Gujarat High Court
Aarti Industries Ltd vs Shabbirbhai Rahimbhai Vora on 4 August, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2724 of 2021
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
YES
==========================================================
AARTI INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
SHABBIRBHAI RAHIMBHAI VORA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
ARJUN R SHETH(7589) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR P C CHAUDHARI(5770) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 04/08/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate
Mr.Chaudhari waives service of notice of Rule on
behalf of the respondent No.1.
2. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the
award dated 15.10.2018 passed by the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Labour Court, Vadodara in Reference (LCB) No.111 of
2011.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner is
engaged in the business of manufacturing specialty
chemicals and pharmaceuticals used in the
downstream production of pharmaceuticals,
agrochemicals, polymers, additives, surfactants,
pigments, and dyes. Respondent No.1 was employed
as an Effluent Treatment Plant Operator with the
petitioner from 01.09.2008
3.1. The respondent No.1 committed serious
misconduct at the workplace of the petitioner
company by discharging COD influent measuring
4801 ppm instead of the permissible 1000 ppm
COD limit into the BEAIL pipeline on 18.05.2009
and 22.05.2009. Moreover, the respondent misled
his superiors and the management regarding the
test results. This act resulted in the disconnection
of the water supply and halted production for three
days, thereby tarnishing the reputation of the
petitioner company and attracting a substantial
penalty imposed by the BEAIL authorities.
3.2. Pursuant to a written complaint received by the
petitioner on 09.06.2009, a show-cause notice was
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
issued to the respondent on 10.06.2009, alleging
that on the aforementioned dates 18.05.2009 and
22.05.2009 the respondent had falsely informed
that the effluent discharge was within the
permissible limits prescribed by BEAIL, when in
fact it exceeded the threshold COD level.
Consequently, the petitioner received a notice of
disconnection of water supply from GIDC.
3.3. The show-cause notice clearly stated that such
conduct amounted to gross misconduct.
Thereafter, as the respondent failed to report for
duty from 06.06.2009 onwards, the petitioner
called upon him to submit an appropriate
explanation as to why disciplinary action should
not be initiated.
3.4. In response, the respondent approached the
Assistant Labour Commissioner, alleging oral
termination of service w.e.f. 08.06.2009, by filing a
complaint dated 22.06.2009. The said complaint
was registered as IDR Case No. 159 of 2009 and a
notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.06.2009
directing appearance before the Assistant Labour
Commissioner on 08.07.2009 at 12:00 p.m.
3.5. Respondent No.1 submitted his reply to the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
show cause notice on 11.07.2009, after a delay of
approximately one month, contending that the
notice was not served in the Gujarati language and
that since he had already approached the learned
Assistant Labour Commissioner, he was unable to
furnish the reply in time. The petitioner, by way of
communication dated 15.07.2009, narrated the
entire incident before the learned Assistant Labour
Commissioner, stating that an attempt was made
to serve a Gujarati-translated show-cause notice
upon Respondent No.1. However, Respondent No.1
refused to accept the same and, instead of
accepting the notice, addressed a letter to the
Assistant Labour Commissioner alleging that he
had not been reinstated by the petitioner.
3.6. Respondent No.1 was served with the Gujarati
version of the show cause notice on 15.07.2009,
and thereafter, the learned Assistant Labour
Commissioner referred the dispute to the learned
Labour Court, Bharuch, on 17.07.2009.
Subsequently, on 25.07.2009, Respondent No.1
filed a reply to the allegations levelled in the show
cause notice, denying the charges pertaining to
the release of effluent water with excess COD
levels and asserting that such discharge was made
under the instructions of his superior.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
3.7. A departmental inquiry was initiated on
03.08.2009, which was duly intimated to the
petitioner, along with a direction that Respondent
No.1 resume his duties during the pendency of the
inquiry. During the proceedings, the Inquiry Officer
provided adequate opportunities to both parties,
and Respondent No.1 was called upon to appear
and defend himself on multiple occasions i.e. on,
03.08.2009, 06.08.2009, 17.08.2009, 28.08.2009,
11.09.2009, 26.09.2009, 09.10.2009, 27.10.2009,
and 09.11.2009. However, Respondent No.1
consistently avoided participation and failed to
avail the opportunities to present his defence.
3.8. Ultimately, based on the findings of the Inquiry
Officer, a second show cause notice was issued on
12.12.2009, which too remained unanswered.
Consequently, an order of termination was passed
on 03.03.2010, with effect from 04.03.2010,
terminating the services of Respondent No.1.
3.9. Challenging the said termination order,
Respondent No.1 preferred the impugned
Reference. After evaluating the evidence adduced
by both sides, the learned Labour Court, by its
order dated 27.02.2017, held the departmental
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
inquiry to be illegal, unreasonable, and improper.
The petitioner examined two witnesses before the
Court, namely Anil Kumar K. Jain (Exh. 74) and
Sukhwas K. S. Devkar (Exh. 76), to substantiate
the charges. However, the learned Labour Court,
by judgment and award dated 15.10.2018, allowed
the Reference and directed the petitioner to
reinstate Respondent No.1 with 100% back wages
and all consequential benefits, along with costs of
Rs.1,000/-, which is the subject matter of
challenge in the present petition.
