Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Francis Xavier, was employed by M/s. Magna Graphics (I) Pvt. Ltd. and was dismissed on 24 August 1995 for habitual absenteeism. He challenged the dismissal by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 317 of 1995 under Section 28 read with Items 1(b), 1(d), 1(e), and 1(g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act). The Labour Court dismissed the complaint on 17 April 1996. The petitioner then filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 63 of 1996, which was dismissed by the President of the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, on 2 September 1996. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The charge-sheet dated 6 March 1995 alleged that the petitioner remained absent for 32 days during May, July, August, November, and December 1994. The petitioner submitted a reply on 16 March 1995 denying habitual absenteeism and claiming that he had applied for leave which was recommended by his supervisor. A domestic enquiry was conducted in which the workman participated. The enquiry officer found the charges proved, and the management dismissed the petitioner. The Labour Court, after considering the evidence, held that the dismissal was justified and not an unfair labour practice. The Industrial Court affirmed this finding. The High Court, in its judgment, noted that the Labour Court and Industrial Court had concurrently found that the petitioner was guilty of habitual absenteeism and that the punishment of dismissal was not disproportionate. The court held that the findings of fact were based on evidence and were not perverse. The High Court observed that under writ jurisdiction, it cannot re-appreciate evidence or interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless there is a perversity or violation of principles of natural justice. The court found no such infirmity. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the dismissal of the petitioner was upheld.
Headnote
A) Industrial Law - Habitual Absenteeism - Dismissal - Section 28 read with Items 1(b), 1(d), 1(e), 1(g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - The petitioner workman was dismissed for habitual absenteeism after a domestic enquiry. The Labour Court and Industrial Court dismissed his complaint. The High Court held that the findings of fact by the lower courts were based on evidence and not perverse, and the writ court cannot re-appreciate evidence. The dismissal was upheld. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal of the petitioner for habitual absenteeism was justified and whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in dismissing the complaint under the MRTU and PULP Act.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court are upheld. The dismissal of the petitioner for habitual absenteeism is confirmed.
Law Points
- Habitual absenteeism constitutes misconduct
- Dismissal for habitual absenteeism is not perverse
- Writ court cannot re-appreciate evidence
- MRTU and PULP Act Section 28 read with Schedule IV Items 1(b)
- 1(d)
- 1(e)
- 1(g)
