
(iii) The Workmen of Firestone Tyre And Rubber Co. of
India (Pvt.) Ltd. V/s. The Management and Ors. (Civil
Appeal Nos. 1461, 1995, 1996 and 2386 of 1972).
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
(iv) Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy
Mudaliar Educational Institute V/s. Education
Appellate Tribunal And Anr. reported in 1999 SCC
(L&S) 1288.
11) Mr. Kazi would further submit that the Respondents
were deliberately harassed on account of the fact that they belong
to lowest strata of the society. He would take me through the FIR
lodged at instance of one of the Respondents. He would therefore
submit that the Industrial Court has rightly set aside the
termination by directing reinstatement with full back wages. He
would accordingly pray for dismissal of the Petitions.
12) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my
consideration.
13) In the present case, the Petitioner has raised a plea that
there was substantial reduction in manufacturing activities and
therefore it was decided to reduce the workers employed at
Akkalkot Road foundry. However instead of retrenching the
services of the workmen or to opt for layoff, the Petitioner
decided to offer employment to the workmen engaged in
Akkalkot Road foundry at its another foundry at Chincholi.
Petitioner has relied on following notice issued on 27 January
2014.
दि नांकः२७/०१/२०१४
नोटीस
सर्व कामगारांना कळदिर्वण्यात येते की, कंपनीची सद्य परिरस्थि!"ती र्व भदिर्वष्यातील एकं रीत ऑडस
र्व त्यानुसारचा अपेक्षि-त व्यर्वसाय याबाबत व्यर्व!"पनाने प्रक्षितदिनधींशी चचा केलेली असून
चच5अंती व्यर्व!"ापनाची भूदिमका र्व धोरण !पष्ट !र्वरुपात मांडल्यानंतर कंपनीला उत्पा नात
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
कपात झाल्याने अक्षितरिरक्त होणऱ्या कामगारांच्या पुनर्वसनाबाबत चचा झाली आहे. त्यानुसार
इच्छुकांना व्यर्व!"ापनाच्या खालील तीन पयायांपैकी एकाची दिनर्वड करता येईल.
पयाय पयायाचे नांर्व पयाय दिनर्वडण्याची अंक्षितम मु त
पयाय क्रमांक १ चिंचचोळी औद्याेदिगक र्वसाहतीतील
फौंड्रीमध्ये पयायी रोजगार !र्वीकारणे दि नांक ३०/०१/२०१४
पु ारी ३.०० पयत
पयाय क्रमांक २ !र्वेच्छा दिनर्वृत्ती
पयाय क्रमांक ३ कायद्यातील तरतु ीनुसार कामगार कपात
या करारासोबत लार्वलेल्या या ीतील १६१ शेर्वटी कामार्वर रुजू झालेल्या कामगारांनी
इच्छे नुसार पयात दिनर्वडार्वा. स रची पसंती असल्यास एच आर दिर्वभागात मान्यतेची सही करुन
द्यायची आहे याची नों घ्यार्वी.
दिप्रसिसजन कॅमशाफ्टस् लिलदिमटेडकरीता
आर के काशिश
जनरल मॅनेजर-एच आर.
14) The agreement executed with the recognized union was
also appended to the notice dated 27 January 2014. Perusal of
the said agreement would indicate that there were following
stipulation in para Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4.
कराराच्या शत[
१. स रचा करार हा दि नांक ०७/०८/२०१२ रोजीच्या उत्पा नाशी दिनगडीत र्वेतनर्वाढ र्व इतर
सेर्वाशत^बाबतच्या कराराचा एक भाग आहे असे समजण्यात येईल.
