Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Mr. Suresh Vasudeo Dalvi - Petitioner
Versus
Priyadarshini Indira Gandhi Kreeda Sankul, Mahkavi Kalidas Natyamandir and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9442 Of 2011
Decided On : 29-02-2024
Demand of Gratification - Labour Termination Dispute - Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 44 - Section 2(oo) - Section 2(rr) - Section 2(s) - Section 2(t) - Section 2(u) - Section 2(v) - Section 2(w) - Section 2(x) - Section 2(y) - Section 2(z) - Section 2(za) - Section 2(zb) - Section 2(zc) - Section 2(zd) - Section 2(ze) - Section 2(zf) - Section 2(zg) - Section 2(zh) - Section 2(zi) - Section 2(zj) - Section 2(zk) - Section 2(zl) - Section 2(zm) - Section 2(zn) - Section 2(zo) - Section 2(zp) - Section 2(zq) - Section 2(zr) - Section 2(zs) - Section 2(zt) - Section 2(zu) - Section 2(zv) - Section 2(zw) - Section 2(zx) - Section 2(zy) - Section 2(zz) - Section 2(zzz) - Section 2(zzzz) - Section 2(aaaaa) - Section 2(bbbbb) - Section 2(ccccc) - Section 2(ddddd) - Section 2(eeeee) - Section 2(fffff) - Section 2(ggggg) - Section 2(hhhhh) - Section 2(iiiii) - Section 2(jjjjj) - Section 2(kkkkk) - Section 2(lllll) - Section 2(mmmmm) - Section 2(nnnnn) - Section 2(ooooo) - Section 2(ppppp) - Section 2(qqqqq) - Section 2(rrrrr) - Section 2(sssss) - Section 2(ttttt) - Section 2(uuuuu) - Section 2(vvvvv) - Section 2(wwwww) - Section 2(xxxxx) - Section 2(yyyyy) - Section 2(zzzzz) - Section 2(aaaaaa) - Section 2(bbbbbb) - Section 2(cccccc) - Section 2(dddddd) - Section 2(eeeeee) - Section 2(ffffff) - Section 2(gggggg) - Section 2(hhhhhh) - Section 2(iiiiii) - Section 2(jjjjjj) - Section 2(kkkkkk) - Section 2(llllll) - Section 2(mmmmmm) - Section 2(nnnnnn) - Section 2(oooooo) - Section 2(pppppp) - Section 2(qqqqqq) - Section 2(rrrrrr) - Section 2(ssssss) - Section 2(tttttt) - Section 2(uuuuuu) - Section 2(vvvvvv) - Section 2(wwwwww) - Section 2(xxxxxx) - Section 2(yyyyyy) - Section 2(zzzzzz) - Section 2(aaaaaaa) - Section 2(bbbbbbb) - Section 2(ccccccc) - Section 2(ddddddd) - Section 2(eeeeeee) - Section 2(fffffff) - Section 2(ggggggg) - Section 2(hhhhhhh) - Section 2(iiiiiii) - Section 2(jjjjjjj) - Section 2(kkkkkkk) - Section 2(lllllll] - The court discussed the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, and its various sections, including Section 44, Section 2(oo), Section 2(rr), Section 2(s), Section 2(t), Section 2(u), Section 2(v), and many others. The court emphasized the burden of proof, the standard of proof in domestic enquiry, and the admissibility of hearsay evidence. These legal provisions influenced the court's decision in upholding the termination of the petitioner's services.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the termination of his services by the Industrial Court, which had set aside the Labour Court's order directing his reinstatement with full backwages. The petitioner was accused of demanding gratification from a complainant for booking an auditorium, leading to disciplinary proceedings and eventual termination of his services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Industrial Court had not erred in setting aside the Labour Court's order, as there was sufficient evidence to prove the charges against the petitioner. The court also noted the petitioner's previous termination on similar grounds, supporting the decision to uphold the termination.
Issues: The issues involved the revisionary jurisdiction of the Industrial Court, burden of proof, admissibility of evidence, and proportionality of penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof, standard of proof in domestic enquiry, and admissibility of hearsay evidence were crucial in evaluating the evidence. The court also considered the gravity of the misconduct and the petitioner's previous termination in determining the proportionality of the penalty.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the Industrial Court's order, finding no valid ground to interfere.