3.10.Thereafter, Recovery (C-2) Application No.104 of
2009 came to be filed, and it was at that point of
time that the petitioner gained knowledge about
the impugned award. Accordingly, the present
petition has been filed in the year 2021
challenging the award passed in the year 2018.
4. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Arjun Sheth and
Mr.P.C.Choudhury for the respective parties.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth submits that the
respondent had filed two References against the
petitioner and had subsequently withdrawn
Reference Case No. 190 of 2009, which was filed
prior to the date of termination. Learned advocate
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Mr. Sheth further submits that during the cross-
examination of respondent No.1, it has been
admitted that the respondent had committed
misconduct by releasing effluent water with higher
COD levels. However, the learned Presiding Officer
has erred in not taking this crucial admission into
consideration while passing the impugned award.
5.1. Learned advocate Mr. Sheth submits that the
petitioner had produced on record the documents
showing the damage caused, including the notices
issued by the GIDC, and had also placed on record
the scope of responsibilities and instructions given
to all ETP (Effluent Treatment Plant) operators
below Exhibit 77. However, the learned Labour
Court has erroneously accepted the sole defence
raised by the respondent that the misconduct was
committed under the instructions of his superior. It
is further submitted by the learned advocate Mr.
Sheth that the respondent had deliberately
avoided participating in the inquiry proceedings
before the inquiry officer and, at a later stage,
attempted to plead that the disciplinary
proceedings were not conducted in a fair and
proper manner. It is submitted by the learned
advocate Mr. Sheth that ample opportunity was
granted to respondent No.1 to defend himself in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
the departmental inquiry. However, when
respondent No.1 deliberately chose not to appear
and made attempts to avoid the inquiry, such
conduct disentitle him from raising grievances
against the inquiry proceedings. Despite these
facts, the learned Labour Court failed to appreciate
the record in its proper perspective and
erroneously allowed the Reference in favour of the
respondent.
5.2. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.
Sheth that the guidelines issued by the Gujarat
Pollution Control Board (GPCB) are stringent in
nature, and any discharge of effluent water with a
higher COD level than prescribed by any industry
may directly result in the closure of that industry.
In the present case, respondent No.1 committed
such misconduct not just once, but on two
occasions, thereby continuously violating the
prescribed norms. Such repeated misconduct
posed a serious threat to the continuation of the
petitioner's operations and could have led to the
closure of the company. However, without properly
appreciating the gravity of the misconduct and the
consequences thereof, the learned Labour Court
has erroneously allowed the Reference in favour of
the respondent. Therefore, the impugned award is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
required to be interfered with and quashed, and
the present petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. P.C. Chaudhary,
appearing for the respondent-workman, has
submitted that the respondent was working as an
ETP Operator since 01.09.2008 and was drawing a
salary of ₹6,240/- per month. It is submitted that the
respondent had an unblemished service record and
the allegations regarding the discharge of effluent
water with higher COD were false and baseless. He
was allegedly subjected to mental harassment by the
in-charge officers, Mr. Rameshwar and Mr. Robin,
with an intention to shield the company from possible
pollution-related proceedings. The termination order
was passed on 08.06.2009 without affording him a
reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Even the
show cause notice that was issued was in
contravention of the principles of natural justice.
6.1. It is further submitted by the learned advocate
Mr.Chaudhary that the respondent was not
permitted to remain present during the
departmental inquiry proceedings, nor was he
served with the documentary evidence relied upon
during the inquiry. No opportunity to cross-
examine any of the witnesses was granted, and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
the entire inquiry was conducted in a biased and
predetermined manner. Learned advocate Mr.
Chaudhary also submits that prior to terminating
the services of the respondent, his legal dues were
not paid in accordance with law. Therefore, the
learned Labour Court has rightly passed the award
in favour of the respondent, and no interference is
warranted by this Court.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocates for the respective parties and on
perusal of the documentary evidence on record, it is
undisputed that the legality and validity of the
departmental inquiry was challenged, and the
learned Labour Court, by an order below Exhibit 11,
held that the inquiry was not conducted in a proper
manner and was in violation of the principles of
natural justice.
7.1. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner filed
an application below Exhibit 73 seeking permission
to lead evidence to establish the charges against
the respondent. The said application was allowed,
and in order to prove the charges, the petitioner
examined two witnesses below Exhibits 74 and 76.
7.2. From the evidence of the petitioner's witness,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
namely Mr. Anilkumar Khemdas Jain, it emerges
that no Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for
the treatment of polluted water was produced on
record, nor was any job description of the
respondent brought on record. It is further
revealed that on 18.05.2009 and 22.05.2009, the
respondent was on night shift, while his superior
officer, Mr. Robin John, was not present. Mr. Shyam
Dekekar was the plant in-charge for both those
days. As per the instructions of the superior officer,
the respondent was required to carry out his duties
accordingly.