२. पयाय क्रमाक १ः कागारांचे पुनर्वसनः- व्यर्व!"ापनास कामगार दिहताची पूण जाणीर्व असून
कामगारांचा रोजगार दिटकर्वण्यासाठी कामगारांसमोर पयायी रोजगार म्हणून व्यर्व!"ापन या युदिनटमधील
अक्षितरिरक्त कामगारांना व्यर्व!"ापनाच्या एक आय डी सी चिंचचोळी येशि"ल फौंड्री दिर्वभागात आहे त्या
सेर्वाशत[ लागू ठे र्वून, म्हणजेच पगार, कामार्वर रुजू तारीख, सेर्वाज्येष्ठता इत्या ीमध्ये कोणत्याही
!र्वरुपात ब ल न करता समार्वून घेण्यात घेईल. एर्वढेच नव्हे तर अशांना सध्याच्या फौंड्री युदिनटमध्ये
ऑक्टोबर २०१४ मध्ये लागू होणरी पगारर्वाढ ही जानेर्वारी २०१४ पासूनच रुपये ८०० पगारर्वाढ र्व
पूण हजेरीचा रु. ६२५ इतका इन्सेंटीव्ह असा रु.१४२५ र्वा अक्षिधक फाय ा दिमळे ल. इच्छुक कामगारांना
ट्रान्!फरबाबतचे सेर्वाशत[ नों करुन तसे पत्र ेण्यात येईल.
३. पयाय क्रमाक २ - !र्वेच्छा दिनर्वृत्तीः- ज्या कामगारांना पयाय क्रमांक एक अमान्य असेल अशांनी
!र्वेच्छा दिनर्वृत्तीचा पयाय दिनर्वडीतील र्व त्यानुसार त्याचे फाय े त्यांना ेण्यात येतील.
अशांना ९० दि र्वसांचा पगार + स र पगाराच्या १०% अक्षितरिरक्त रक्कम ब-ीस म्हणून.
काम केलेल्या प्रत्येक र्वर्षाासाठी १५ दि र्वसांचा पगार + स र पगाराच्या १०% अक्षितरिरक्त रक्कम
ब-ीस म्हणून.
पात्र कामगारांना ग्रॅच्युईटी ेखील अ ा करण्यात येईल.
पगार म्हणजे मुळ पगार + !पेशल अलौन्स समजण्यात यार्वा.
मदिहन्याचा पगार म्हणजे २६ दि र्वसांचा पगार समजण्यात यार्वा.
र्वरील ोन्ही पयाय दिनर्वडीची अंक्षितम मु त दि नांक ३०/०१/२०१४ रोजी पु ारी ३.०० पयmत असेल.
४. पयाय क्रमांक ३ - कामगार कपातः र्वरील ोन्ही पयाय अमान्य असतील तर व्यर्व!"ापन औद्याेदिगक
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
दिर्वर्वा कायद्यातील तरतु ीस अनुसरुन सरकारकडू न कामगार कपातीची रिरतसर परर्वानगी दिमळण्यास
अज करेल र्व त्यास आमची संमती असेल . र्वरील ोन्ही पयायाची मु त संपल्यानंतर कामगारास स र
पयाय (पयाय क्रमाक १ र्व २) दिनर्वडण्यास अपात्र ठरतील.
15) Thus in respect of those workmen, who were not willing
to work at Chincholi MIDC, the Petitioner had introduced
package for voluntary retirement under which the workmen were
supposed to receive pay for 90 days + 10% additional amount.
Additionally, they were entitled to receive compensation @ pay for
15 days of work rendered in the past + additional bonus. The
workmen were also offered their due amount of gratuity. It is
Petitioner's case that despite giving such an attractive offer of
alternate employment, or in the alternate handsome amount of
compensation, none of the four Respondents approached the
Petitioner by exercising one of the three options. It is Petitioner's
case that almost all other workmen either opted for voluntarily
transfer to Chincholi MIDC or voluntarily retirement.
16) In the above background where Respondents have not
responded notice dated 27 January 2014 for over five months, the
Petitioner has finally terminated their services by orders dated
28 June 2014. The termination orders dated 28 June 2014 read
thus:
दि नांक २८/०६/२०१४
सेर्वा-मुक्तीचा आ ेश
१. तुम्ही कंपनीच्या अक्कलकोट रोड ये"ील युदिनटमध्ये ऑपरेटर या प ार्वर कामास आहात. कंपनीच्या
अक्कलकोट रोड ये"ील फौंड्री युदिनटला ग्राहकांकडू न मागणीत मोठी घट झाल्याने , उत्पा नातही कपात
करणे भाग पडले होते र्व आहे. त्यामुळे अनेक कामगार अक्षितरिरक्त होत आहे.
