Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dhananjay S. Kamodkar, was employed as an Operator with M/s. Motor Industries Company Ltd. (the respondent) from 1990. Between 1998 and 2000, he was issued four charge-sheets for unauthorized absenteeism: 16 days in 1997-1998, 40 days in 1998, 66 days in 1999, and 119 days in 1999-2000. He was also warned for habitual late attendance and loitering. An enquiry was conducted on 17.05.2000, wherein the petitioner admitted his guilt and did not file a written statement. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty of misconduct. Based on the enquiry report, the respondent terminated the petitioner's services. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Nashik, as Reference (IDA) No. 44 of 2002. The Labour Court, by order dated 01.09.2015 (Exhibits U-30 and U-31) and awards dated 23.11.2017 and 28.11.2018, upheld the termination. The petitioner then filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging these orders. The High Court heard the matter with consent of both parties at the admission stage. The court noted that the Labour Court had given a finding that the enquiry was fair and proper, and that the petitioner had admitted his guilt. The court found no perversity in the Labour Court's findings and held that the punishment of termination was proportionate to the misconduct of habitual absenteeism. The writ petition was dismissed, and the Labour Court's orders were upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Misconduct - Habitual Absenteeism - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 11A - The petitioner, a workman, was terminated after being issued four charge-sheets for unauthorized absenteeism totaling 241 days over several years. The Labour Court found the enquiry fair and the punishment proportionate. The High Court held that the Labour Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse, and declined to interfere under writ jurisdiction. (Paras 1-14)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The High Court reiterated that its power under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory and not appellate. It will not re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Labour Court's concurrent findings of fact were upheld. (Paras 2, 14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Labour Court's order upholding the termination of the petitioner for habitual absenteeism is perverse or suffers from any error of law warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Labour Court's order and awards, confirming the termination of the petitioner.
Law Points
- Industrial Dispute
- Misconduct
- Habitual Absenteeism
- Enquiry
- Termination
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 13
WRIT PETITION NO. 11376 OF 2019
Mr. R. V. Sankpal a/w. Ms. Pinki Chavan i/by R. V. Sankpal and Associates for the Petitioner, Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. T. R. Yadav i/by M/s. Desai and Desai Associates for Respondent
M/s. Motor Industries Company Ltd.
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 Labour Court's order and awards upholding termination of the petitioner.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the Labour Court's order dated 01.09.2015 (Exhibits U-30 and U-31) and awards dated 23.11.2017 and 28.11.2018, and to set aside the termination.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was terminated from service for habitual absenteeism after four charge-sheets and a domestic enquiry. The Labour Court upheld the termination, leading to the writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The Labour Court, Nashik, in Reference (IDA) No. 44 of 2002, passed order dated 01.09.2015 (Exhibits U-30 and U-31) and awards dated 23.11.2017 and 28.11.2018, upholding the termination.
Issues
Whether the Labour Court's findings on the fairness of the enquiry and the guilt of the petitioner are perverse?
Whether the punishment of termination is disproportionate to the misconduct of habitual absenteeism?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Labour Court erred in upholding the termination and that the enquiry was not fair.
Respondent argued that the enquiry was fair, the petitioner admitted guilt, and the termination was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the Labour Court's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. The petitioner admitted his guilt of habitual absenteeism, and the enquiry was fair. The punishment of termination was proportionate to the misconduct. The court declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India as the findings were not perverse or without evidence.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Mr. Sankpal and Ms. Chavan, learned Advocates for Petitioner and Mr. Bapat, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent.
This Writ Petition is filed under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 01.09.2015 passed under Exhibits 'U-30' and 'U-31' and Awards dated 23.11.2017 and 28.11.2018 passed in Reference (IDA) No. 44 of 2002 by the Labour Court, Nashik thereby upholding the termination of the Petitioner by the Respondent.
Procedural History
The petitioner was terminated by the respondent after a domestic enquiry. He raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court, Nashik, as Reference (IDA) No. 44 of 2002. The Labour Court passed an order on 01.09.2015 (Exhibits U-30 and U-31) and awards on 23.11.2017 and 28.11.2018, upholding the termination. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, which was heard and dismissed on 03.10.2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Section 11A
