Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 127
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT NAGPUR
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
Rangrao – Appellant
Versus
Maharshi Babasaheb Kedar Sahakari Sut Girni, Wanadongri, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur, Through its Managing Director & Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 2188 of 2017
Decided On : 03-02-2021
For the Petitioner:V.P. Marpakwar, Advocate
For the Respondents:V.D. Raut, Advocate, A.M. Kadukar, A.G.P.
The standard of proof for proving guilt in a criminal trial is higher than that for proving misconduct in a domestic enquiry.
Headnote:
Misconduct - Termination of Employment - Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 - Sections 78, 79, 42-A
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the termination of his employment by the respondent company, citing unfair enquiry and simultaneous criminal prosecution in his defense.
Finding of the Court:
The Labour Court and the Appellate Court found the evidence of the superior officer trustworthy and upheld the termination, concluding that the petitioner's actions constituted grave misconduct.
Issues: Unfair enquiry, simultaneous criminal prosecution, grave misconduct
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the standard of proof for proving guilt in a criminal trial is higher than that for proving misconduct in a domestic enquiry. The evidence of the superior officer was found trustworthy, and the petitioner's actions were deemed as grave misconduct.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged.
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Heard Mr. V. P. Marpakwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V. D. Raut, learned counsel for respondent no.1. Respondent nos.2 and 3, who are formal parties, are represented by Mr. A. M. Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned authority under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 and the learned Judge, First Labour Court, Nagpur dated 12.12.2005 in BIR Application No. 136/1997 filed on behalf of the petitioner, whereby the learned Judge of the First Labour Court dismissed the application, together with the judgment and order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, the Appellate Authority, dated 19.07.2014 in BIR Appeal No. 02/2006, whereby the learned Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner and confirmed the judgment and order dated 12.12.2005.
4. The petitioner was working as a Winder with respondent no.1 – company. He was served with a show cause notice dated 02.05.1995 by the General Manager (Tech.) of respondent no.1-Company. As per the show cause notice, on 24.04.1995, in the second shift, senior officer one Shri R.K. Jawade, Spinning Master when gave a visit at 11.35 in the night at Winding Department of respondent no.1-Company, that time it was found by him that the petitioner was not on the machine and he was combing his hairs. Upon that, said officer Shri Jawade asked the petitioner that his shift is yet to over and therefore, he should immediately resume his work. The show cause notice shows that upon that, the petitioner abused Shri Jawade in very abusive language. Therefore, Shri Jawade asked one Shri Mandwekar to call the Labour Officer and the Watchman. Upon that, the petitioner got flared up and he lifted one big iron container and made an assault with the same upon Shri Jawade resulting into Shri Jawade suffering injuries. The petitioner was, therefore, served with a notice for the following misconducts:-
“1. M.S.O. 24(a) : Willful insubordination or disobedience whether or not in combination with another of any lawful and reasonable orders of a superior ;
2. M.S.O. 24(c) : Willful slowing down in performance or work or abetment or instigation thereof ;
3. M.S.O. 24(h) : Habitual breach of any standing order or any law applicable to the establishment or any rule made thereunder.
4. M.S.O. 24(L) : Drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behavior on the premises of establishment.
5. M.S.O. 24(k) : Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behavior on the premises of the establishment.”
5. The petitioner, therefore, was directed to file reply to the show cause notice. The petitioner thereafter vide his reply dated 11.05.1995 submitted his explanation.
6. Since, the explanation was not found to be satisfactory by the respondent, Departmental Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner. The Inquiry officer submitted his report, a copy of which was given to the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer found that the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved. Therefore, the respondent on 03.02.1996 gave show cause notice and sought his explanation. The said was replied, however, the management was not satisfied with the same and the respondent management since was agreeable to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, issued the order of termination on 12.06.1997 and terminated respondent no.1 from the said date.
7. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of termination. He, therefore, approached to the Labour Court, which is also an authority under sections 78, 79 read with Section 42-A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and challenged the order of termination. The application was registered as BIR Application No. 136/1997. The learned Judge of the Labour Court dismissed the complaint, which was confirme
