[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Managing Director, Pune Mahanagar ... vs Dinesh Gangaram Mud (Phad) on 10 April, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:17142
wp-6042-2019.doc
Shabnoor
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6042 OF 2019
Managing Director,
Pune Mahanagar Parivahan
Mahamandal Ltd.,
A Company Formed under Companies
Act, having its office at:-
PMT Building,
Swargate, Pune - 411 037. ... Petitioner
SHABNOOR
AYUB
PATHAN V/s.
Digitally signed
by SHABNOOR
AYUB PATHAN
Date: 2026.04.10 Dinesh Gangaram Mud (Phad)
12:31:52 +0530
Age - Adult, Occ: Service
C/o - Umesh Gawale, 300,
Narayan Peth, Pune - 30. ... Respondent
Ms, Madhavi M. Tavanandi, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Poonam Pal i/b Mr. Sachin Hande, for the
Respondent.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
RESERVED ON : APRIL 9, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 10, 2026
JUDGMENT:
1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner has assailed the order
dated 1 August 2017 passed in Reference (IDA) No. 487 of 2010
by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court at Pune, whereby
the termination of the Respondent has been held to be illegal, and
wp-6042-2019.doc
consequential directions have been issued to the Petitioner to
reinstate the Respondent in service with continuity, along with
payment of 25% back wages.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present proceedings are
that the Respondent came to be engaged with the Petitioner as a
Badli Driver in or about the year 1994. It is the specific case of the
Petitioner that throughout the tenure of his engagement, the
Respondent remained habitually absent and demonstrated a
pattern of indiscipline. On several occasions, disciplinary
proceedings were initiated against him for acts of misconduct. It is
further contended that the Respondent was repeatedly cautioned
and warned regarding his unauthorized absence, however, such
warnings did not yield any improvement in his conduct.
3. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent remained
absent from duty during the period from 8 March 1999 to 12 April
1999 without assigning any satisfactory reason. The service record
placed on record indicates that the Respondent had a history of
prolonged absenteeism, including absence without pay for a period
of 162 days and further absence of 113 days during his service
tenure. In view of such continued absence, the Petitioner issued a
notice dated 26 April 1999 calling upon the Respondent to report
for duty and to furnish an explanation for his absence, with a clear
stipulation that failure to comply would entail removal of his name
from the muster roll. Despite receipt of the said notice, the
Respondent failed to resume his duties until 9 June 1999. In these
circumstances, the Petitioner proceeded to terminate the services
of the Respondent with effect from 10 June 1999.
wp-6042-2019.doc
4. Per contra, it is the case of the Respondent that the Petitioner
had conferred permanency upon certain workmen who were junior
to him and had extended to them all attendant benefits. The
Respondent asserts that he had, on multiple occasions, raised a
demand for grant of similar benefits, which was not acceded to by
the Petitioner. According to the Respondent, his services were
abruptly terminated on 10 June 1999 without issuance of any
notice or payment in lieu thereof and without compliance with the
mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. It is further alleged that the Petitioner failed to publish
a seniority list as required under law. The Respondent thereafter
raised an industrial dispute by filing a Statement of Claim in the
year 2010, that is, after a delay of approximately eleven years from
the date of termination, without offering any satisfactory
explanation for such delay. The Petitioner opposed the said
proceedings by filing its Written Statement, denying the
allegations and justifying the action of termination.
5. Upon consideration of the pleadings and the evidence
adduced on record, the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pune, by the impugned order dated 1 August 2017, came to the
conclusion that the termination of the Respondent was illegal and
accordingly directed reinstatement with continuity of service and
payment of 25% back wages. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with the said findings and directions, the Petitioner has preferred
the present Petition.
6. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Petitioner
submits that the averments contained in paragraph 6 of the
wp-6042-2019.doc
Statement of Claim are factually incorrect and do not represent the
true and correct position. It is contended that the Respondent
remained absent from duty during the period from 8 March 1999
to 12 April 1999, for which medical certificates were submitted.
