Navinchandra Hiralal Patel vs The Arvind Mills Ltd.
2021 Latest Caselaw 6526 Guj

    C/SCA/13099/2020                             ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

          R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13099 of 2020

                                With
             R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 479 of 2021
==================================================
                        ARVIND MILLS LIMITED
                               Versus
                       NAVINBHAI HIRALAL PATEL
==================================================
Appearance:
MR DG CHAUHAN(218) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
RONAK D CHAUHAN(7709) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==================================================

  CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH A. TRIVEDI

                          Date : 21/06/2021

                             ORAL ORDER

Heard Mr.D.G.Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No.13099 of 2020 (herein after referred to as the 'Employer') and Mr.P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate who is respondent in Special Civil Application No.13099 of 2020 but has filed petition being Special Civil Application No.479 of 2021 (herein after referred to as the 'Employee'). Since in both the petitions challenge is to the judgment and order dated 20 th February, 2020 passed in Appeal (IC) No.21 of 2016 passed by Industrial Court, Ahmedabad, both these petitions are heard together.

The 'Employee' was terminated after conducting disciplinary proceedings against him for the alleged misconduct of assaulting and hurling filthy abuses to the superior officer. The Inquiry Officer after conducting an inquiry reached conclusion that misconduct is proved. Therefore, he was terminated. The 'Employee', therefore, preferred T Application No.190 of 2004 before the Labour Court under Section 78

C/SCA/13099/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

and 79 of the Gujarat Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (for short, 'the Act') challenging the finding of Inquiry Officer and challenging the decision of the 'Employer' terminating him from the service. Apart from earlier round of litigation about remanding the matter back by the Industrial Court, ultimately, Industrial Court allowed the appeal. The Labour Court vide judgment and order dated 17.9.2016 rejected application preferred by the 'Employee' against which, he preferred appeal as aforesaid before the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad.

The Industrial Court, Ahmedabad allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the Labour Court, quashed the order of termination dated 26.6.2004 passed by the 'Employer' and directed reinstatement of the 'Employee' to his original post with continuity of service and 50% of back wages.

Aggrieved by the said order, 'Employee' as also 'Employer' have challenged the judgment and order before this Court by aforesaid respective petitions.

Mr.D.G.Chauhan, learned advocate for the 'Employer' submitted that the finding recorded by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad are not in accordance with law as the Industrial Court has examined the decision of the Inquiry Officer and appreciated the evidence adduced before him as if he is conducting a criminal trial. According to his submission, standard of proof as required in the criminal trial and the departmental proceedings is different. He has submitted that ignoring the core issue about assault on the superior officer with the corroborative evidence in the nature of witnesses as also documentary evidence in the form of certificate issued by Sterling Hospital as also the deposition of Nurse, Shantaben, the Industrial Court has traveled beyond its jurisdiction. Therefore, he has

C/SCA/13099/2020 ORDER DATED: 21/06/2021

submitted that matter requires consideration.

As against that, Mr.P.C.Chaudhari, learned advocate for the 'Employee' submitted that jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Sections 78 and 79 of 'the Act' is different and wide than the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, he has submitted that scrutinizing the evidence before the Inquiry officer while hearing appeal by the Industrial Court, it cannot be said that he has exceeded the jurisdiction. He has further submitted that evidence adduced before the Inquiry Officer is not supported by any corroborative evidence and it lacks corroboration by an eye-witness. Therefore, he has submitted that he has challenged the decision of the Industrial Court so far as awarding only 50% of back wages at-least from the year 2014 when the matter was remanded back to the Labour Court by the Industrial Court.

Considering the competing claims by the 'Employer' and 'Employee', matters require deep scrutiny. Hence, Rule in both these petitions. Respective advocates waive service of notice of rule in each of the petitions.

Considering the fact that assaulting superior officer and hurling filthy abuses being a serious misconduct and when that part is to be examined by this Court, it would be desirable that impugned judgment and order is stayed subject to the statutory rights of the parties concerned. Hence, impugned judgment and award passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmedabad in Appeal (IC) No.21 of 2016 dated 20th February, 2020 is hereby stayed.

(UMESH A. TRIVEDI, J) ASHISH M. GADHIYA