२. स र कामगारांना कामार्वरुन कमी करण्याएर्वजी अ"र्वा ले ऑफ ेण्याएर्वजी कंपनीने त्यांना चिंचचोळी
औद्याेदिगत र्वसाहतीतील फौंड्रीमध्ये पयायी रोजगार दि नांक ०१/०२/२०१४ रोजीच्या नोटीशीद्वारे
उपलब्ध करुन दि ला होता र्व तसे रुजु होण्याकरिरता कळदिर्वले होते. त्याबाबत मा. साहाय्यक कामगार
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
आयुक्त सोलापूर यांच्याकडे र्वेळोर्वेळी चचा झालेली आहे र्व उभय प-ांनी सहमती सुध् ा शदिर्वली आहे
र्व त्याचा अंमलसुध् ा झालेला आहे. परंतु तुम्ही स र प्र!तार्व धुडकार्वून लार्वला र्व चिंचचोळी औद्याेदिगक
र्वसाहतीतील फौंड्रीत हजर होण्यास नकार दि लेला आहे र्व कामार्वर रुजू झालेला नाही.
३. तसेच तुम्ही ररोज कंपनीच्या आत मज[नुसार र्वेळी अर्वेळी प्रर्वेश करुन न करता बेशिश!तपणे र्वागणे,
कंपनीच्या अक्षिधकाऱ्यांशी हुज्जत घालणे, अनुक्षिचत बार्व आणणे असे गैरकृत्य केले आहे. तुम्ही कंपनीच्या
र्वरिरष्ठ अक्षिधकाऱ्याने दि लेल्या आ ेशाचे पालन करण्यास नकार दि ला असून त्यात कसूर केली आहे.
४. तुम्ही सोलापून इन चॅनेल या रू शन र्वरील !"ादिनक चॅनेलला मुलाखत ेर्वून कंपनी दिर्वरुध् खोटी,
आ-ेपाह र्व ब नामीकारक मादिहती दि लेली आहे. स र मुलाखतीचे जाहीर प्र-ेपण दि नांक
१२/०३/२०१४ रोजी झाल्याने कंपनीची ब नामी झाली आहे. तसेच जनमाणसातील नार्व लौकीकास
र्व प्रक्षितष्ठेस बाधा पोहचली आहे.
५. तुम्ही र्व तुमचे सहकामगार श्री पी ए जाधर्व (काड नंबर ०१२७), श्री ए जी काबंळे (काड नंबर २४११)
र्व श्री सी एस बोंडगे (काड नंबर २४२९) यांनी दि नांक १६/०६/२०१४ रोजी सकाळी ९.३० च्या
सुमारास प्लांट प्रमुख श्री मं ार कुलकण[ एच आर ऑदिफसमध्ये एच आर साहाय्यक श्री एस एच शि"टे
यांचेशी न ै ंदि न कामकाजाबाबत चचा चालू असताना तुम्ही र्व तुमचे र्वरील ३ सहकामगार कोणतीही
परर्वानगी न घेता एच आर ऑदिफसमध्ये आलात र्व प्लांट प्रमुखांशी, आम्हांला अक्कलकोट रोड ये"ील
युदिनट मध्येच कामाला का घेत नाही? असे असभ्य र्व अर्वाच्च भार्षाेत हुज्जत घातली आशिण म ाटीसुध् ा
केली आहे. याूपर्व[सुध् ा तुम्हांस अशा प्रकारच्या गैरर्वतनाबद्दल तोंडी ताकी ेण्यात आली होती, परंतु
तुमच्या र्वतणुकीत सुधारणा दि सून येत नाही. सबब तुमच्या अशा प्रकारच्या कृत्यामुळे कंपनीच्या
शिश!तीस बाधा पोहचून कंपनीचे र्वातार्वरण तणार्वाचे र्व हशतीचे झालेले आहे . तुम्ही कंपनीच्या
दिहतादिर्वरुध् कृत्ये केली आहेत.
