Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 1104
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Deepak Bhimraj Kamble - Petitioner
Versus
Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 5519 OF 2012
Decided On : 21.7.2015
Advocate Appeared:
For Petitioner: Shri P.V. Barde.
For Respondent: Shri T.K. Prabhakaran.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that unauthorized absenteeism without proper explanation constitutes misconduct, and the employer is not required to consider the reasons for absence beyond the scope of the charge sheet.
Headnote:
Standing Order 24(f) - Unauthorized Absenteeism - Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946 - Summary: The court considered the interpretation of Standing Order 24(f) and concluded that the employee's unauthorized absenteeism without proper explanation constituted misconduct. The court emphasized that the employee's absence without leave for an extended period did not justify the absence, and the employer was not required to consider the reasons for absence beyond the scope of the charge sheet. The court also highlighted that the employee's continued illness did not absolve him of the misconduct. The judgments of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court were upheld, and the writ petition was dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, representing the deceased employee, challenged the dismissal of the deceased for unauthorized absenteeism due to illness. The petitioner sought to quash the judgments of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the employee's unauthorized absenteeism without proper explanation constituted misconduct, and the employer was not required to consider the reasons for absence beyond the scope of the charge sheet. The court upheld the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues: The key issue was whether the employee's unauthorized absenteeism could be justified by his continued illness and whether the employer was required to consider the reasons for absence beyond the scope of the charge sheet.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the employee's unauthorized absenteeism without proper explanation constituted misconduct, and the employer was not required to consider the reasons for absence beyond the scope of the charge sheet. The court emphasized that the employee's continued illness did not absolve him of the misconduct.
Final Decision: The court upheld the judgments of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, concluding that they were not perverse or erroneous, and dismissed the writ petition.
1. Learned Advocates for both the sides have stated that they have no objection if this Court hears this matter.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal.
4. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order dated 19.3.2012, delivered by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar. The relevant prayer made in this petition reads as under:-
“(A) By issuing appropriate writ, order, direction or any other order in nature of Writ, the Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 19.3.2012 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Revision (ULP) No. 86 of 2011, thereby confirming judgment and order passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 28 of 2004.” (Should be read as Labour Court, Ahmednagar in Complaint (ULP) No. 28 of 2004).
5. This petition is prosecuted by Smt. Sangita Deepak Kamble, who is the legal representative of the deceased employee Deepak Bhimraj Kamble.
6. Shri Barde, learned Advocate summarises his contentions in brief as follows:-
(a) The deceased joined service on 21.12.1997.
(b) He was charge sheeted on 30.4.2003 for remaining unauthorizedly absent for 47 days between 1.10.2002 and 31.12.2002.
(c) The reason for absence was the marriage of his daughter which is said to have been solemnized on 25.12.2002.
(d) By another charge sheet dated 12.8.2003, the deceased was alleged to have been unauthorizedly absent for 153 days on the dates mentioned from January 2003 till July 2003.
(e) Reason for absence is stated to be severe hypertension.
(f) By yet another charge sheet, dated 28.11.2003, the deceased was charged for having remained unauthorizedly absent for 96 days on the dates mentioned from August 2003 to November 2003.
(g) Reason for absence is said to be sever hypertension.
(h) Medical certificate is produced in the enquiry.
(i) Charge of unauthorized absenteeism is held to have been proved.
(j) All the charges have been admitted by the deceased but sought to be explained on the ground of illness.
(k) The severe hypertension was lateron diagnosed to be Brain Tumour.
(l) Was dismissed after enquiry on 18.2.2004.
(m) The deceased filed Complaint (ULP) No.28 of 2004 on 25.5.2004 for challenging his dismissal, dated 18.2.2004.
(n) The deceased passed away on 4.10.2004 due to brain tumor at the age of about 45 years.
(o) The charge of unauthorized absenteeism relating to three charge sheets was under Section 24(f) of Model Standing Orders, framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1946.
(p) The deceased was not suspended during the domestic enquiry.
(q) The two enquiries in connection with the charge sheets were held to be fair and proper and the findings were held to be fair.
(r) The domestic enquiries were conducted ex-parte since the deceased was unable to participate in the enquiries due to his continued illness.
(s) By the impugned judgment and order dated 18.10.2011, the Labour Court dismissed the Complaint and concluded that the punishment awarded is proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct.
(t) The petitioner preferred Revision (ULP) No. 86 of 2011 before the Industrial Court and by judgment dated 19.3.2012, the Revision Petition was also dismissed.
7. Since the legal heir of the deceased has prosecuted the complaint as well as the Revision Petition and is before this Court, Shri Barde, learned Advocate submits that there is no prayer made for reinstatement or continuity. He submits that the impugned judgments deserve to be quashed and set aside since the deceased had produced the medical certificates before the enquiry officer and had made every attempt to indicate that his continued illness prevented him from reporting for duties.
8. Shri Barde further submits that the deceased could not participate in the enquiry due to his continued illness and hence the enquiries were conducted ex parte. Nevertheless he contends that the enquiry officer sho
