Gujarat High Court
Jashwantlal Mahashankar Sompura vs Manager / Chairman on 3 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8698 of 2025
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
NO
==========================================================
JASHWANTLAL MAHASHANKAR SOMPURA
Versus
MANAGER / CHAIRMAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
KHUSHAL G. RATHOD (18086) for the Petitioner (s) No.1
ANURADHA G RATHOD(7717) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR GK RATHOD(2386) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 03/07/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, challenging the order dated
21.10.2022 passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal
in Appeal No.59 of 2013, whereby the order dated
31.07.2012 passed by the learned Labour Court in T.
Application No.13 of 1996, confirming the dismissal
order passed during the departmental inquiry, was
upheld.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
2. Gist of the case is that the petitioner was appointed
by the respondent-Bank as a Clerk on 08.12.1972
and was subsequently parmanent to the post of Clerk
with effect from 01.04.1974 thereafter promoted as
Assistant In-charge-cum-Cashier. He was transferred
to the Vidhyamandir Branch of the Bank, where
another employee, Mr.P.S.Patel, was working as an
Clerk. It was found that the petitioner, in collusion
with the said employee, had misappropriated funds
of the Bank. Consequently, a suspension order was
issued to the petitioner on 27.12.1991, followed by a
show cause notice dated 13.09.1994. A departmental
inquiry was initiated on 15.10.1994; however, the
petitioner obtained interim relief from the Civil Court
staying the inquiry proceedings.
2.1. Upon vacation of the said interim relief, the
departmental inquiry resumed on 18.12.1995 and
was concluded on 12.01.1996. After considering
the explanation offered by the petitioner, the
respondent passed the termination order dated
21.06.1996. The said order was challenged by the
petitioner by filing an application under the
Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
2.2. The learned Labour Court vide order dated
13.12.2010 below Exhibit 58 held that the
departmental inquiry was illegal, permitted the
respondent to lead evidence. The respondent
successfully proved the charges against the
petitioner, and the termination order was held to
be legal and valid. The said order was challenged
by the petitioner in an appeal, which also came to
be dismissed. The present petition is filed
challenging the concurrent findings of both the
courts below.
3. Heard the learned advocate Ms.Anuradha Rathod for
the petitioner.
4. Learned advocate Ms. Rathod submits that the
petitioner had served with the respondent Bank for
more than 24 years, and the show-cause notice was
issued after a lapse of four years from the date of the
suspension order. She further submits that the
criminal case filed against the petitioner for alleged
misappropriation of funds is still pending, and
therefore, both the Courts have committed an error
in confirming the order of dismissal. On this ground,
it is submitted that the impugned orders deserve to
be set aside, and the petition is required to be
allowed.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
5. Having considered the arguments advanced by
learned advocate Ms. Rathod and on referring to the
reasons assigned by the learned Court, it emerges
that the petitioner had joined the respondent Bank
on the post of Clerk on 08.02.1972 and was
subsequently promoted to the post of Assistant In-
charge-cum-cashier The learned Court has duly
considered the evidence produced by the
respondent, including the oral evidence examined
before the Court. The explanation offered by the
petitioner, wherein he admitted the guilt, was also
produced before the learned Labour Court.
Considering the depositions of the witnesses,
namely, Hasmukhbhai Akhani below Exhibit 64 and
Shivaji Parkharji Rajput below Exhibit 65/A, the
learned Court came to the conclusion that the
petitioner was responsible for the misappropriation of
funds amounting to Rs.3,09,141/- individually and
Rs.26,18,109/- along with another co-employee.
6. During the departmental inquiry, the other employee
also admitted the misconduct and stated that the
misappropriated amount was invested elsewhere. It
further emerges from the record that fake vouchers
were prepared in collusion with the said employee for
the purpose of misappropriating funds belonging to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
the Bank. The evidence adduced by the respondent
remained unrebutted by the present petitioner. In
this background, the learned Labour Court dismissed
T. Application No.13 of 1996 filed by the petitioner. In
appeal as well, the learned Appellate Authority, after
assigning cogent and well-reasoned findings, upheld
the order of dismissal as legal and valid. This Court
does not find any substantial legal ground warranting
interference with the impugned order
7. This Court in case of Ahmedabad New Textile Mills
Versus Textile Labour Association, reported in 1988
(2) GLR 1324 has observed as under:
"14. The question then is, whether the Courts below
were justified in interfering with the findings of fact
recorded at the domestic inquiry - In this connection we
must bear in mind the fact that they can interfere only
if they find any finding of fact to be perverse. They
have disagreed with the findings on certain issues of
fact as they concluded that those findings were against
the weight of evidence. The conclusions of the Courts
below in this behalf have not been assailed but what is
contended is that once some of the charges were found
proved, it was not open to the Courts below to interfere
with the employer's decision on the quantum of
punishment. We have already held that the Labour
Court /Industrial Court can examine the propriety of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/8698/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/07/2025
undefined
decision as to punishment also as it constitutes an
integral part of the employer's order. Both the Courts
came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal
was disproportionate to the proved misconduct and the
workman should be reinstated in service. The Industrial
Court, however, felt that having regard to the
misconduct of the workman it would be proper to order
payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. It
quantified the compensation as Rupees 35,000.00."
8. In view of the above facts, this Court is of the view
that the learned Labour Court or the learned
Industrial Court, while exercising powers under
Section 78 of the I.D. Act, cannot interfere with the
order of punishment as if it was an appellate
authority, and in the absence of any infirmity, this
Court also cannot exercise its powers to interfere
with the impugned judgment merely on sympathetic
grounds. Hence, no interference is warranted, and
the petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
M.M.MIRZA
