The Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, examined a labor dispute where the petitioner, a former employee, contested his dismissal on the grounds of unfair labor practices. The Court primarily assessed whether the dismissal was proportionate to the alleged misconduct.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 – Schedule IV, Item 1(a) and (g)
• Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 11-A

1. Background of the Case
   Para 2-3: The petitioner was dismissed from his position after allegedly instigating co-workers to stop work following a factory incident. The dismissal, considered an unfair labor practice by the Labour Court, was ordered to be set aside with reinstatement and 75% back wages.

2. Labor Court’s Findings
   Para 3-5: The Labour Court declared the inquiry against the petitioner as fair but ruled the punishment of dismissal as shockingly disproportionate given the minor penalties imposed on others involved in the same incident.

3. Industrial Court's Intervention
   Para 6-7: Upon appeal by Mahindra, the Industrial Court remanded the matter to the Labour Court, questioning the appropriateness of the punishment in light of the petitioner’s influence on co-workers.

4. Petitioner’s Argument for Equality in Treatment
   Para 9-11: The petitioner argued his unblemished record and equal culpability as other employees who received lighter penalties, making his dismissal discriminatory and unjust.

5. Respondent's Argument on Misconduct Severity
   Para 12-16: The respondent highlighted the petitioner’s role as the primary instigator, justifying the dismissal due to substantial financial losses and arguing that the severity warranted a strict penalty.

6. High Court’s Ratio and Decision
   Para 17-29: Emphasizing proportionality in punishment under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Court stated that the Industrial Court should have relied on existing materials instead of remanding the case for fresh evidence. It quashed the Industrial Court's order and remanded it back for reassessment based on available evidence.

Ratio:

The High Court reaffirmed that in labor disputes involving alleged misconduct, a court must evaluate whether the punishment is proportionate to the charges proven, relying solely on the materials on record without remanding for additional evidence.