Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. (MSEDCL) and its officers, challenged the judgment and order dated 26.4.2012 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2010. The respondent, Narayan Bhima Mali, was an employee working as Assistant Technician in the office of the petitioners. He had been in service for 22 years. On 30.12.2006, the employer issued a charge sheet to the respondent alleging absenteeism and misconduct. The respondent submitted his reply, but the employer was not satisfied and conducted a disciplinary enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, after considering evidence, found the respondent guilty of misconduct and absenteeism. Pursuant to the findings, the employer imposed punishment of stoppage of two years increments permanently and recovery of 1/3rd of the wages for the month of June, 2007 and also fine. The respondent approached higher authorities but his grievances were not redressed. He then filed a complaint under Section 28(1), Item Nos. 9 and 19 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act before the Industrial Court, Latur. The Industrial Court set aside the punishment on the ground that the employer failed to furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the employee and did not give him an opportunity of hearing before imposing punishment, which violated principles of natural justice. The petitioners challenged this order in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the Industrial Court's order was just and proper. The court observed that the employer did not provide the enquiry report to the employee and did not give him a hearing before imposing punishment, which is a clear violation of natural justice. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Industrial Court's order.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Principles of Natural Justice - Failure to Furnish Enquiry Report - The employer conducted a disciplinary enquiry against the employee for absenteeism and misconduct, and the Enquiry Officer found the employee guilty. The employer imposed punishment of stoppage of two years increments permanently and recovery of 1/3rd wages without furnishing a copy of the enquiry report to the employee and without giving an opportunity of hearing. The Industrial Court set aside the punishment holding violation of natural justice. The High Court upheld the Industrial Court order, relying on the principle that non-furnishing of the enquiry report vitiates the disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the disciplinary action and punishment imposed on the respondent-employee by the petitioners-employer were in violation of principles of natural justice and whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the punishment.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Industrial Court, Latur dated 26.4.2012 in Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2010. The court held that the employer's failure to furnish the enquiry report and give an opportunity of hearing before imposing punishment was a clear violation of principles of natural justice, and the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the punishment.
Law Points
- Principles of natural justice
- Enquiry report must be furnished to delinquent employee
- Opportunity of hearing before imposing punishment
- Section 28(1) MRTU & PULP Act
- Item 9 and 19 of Schedule IV of MRTU & PULP Act
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (10) 12
WRIT PETITION NO. 3014 OF 2013
Mr. Sanjay V. Mundhe for the petitioner, Mr. N.L. Dhobale h/f Mr. Y.R. Marlapalle for respondent
The Executive Engineering, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Division Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad; The Assistant Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Sub Division Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad; The Superintending Engineer, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Osmanabad, Dist. Osmanabad
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Industrial Court setting aside punishment imposed on employee.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners (employer) sought to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 26.4.2012 passed by the Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2010.
Filing Reason
The petitioners were aggrieved by the Industrial Court order setting aside the punishment of stoppage of two years increments permanently and recovery of 1/3rd wages imposed on the respondent-employee for misconduct and absenteeism.
Previous Decisions
The Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2010 set aside the punishment imposed by the employer on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
Issues
Whether the Industrial Court was justified in setting aside the punishment imposed by the employer on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice?
Whether the employer's failure to furnish the enquiry report and give an opportunity of hearing before imposing punishment vitiates the disciplinary proceedings?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the Industrial Court erred in setting aside the punishment as the enquiry was conducted properly and the employee was given due opportunity.
The respondent argued that the employer did not furnish a copy of the enquiry report and did not give him an opportunity of hearing before imposing punishment, which violated principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The ratio decidendi is that in disciplinary proceedings, the employer must furnish a copy of the enquiry report to the employee and give him an opportunity of hearing before imposing punishment. Failure to do so violates principles of natural justice and renders the disciplinary action invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
Being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 26.4.2012 passed by the learned Industrial Court, Latur in Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2010 filed under Section 28(1), Item Nos. 9 and 19 of Scheduled IV of the MRTU & PULP Act, the petitioners, resorting to remedy under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, preferred the present writ petition, to redress their grievances.
The Enquiry Officer, after considering the evidence adduced on record, arrived at the conclusion that the respondent/employee is guilty of charges of misconduct and absenteeism.
Pursuant to the findings of the Enquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings, the employer imposed punishment of stoppage of two years increments permanently and recovery of 1/3rd of the wages for the month of June, 2007 and also fine.
Procedural History
The employer issued a charge sheet on 30.12.2006. The employee submitted a reply. The employer conducted a disciplinary enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the employee guilty. The employer imposed punishment. The employee approached higher authorities but grievances were not redressed. The employee filed Complaint (ULP) No. 72 of 2010 before the Industrial Court, Latur under Section 28(1) of MRTU & PULP Act. The Industrial Court set aside the punishment on 26.4.2012. The employer filed Writ Petition No. 3014 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court, which was dismissed on 26.10.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU & PULP Act): Section 28(1), Item 9 of Schedule IV, Item 19 of Schedule IV
- Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 227