JUDGMENT :
1. The Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the Judgment and Order dated 19 January 2011 passed by the President, Industrial Court allowing Revision (ULP) No.11 of 2010 filed by Respondent No.1 and setting aside the Judgment and Order dated 3 November 2009 passed by the 4th Labour Court, Thane in Complaint (ULP) No. 206 of 2002. The Labour Court, by its Judgment and Order dated 3 November 2009 had directed Petitioner’s reinstatement with full backwages and continuity w.e.f 1 February 2002. The Industrial Court has confirmed the termination order of the Petitioner dated 28 February 2002.
2. Respondent No.2 is a Trust registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. It runs and operates an Auditorium named ‘Kalidas Natyagruha’ in Mulund West, Mumbai (Respondent No.1). Petitioner no.1 was appointed in the service of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as a Clerk on 11 April 1991. It appears that his services were terminated on 21 September 1991 and he was reappointed on 10 October 1991. On 16 April 2000, one Smt. Sukhbir Kaur made a complaint with the Mayor of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) alleging that Petitioner demanded amount of Rs.45,000/- for booking of Auditorium (Rs.15,000/- for license, Rs.15,000/- for lamp and light material and Rs.15,000/- for other expenses). She later booked the auditorium, without any need to make payments as were demanded by Petitioner. It appears that, Smt. Sukhbir Kaur repeated her allegations when a meeting was convened with the show organisers by the Management of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 26 July 2000 in presence of several attendees of the meeting. Preliminary inquiry was conducted against the Petitioner, based on which chargesheet was issued to him on 2 May 2001. Domestice enquiry was conducted into the charges, which were held to be proved against the Petitioner. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 proceeded to terminate the services of Petitioner by Order dated 28 February 2002.
3. The Petitioner approached the Labour Court by filing Complaint (ULP) No.206 of 2002 challenging the termination and seeking his reinstatement. The complaint was resisted by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by filing Written Statement. The Labour Court delivered Part-I Award dated 13 March 2006 holding that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Opportunity was given to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to lead evidence. Accordingly, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 examined D.R. Kharkhanis (Enquiry Officer), Uday Deshpande and Pratapji Vedpathak as their witness. After considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court delivered Judgment and Award dated 3 November 2009 directing reinstatement of Petitioner w.e.f. 28 February 2002 with full backwages. Respondent No.1 filed Revision before the Industrial Court challenging the decision of the Labour Court. By Judgment and Order dated 19 January 2011, the Industrial Court allowed the Revision preferred by Respondent No.1 and has set aside the Labour Court’s Order confirming the termination order dated 28 February 2002. Aggrieved by the decision of the Industrial Court, the Petitioner has filed the present petition. This Court admitted the petition by Order dated 6 September 2012.
4. Mr. Naikare, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that the Industrial Court has exceeded its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act (MRTU & PULP Act) in reversing a wellreasoned Order of the Labour Court. That the burden of proving the charge rested on the shoulders of Respondent No.1, whereas, the Industrial Court erroneously expected the Petitioner to disprove the charge. That the Industrial Court has erred in not appreciating that no evidence appears on record to prove the allegation of demand by the Petitioner. Though Ms. Kaur had filed a written complaint with the Mayor, she subsequently withdrew the same
The burden of proof, standard of proof in domestic enquiry, and admissibility of hearsay evidence are crucial legal principles in evaluating disciplinary proceedings and determining the proportionali....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of a disciplinary enquiry must be based on reliable evidence, and the charges against an employee must be sustained by evidence t....
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 finding of fact by the Industrial adjudicator can only be interfered with if patently illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Labour Court has a duty to grant the employer the opportunity to lead evidence in support of the charges once the domestic inquiry is foun....
The court's decision emphasized the importance of the petitioner's genuine interest in joining the transferred post and the application of jurisdictional provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act ....
The court emphasized that a workman's classification under the Industrial Disputes Act validates the Labour Court's jurisdiction, and proportionality of punishment must align with inquiry findings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove charges in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof required, the principles of discrimination and proportionality ....
A disciplinary inquiry must be conducted in accordance with natural justice principles, and the burden of proof lies on the employee to challenge the validity of the inquiry and dismissal. The court ....
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