However, it is further submitted that for the period subsequent to
12 April 1999, the Respondent was under an obligation to furnish
medical certificates explaining his continued absence, which he
failed to produce. It is further submitted that the Senior Time
Keeper, by his report dated 25 April 1999, apprised the Depot
Manager of the continued absence of the Respondent and
forwarded therewith the attendance record of Shri Phad. The said
record indicated that during the period from 1 June 1998 to 31
March 1999, the Respondent had remained absent without pay for
162 days and had further remained unauthorizedly absent for an
additional period of 113 days. On the basis of the said material,
the Depot Manager issued a notice dated 26 April 1999 bearing
No. PMT/DM/NTW/435 to the Respondent, which was dispatched
by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due at the address furnished
by the Respondent to the Management.
7. The said notice expressly stipulated that in the event the
Respondent failed to furnish a satisfactory explanation for his
absence and to resume duties, his name would be liable to be
removed from the muster roll in accordance with the applicable
Standing Orders governing the establishment. It is further
contended that in view of the provisions contained in Standing
Order 14(4), the holding of a formal domestic enquiry was not
mandatory in the facts of the present case. Reliance is placed on
wp-6042-2019.doc
Standing Order 14(4), which provides that an employee who
remains absent beyond the period of leave originally sanctioned or
subsequently extended shall be liable to forfeit his lien on
appointment unless he reports back within the stipulated period
and satisfactorily explains his inability to resume duty. It further
provides that failure to report within fifteen days from the expiry
of leave shall result in the employee being treated as having
voluntarily left service from the date he was required to resume
duty. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is submitted on behalf of
the Petitioner that the impugned order dated 1 August 2017
suffers from serious infirmities and is unsustainable in law, and
therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside.
8. Per contra, the learned Advocate appearing for the
Respondent submits, on the aspect of delay in seeking reference,
that the Apex Court in the case of Mahavirsingh v. U.P. State
Electricity Board and Others, reported in 1999 (2) CLR 7, has held
that a reference cannot be rejected solely on the ground of delay. It
is further submitted that the said judgment also takes note of
Clause 29(5) of the PMT Standing Orders. For ready reference,
Clause 29(5) provides that an employee other than a permanent
employee may leave or be discharged from service upon 24 hours'
notice or payment in lieu thereof; however, the services of a
temporary employee cannot be terminated by way of punishment
unless he is afforded an opportunity to explain the charges of
misconduct in the manner prescribed under Standing Order 26.
9. The learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the
termination order dated 9 June 1999 clearly discloses that the
wp-6042-2019.doc
services of the Respondent were brought to an end on account of
misconduct, namely absenteeism. It is therefore contended that the
termination is punitive and stigmatic in nature and cannot be
treated as a termination simplicitor. It is further submitted that in
view of the mandate contained in Standing Orders 26 and 29(5), it
was incumbent upon the Petitioner to afford the Respondent a
reasonable opportunity to explain the alleged misconduct. Though
it is the case of the Petitioner that a notice dated 26 April 1999
was issued by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due, the
acknowledgment was returned with the postal endorsement "not
known, return to sender." During the course of cross-examination,
the Respondent denied having received the said notice and stated
that he had seen the same only upon its production by the
Petitioner in the proceedings. In such circumstances, it is
contended that the burden lay upon the Petitioner to establish
valid service of the said notice at the correct address. Even
assuming that service could be presumed, it was still incumbent
upon the Petitioner to comply with the mandatory procedure
prescribed under Standing Orders 26 and 29(5). The failure to
adhere to such procedure vitiates the action of termination and
renders it illegal.
10. It is further submitted that subsequent to his termination, the
Respondent made efforts to secure alternative employment but
was unable to obtain any permanent employment. It is pointed out
that the Petitioner has not led any evidence to demonstrate that
the Respondent was gainfully employed during the intervening
period. At the same time, it is acknowledged that the Respondent
wp-6042-2019.doc
must have engaged in some form of work to sustain his livelihood.
The Respondent raised an industrial dispute before the
Government Labour Officer on 3 May 2010, which was after a
lapse of approximately eleven years from the date of termination.