६. तसेच तुम्ही र्व तुमचे सहकामगार श्री पी ए जाधर्व (काड नंबर ०१२७), श्री ए जी कांबळे (काड नंबर
२४११) र्व श्री सी एस बोंडगे (काड नंबर २४२९) यानी संगनमताने कंपनीतील अक्षिधकाऱ्यांदिर्वरुध्
आकसबुध् ीन दिफया ाखल केली / त्यास साहाय्य केले. यामुळे तुमचे कंपनीतील अस्थि!तत्र्व औद्याेदिगक
शांततेस बाधा आणणारे आहे. तुमच्या र्वतणुकीमुळे र्व गैरकृत्यामुळे कंपनीतील र्वातार्वरण तणार्वाचे ,
घबराटीचे र्व हशतीचे बनलेले आहे. सबब अशा परिरस्थि!"तीत खुल्या र्व दिनष्प- (Free & Fair
Environment) र्वातार्वरण नसल्यामुळे रिरतसर खातेदिनहाय चौकशी घेणे, पुरार्वा नों दिर्वणे र्व!तूतः र्व
प्रत्य-ात शक्य नाही.
७. र्वरील परिरस्थि!"तीमुळे तुम्ही कंपनीचा दिर्वश्वास गमार्वला (Loss of Confidence) आहे. सबब तुम्हास
दि नांक २९/०६/२०१४ पासून कंपनीच्या सेर्वेतून मुक्त करण्यात येत आहे. तुम्हांस ेय असलेल्या
काय ेशीर रकमांबाबत तुम्ही काग पत्रांची पूतता करार्वी र्व त नंतर काय ेशीर रकमां अ ा करण्यात
येईल याची नों घ्यार्वी.
दिप्रसिसजन कॅमशाफ्टस् लिलदिमटेडकरिरता
आर के काशिश
जनरल मॅनेजर - एच आर
17) Instead of conducting domestic inquiry, the Petitioner
chose to justify its action by leading evidence before the Labour
Court. Accordingly, the Petitioner examined Shri. Sanjiv
Nagnath Malvatkar as its witness, who led evidence about
happening of the events leading to issuance of the charge-sheet.
All the four workmen examined themselves in support of their
respective claims. I have gone through the evidence of witness
Sanjiv Nagnath Malwadkar, who has given a detailed account of
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
the events. After going through the evidence on record it is
difficult to hold that there is total absence of evidence on record
for complete exoneration of the Respondents.
18) Mr. Kazi has relied upon various Judgments of this
Court, as quoted above, in support of his contention that conduct
of domestic enquiry is mandatory condition before termination of
the services. However, it is equally well settled that in a given
case, the employer may not conduct departmental enquiry but
take the risk of proving the charges directly before the Labour
Court. Therefore, if evidence in support of misconduct is led
before the Labour Court, the issue of validity of termination is
required to be tested by considering the evidence led before the
Labour Court. In my view therefore there is some evidence on
record to prove the misconduct alleged in the termination letter.
The Labour Court had rightly appreciated this position and had
dismissed the complaints by its orders dated 3 March 2016.
19) As observed above, a special scheme was introduced by
the Petitioner management so as to prevent wholesale
retrenchment of employees and had offered them either alternate
job at Chincholi MIDC or compensation towards VRS. Under the
terms and conditions of the agreement, the workers were to be
paid compensation representing 90 days pay, compensation @ pay
for 15 days for each completed year of service and gratuity.
Though it is the case of the Respondent-workmen that the said
offer was never communicated to them, it become highly difficult
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
to belive said contention for at least two reasons. Firstly, the
notice was apparently published on the notice board of Akkalkot
Road MIDC foundry. Secondly, the notice was accompanied by
agreement executed with the recognized union. Once the terms
and conditions of settlement are agreed upon by the recognized
union, it was the duty of the concerned workmen to have
acquired the knowledge about options extended by the
management through the Union. I am therefore not inclined to
accept the contention of four workmen that they had no
knowledge about issuance of notice dated 27 January 2014.
