Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AURANGABAD BENCH
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Managing Director, Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Dilip S/o Manga Choudhari – Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 8738, 8739 of 2018
Decided On : 29-11-2022
DISMISSAL - Labour Dispute - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - 7(2) - The court discussed the charges against the respondent, the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and the disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings. It highlighted the principles of natural justice and the procedure required to be followed by the Disciplinary Authority before disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The court emphasized the trivial nature of the alleged misconduct and the lack of financial loss to the petitioner federation. It upheld the setting aside of the dismissal order and awarded full back-wages to the respondent from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Co-operative Society, challenged the dismissal of the respondent from service based on charges related to financial matters. The Labour Court initially held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper but later set aside the dismissal order as shockingly disproportionate. The Industrial Court allowed the respondent's Revision Application, holding the enquiry to be unfair and the findings of guilt to be perverse.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Disciplinary Authority's disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer violated the principles of natural justice. It emphasized the trivial nature of the alleged misconduct and the lack of financial loss to the petitioner federation. The dismissal order was set aside, and full back-wages were awarded to the respondent from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fairness of the domestic enquiry, the disagreement of the Disciplinary Authority with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the nature of the alleged misconduct, and the entitlement to back-wages.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the Disciplinary Authority to follow the principles of natural justice and the procedure required to be followed before disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. It highlighted the trivial nature of the alleged misconduct and the lack of financial loss to the petitioner federation as factors influencing the decision to set aside the dismissal order and award full back-wages to the respondent.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, upholding the Industrial Court's judgment and awarding full back-wages to the respondent from the date of dismissal till the date of retirement.
JUDGMENT :
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, called out for final hearing. Mr. Shrikant S. Patil, the learned Counsel waives notice on behalf of respondent.
2. These petitions are filed by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd challenging the judgment and order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the Labour Court, Dhule in Complaint (ULP) No. 30 of 2010 and judgment and order dated 19.04.2018 passed by the Industrial Court, Dhule in Revision Application (ULP) No. 8 of 2017. The Labour Court, in complaint filed by respondent challenging the penalty of dismissal from service, had passed Award-I on 01.07.2016 holding that the domestic enquiry was just, fair and proper and that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were not perverse. The Labour Court later passed Award-II dated 16.02.2017 setting aside the dismissal order on the ground of the same being shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged and directed payment of 50% back-wages. Both petitioners as well as respondent were aggrieved by the order of the Labour Court. Respondent filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 15 of 2017 challenging both the Awards i.e. Award-I as well as Award-II. Award-II was challenged by him to the extent of proof of charges and denial of 50% back-wages. Petitioners also filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 8 of 2017 challenging Award-II of the Labour Court. By the judgment and order dated 19.04.2018, the Industrial Court was pleased to allow respondent’s Revision Application (ULP) No. 15 of 2017 while dismissing petitioners’ Revision Application (ULP) No. 8 of 2017. The Industrial Court has held that the enquiry conducted was not fair and proper and finding of guilt recorded is perverse. Respondent is held entitled to full back-wages from 04.10.2010 to 31.07.2013. The Industrial Court has also awarded compensatory costs of Rs. 25,000/- to respondent. Petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by both the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Court and have filed the present two petitions. In Writ Petition No. 8738 of 2018 dismissal of Revision Application (ULP) No. 8 of 2017 is questioned, whereas in the Writ Petition No. 8739 of 2018 the order of the Industrial Court allowing respondent’s Revision Application (ULP) No. 15 of 2017 is challenged.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that Petitioner no. 1 is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is engaged in activities inter-alia of producing fertilizers as well as implementing government schemes throughout the State of Maharashtra. Respondent was appointed on 10.11.1975 on the post of Time Keeper/Clerk at petitioners cattle feed factory, Bor Vihir, Dhule. Previously the services of respondent were terminated by petitioners on 12.05.1992, which came to be set aside in Complaint (ULP) No. 361 of 1992 by the Labour Court vide judgment and order dated 15.09.1994. Petitioners’ Revision (ULP) No. 58 of 1995 was rejected by the Industrial Court and orders were confirmed by this Court. Respondent was reinstated with 70% back-wages and continuity of service. Respondent was further required to litigate for denial of promotional benefits, which came to be granted after litigation before the Industrial Court and this Court.
4. While holding the substantive post of Cashier and holding the charge of post of District Marketing Officer, respondent was served with memorandum of charge-sheet dated 15.10.2007 alleging three charges against him. In the first charge, it was alleged that he paid an amount of Rs. 1,69,816/- to Dhanegaon Gram-Panchayat towards property tax for 5 years without taking prior approval of the head office. In the second charge, it was alleged that he incurred expenses towards mobile phone purchase, photocopying charges, taxi charges, advocate fees, meeting fees, share purchase without verification and without obtaining pri
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Disciplinary Authority to follow the principles of natural justice and the procedure required to be followed before disagre....
The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the voluntary nature of the workman's resignation, and the court emphasized the principles governing the payment of back wages.
Dismissal based on unproved allegations is inappropriate, and failure to pay legal dues is condemned.
The power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to....
The court emphasized the importance of proving charges based on evidence and admission, and justified the penalty of dismissal while considering the respondent's reinstatement and service till supera....
Misconducts - Award Modified - Workman was earning by plying rickshaw since his dismissal i.e. from 1990, appropriate relief may be moulded in favour of workman by tilting balance -Workman be paid re....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