In view of such delay, it is submitted that the Respondent would
not be entitled to back wages for the period prior to 3 May 2010.
However, considering that the Petitioner is a public limited
undertaking providing essential transport services, it would be just
and proper to award 25% back wages from the date of raising the
dispute, i.e., 3 May 2010, till reinstatement. Accordingly, Issue No.
2 is sought to be answered. Upon consideration of the entire
material on record and the applicable provisions, it is submitted
that the Respondent had rendered continuous service from 1 June
1994 to 9 June 1999, having worked for approximately 240 days
in each year. His services came to be terminated with effect from
10 June 1999 on the ground of alleged misconduct, namely
absenteeism, and such termination was purportedly effected under
Clause 29(5) of the PMT Standing Orders, thereby rendering it
stigmatic in nature.
11. It is further contended that the Petitioner was under an
obligation to conduct a proper disciplinary enquiry in terms of
Clause 26 of the Standing Orders, which was not undertaken.
Additionally, it is submitted that the Petitioner failed to comply
with the mandatory requirements of issuing notice or payment in
lieu thereof, and did not pay legal dues or retrenchment
compensation as contemplated under Section 25-F of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the aforesaid premises, it is
wp-6042-2019.doc
submitted that the Petitioner has failed to establish that the
termination of the Respondent was legal and justified. On the
contrary, the Respondent has succeeded in demonstrating that his
services were illegally terminated with effect from 10 June 1999. It
is therefore prayed that the impugned order dated 1 August 2017
passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pune, be
upheld, and that the Petitioner be directed to reinstate the
Respondent with continuity of service and payment of 25% back
wages from 3 May 2010 till the date of reinstatement.
REASONS AND ANALYSIS:
12. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and
having gone through the material placed on record, this Court
finds that the real question is not only about the manner in which
the Respondent's service came to an end, but also whether such a
stale dispute, raised after an inordinate lapse of about eleven
years, could at all have been entertained for grant of reinstatement
and back wages. The record shows that the Respondent was
engaged as a Badli Driver in the year 1994. It is also seen that his
service record was not clean. The Petitioner has placed on record
instances of repeated absence and prior warnings. The Respondent
does not seriously dispute that there was a period of absence from
8 March 1999 to 12 April 1999. His stand is that medical
certificates were given for that period, but after 12 April 1999 he
did not submit proper explanation or supporting medical papers.
That itself shows that the absence did not stand properly explained
before the Management.
wp-6042-2019.doc
13. The evidence further shows that the Senior Time Keeper
informed the Depot Manager by report dated 25 April 1999 that
the Respondent had remained absent for long periods and that his
attendance record disclosed 162 days of absence without pay and
113 days of additional unauthorized absence during the relevant
period. Based on that record, the Depot Manager issued notice
dated 26 April 1999 by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due at
the address supplied by the Respondent himself. The notice called
upon him to explain his absence and to resume duty, failing which
his name would be removed from the muster roll. The notice was a
clear intimation that continued absence would be treated seriously
under the Standing Orders. The Respondent has denied receipt,
but the postal endorsement was "not known, return to sender".
Even if service is assumed to be not fully proved in the strictest
sense, the material still shows that the Management took steps in
the ordinary course at the address given by the workman. In
industrial matters, the Court must see the substance also. The
substance here is that the Respondent remained away and did not
come back in time.
14. The argument of the Respondent is that the termination was
punitive and stigmatic because it was based on misconduct of
absenteeism, and therefore a disciplinary enquiry ought to have
been held. There is some force in the broad statement that where
punishment is imposed after alleging misconduct, the principles of
natural justice cannot be ignored. But the present case has to be
read with the standing conditions of service and the actual conduct
of the Respondent. Standing Order 14(4) makes it clear that when
wp-6042-2019.doc
an employee remains absent beyond the sanctioned leave and does
not return within the stipulated period, he may lose lien on the
appointment and may be treated as having left service. That is an
important provision. It shows that in cases of prolonged
unauthorized absence, the consequence is not always a regular
disciplinary punishment after a full enquiry. The management can
act on the admitted absence and non return, if the conditions in
the Standing Order are fulfilled.