20) Though the Labour Court had rightly appreciated the
above position, the Industrial Court has set aside the findings of
the Labour Court. Perusal of the order passed by the Industrial
Court would indicate that it has taken into consideration some of
the irrelevant factors such as payment of gratuity to the
Respondent-workmen. In my view, mere payment of gratuity to
the workmen does not ipso-facto render termination invalid.
Even a terminated employee is entitled to payment of gratuity.
Therefore, mere because gratuity is offered to the four workmen,
such action would not ipso-facto render termination invalid.
21) The Industrial Court has also failed to appreciate the
position that the case does not involve total absence of evidence.
It is well settled position of law that presence of some evidence
on record in a domestic enquiry would suffice the test of
preponderance of probability. In the present case, since domestic
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
enquiry was not conducted, the evidence has been led by the
Petitioner before the Labour Court. There is no finding recorded
by the Industrial Court that there is total absence of evidence on
record while directing reinstatement of the Respondent-
workmen. I am therefore not convinced with the reasoning
adopted by the Industrial Court for setting aside termination
and for directing reinstatement with full back wages.
22) At the same time, it must be noted that all the workmen
were offered the options of either working at Chincholi MIDC
foundry or to opt for voluntary retirement. If the Respondent-
employees were to opt for voluntary retirement, they would have
received handsome amount of compensation in the year 2014.
May be they were misguided in not accepting the option for
voluntary retirement offered to them in January 2014. The issue
is whether the compensation which the Respondent-employees
could have earned in 2014 is to be denied to them forever, merely
because they failed to exercise the option and later invited the
orders for termination. Considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, where the termination is not found to
be illegal, I am adopting unusual course by awarding
compensation as per the formula for VRS implemented by the
Petitioner vide notice dated 27 January 2014. Thus, Respondent-
employees can be paid the entire amount of compensation as per
option No.2 indicated in the agreement executed with the
recognized union. This would ensure that the Respondent-
workmen are paid some amount of compensation and at the same
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
time, no burden is put on the Petitioner-employer to pay back
wages to them.
23) Since, this Court has adopted the course of awarding
compensation to the four Respondents-workmen as per option
No.2 of voluntary retirement, which was offered to all the
employees by the Petitioner vide notice dated 27 January 2024, it
is not necessary to increase the length of this Judgment by
discussing ratio of various Judgments relied upon by Mr. Kazi.
Considering the fact that the compensation was payable to the
four Respondent-workmen in January 2014 and the same is
being paid to them now, it is appropriate that the amount of
compensation shall carry simple interest at the rate of 6% per
annum, from the date of termination i.e. 28 June 2014 till the
date of payment.
24) I accordingly proceed to pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) Judgments and Orders dated 12 October 2021
passed by the Member, Industrial Court,
Solapur are set aside.
(ii) Instead of grant of relief of reinstatement and
back wages, the Petitioner shall pay each of the
four Respondents-workmen all the benefits of
package payable as per option No.2 of the
agreement dated 28 January 2014, the amount
towards which shall represent lump-sum
6 March 2025
Chaitanya Judgment-1--Wp-1855-2022.doc
compensation payable to them in lieu of
reinstatement and backwages.
(iii) The Petitioner shall accordingly compute the
exact amount of compensation payable to each
of the four Respondent-workmen in accordance
with option No.2 and shall pay the said
amounts to them together with simple interest
@ 6% p.a. from 28 June 2014 till the date of
payment, within a period of eight weeks.
(iv) Beyond the compensation so awarded, the
Respondents shall not be entitled to any other
service related benefits from the Petitioner.
25) With the above directions, all the four Petitions are
partly allowed. Rule is made partly absolute. There shall be no
orders as to costs.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
6 March 2025
