The court established that the validity of a departmental inquiry is upheld when the employee admits to misconduct, and the focus should be on the proportionality of the punishment.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no. 1.

2. With the consent of both the sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.

3. The present appeal emanates from the order dated 22.09.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein the learned Single has rejected the writ petition filed by the appellant-Corporation, challenging the award dated 04.04.2022, passed by the Labour Court in Reference Case (LCJ) No. 116 of 2015, wherein the Labour Court had directed the appellant-Corporation to reinstate the respondent-workman with full back wages. The learned Single Judge has partly allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the award to the extent of granting back wages, and a cost of Rs.15,000/- was also directed to be paid to the respondent-workman.

4. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Munshaw, appearing for the appellant-Corporation has submitted that in fact, the respondent-workman was working as a daily wager and though a full-fledged inquiry was not required, the appellant-Corporation initiated fullfledged inquiry by issuing a charge-sheet for the misconduct of remaining absent on numerous occasions. He has submitted that after the inquiry was completed, a second show-cause notice was issued by the Municipal Commissioner and thereafter, the respondent-workman was terminated from services on the ground of remaining absent. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that on the earlier occasion also, when the respondent-workman remained absent, he was issued a show-cause notice on 29.09.2012 and the respondent-workman had assured that he would not remain absent, however, thereafter, the respondent-workman remained unauthorizedly absent on numerous occasions, which ultimately constrained the appellant-Corporation to initiate regular departmental inquiry. It is submitted that after the departmental proceedings were held, the Inquiry Officer vide report dated 16.10.2014, on the charges proved, issued a second show-cause notice to the respondent on 07.03.2015 and ultimately, was dismissed on 18.05.2015.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has pointed out the findings recorded by the Labour Court and has submitted that the Labour Court fell in error in observing that the inquiry proceedings had been conducted illegally and no witness was examined to prove the charges. It is submitted that in fact the charge was of absenteeism and the respondent-workman had admitted that he had remained absent due to his illness; however, no documentary evidence was produced by him to show that he has remained ill on numerous occasions. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw has submitted that the Labour Court has very vaguely concluded that the departmental proceedings were illegal. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has also fell in error in upholding the findings of the Labour Court relating to the departmental proceedings. Thus, it is urged that the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order passed by the Single Judge may be quashed and set aside.

6. Per Contra, learned advocate Mr. Yogen N. Pandya, appearing for the respondent-workman has submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, confirming the findings of the Labour Court with regard to the illegal departmental proceedings may not be interfered with as the same is precisely passed. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya has submitted that the Labour Court has precisely held that the departmental proceedings is defective in nature and hence the appellant-Corporation was directed to reinstate the respondent-workman on his original post. It is submitted that in fact, no witness was examined during the departmental proceedings and no opportunity was given to the workman to adduce the evidence and hence, it is urged that the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with as the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge has recorded that an opp