15. The Respondent's own case does not improve matters much.
He says that junior employees were made permanent and that he
was denied similar benefit. That grievance, even if accepted for a
moment, does not answer the basic issue of his own repeated
absence. The demand about permanency and seniority does not
give licence to remain absent without proper intimation for long
periods. The statement of claim was filed in the year 2010, almost
eleven years after the alleged termination of 10 June 1999. This is
not a small or technical delay. It is a very long delay. In such
matters the Court cannot ignore the fact that industrial dispute law
does not prescribe a fixed limitation, yet the dispute must still be
raised within a reasonable time. The law declared in U.P. SRTC v.
Babu Ram (2006) 5 SCC 433, Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P.
Madhavankutty (2000) 2 SCC 455 , and S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom
District Manager (2003) 4 SCC 27 shows that there is no universal
formula, but at the same time a stale and dead dispute cannot be
revived as if it were live and fresh. The workman must show some
reason for the delay. Here, no proper reason is shown. The
Respondent slept over the matter for nearly eleven years. That
wp-6042-2019.doc
itself creates a serious doubt about the fairness of the claim for
reinstatement with back wages. It is also important that the
Respondent did not place convincing material to show that he had
approached the Conciliation machinery or the appropriate forum
within any reasonable time after the alleged termination. The
argument that delay by itself cannot defeat a reference is correct
only in part. The real test is whether the dispute remained alive
and whether the workman was diligent. In the present case, the
record does not show any such diligence. There is also no material
to show that relevant evidence was preserved or that the
Respondent was kept away by any conduct of the employer. On the
contrary, the delay is unexplained and long. Therefore, applying
the settled principles, this Court finds that the dispute had become
stale by the time it was raised. Once the dispute became stale, the
Labour Court ought to have been slow in granting the extreme
relief of reinstatement and back wages.
16. The award of 25% back wages from the date of dispute also
cannot stand on the facts of the present case. Back wages are not
to be given as a matter of course. They depend on the conduct of
the workman, the length of delay, the nature of employment, and
the manner in which the service came to an end. Here the
Respondent remained absent for long periods. He did not return in
time after notice. He also waited for about eleven years before
raising the dispute. In such a factual setting, even if some relief
were to be considered, full or partial back wages would still be
difficult to justify. The Labour Court seems to have proceeded as if
delay had no meaning. That approach is not correct. Once the
wp-6042-2019.doc
claim itself was stale, the monetary relief also loses its foundation.
17. The plea that Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act was
violated also does not help the Respondent in the manner claimed.
The Petitioner's case is not a simple retrenchment of a workman
who was otherwise continuously available. The foundation of
action is long and unauthorized absence, return to duty was not
made, and the Standing Orders themselves provide for loss of lien
and treatment as having left service. When the workman does not
report back despite notice and the service record shows repeated
absenteeism, the case cannot be read in the same way as a plain
retrenchment without fault. In any case, the Respondent has not
been able to cross the first and most basic hurdle of delay. So even
if there were some arguable issue on the mode of termination, the
stale nature of the dispute by itself goes against the relief granted
by the Labour Court.
18. For these reasons, the impugned order dated 1 August 2017
passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Pune, in
Reference (IDA) No. 487 of 2010 cannot be sustained. The Labour
Court did not give due weight to the unexplained delay of about
eleven years. It also did not properly appreciate the effect of the
Respondent's prolonged absenteeism, the notice issued by the
Management, and the Standing Orders governing the service
conditions. The findings on illegality of termination and grant of
reinstatement with continuity and back wages are therefore liable
to be interfered with.
wp-6042-2019.doc
19. The following order is passed:
(i) The Writ Petition is allowed;
(ii) The impugned Judgment and Award dated 1 August
2017 passed by the Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Pune in Reference (IDA) No. 487 of 2010 is quashed and set
aside;
(iii) The Reference (IDA) No. 487 of 2010 stands dismissed;
(iv) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms;
(v) There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed
of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