7.3. Similarly, from the evidence of the second
witness, Mr. Deva Devkar, examined below Exhibit
46, it stands established that the said witness was
on general shift on 18.05.2009 and 22.05.2009,
whereas the respondent was on night shift. It is
further admitted by the witness that no evidence
was produced either during the inquiry
proceedings or before the Labour Court to
substantiate the allegation that the company was
shut down for three days or that any penalty was
imposed due to the alleged discharge of effluent.
7.4. From the evidence of the respondent, it is
brought on record that, as an ETP Operator, his
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
responsibility was limited to measuring the inflow
of water into the plant. The measurement of water
was determined by the chemist, and prior to
discharging the water, he was required to obtain
permission from the plant in-charge or manager.
On 18.05.2009, such permission was orally
obtained from Mr. Robin John and Mr. Rameshwar.
Though there is no documentary proof of the
same, it is admitted that on 18.05.2009 and
22.05.2009, the PPM COD level of the discharged
water was more than 1000, which exceeded the
limit prescribed by BEAIL.
7.5. It is also relevant to note that the respondent
had earlier filed Reference (LCB) No. 190 of 2009,
which was subsequently withdrawn by him.
8. In addition to the above evidence, it further emerges
from the record that the respondent was served with
a show cause notice dated 10.06.2009. The
Presenting Officer submitted the relevant documents
on 13.08.2009. On the first date of the inquiry
proceedings, though the respondent was absent, two
witnesses Mr. Robin John and Mr. Pragnesh Joshi were
examined by the Inquiry Officer.
8.1. Thereafter, the proceedings were adjourned to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
28.08.2009, on which date the respondent
requested permission to be represented by an
advocate. The said request was rejected, and the
respondent was informed that he may be
represented by a co-employee. Despite this, the
stage for cross-examination was closed, and the
matter was adjourned to 11.09.2009.
8.2. Due to the respondent's absence on
11.09.2009, the proceedings were further
adjourned to 09.10.2009. On that day, the
management produced a communication dated
26.09.2009 from the respondent, wherein he
stated that he was not allowed entry into the
inquiry venue by the security guard and, therefore,
requested a change in the place of inquiry.
8.3. However, relying upon the statement of the
management, the inquiry was scheduled on
31.10.2009. On the said date, due to the Inquiry
Officer undergoing cataract surgery, the
proceedings were again adjourned and ultimately
concluded on 07.11.2009.
8.4. The inquiry was started on 13.08.2009 and
concluded on 07.11.2009 on the first day itself in
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
the absence of the workman two witnesses were
examined an on the second day while granting the
time to engage to represent through co-employee
has closed the stage of cross examination. It is
well settled law that any action taken by the
employer against the employee must be fair, just
and reasonable. In order to impose procedural
safeguard the requirement of natural justice would
imply condition. The principle of natural justice
also mandate that justice should not only be done,
but should manifestly and undoubtedly seem to
have been done and nothing is to be done which
creates even suspicion that that has been
improper interference with the course of justice. A
hearing given with bias mind will never be fair
hearing. Similarly authority would take action
against person may be totally honest, impartial
and disinterested but if such decision is not
preceded by hearing of the affected person, then it
would violate the concept of fairness in action. At
this stage, reference of decision rendered by the
Apex Court in the case of State of
Uttaranchaland others vs. Kharak Singh,
reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236 is required to be
made.
"15.From the above decisions, the following principles
would emerge :
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
(I)The enquiries must be conducted bonafide and care
must be taken to see that theen quiries do not become
empty formalities.
(II) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents
which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry
was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fair ness
he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position
becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry
Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that
the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other
officer.
(iii ) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take
steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent
charged, give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the
witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the
workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any
evidence and asked to give any explanation about the
evidence led against him.
(iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding
further, it is incumbent on the part of the
disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the
enquiry re port and all connected materials relied on by the
enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any."
9. At this stage, reference is required to be made to the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B.
Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727, wherein
it has been held that the principles of natural justice
are fundamental to any fair adjudicatory process, and
any breach thereof would vitiate the decision-making
process. The two cardinal principles of natural justice
are: (i) the authority deciding the matter must be
free from bias, and (ii) the person affected by the
decision must be given an opportunity of being
heard.
10. In view of the above, it clearly emerges that the
inquiry proceedings suffered from procedural
irregularities and a breach of the principles of natural
justice. Examining the witness on the same day in
absence of the delinquent employee, the denial of an
opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, the rejection
of the request to engage an advocate, and the
refusal to change the venue of the inquiry
cumulatively indicate a biased approach, vitiating the
fairness of the inquiry. Moreover, the management
failed to produce any cogent evidence to establish
the alleged loss caused to the establishment, nor
were such documents placed on record before the
learned Labour Court. In the writ jurisdiction, this
Court cannot entertain or examine documents that
were not part of the proceedings before the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2724/2021 JUDGMENT DATED: 04/08/2025
undefined
Labour Court. Therefore, no interference is warranted
with the well reasoned award passed by the learned
Labour Court in favour of the respondent.
11. Considering the overall circumstances, this Court is
of the view that, as the petitioner failed to establish
the guilt of the respondent before the learned Labour
Court, the learned Court was justified in allowing the
Reference filed by the respondent and directing the
petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 100%
back wages and all other consequential benefits.
12. Resultantly, the present petition fails and is hereby
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
