Back
2025 Supreme(Guj) 1316
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M. K. THAKKER, J.
Municipal Commissioner, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
Dhandhar Nagjibhai Zanzarbhai - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 9501 Of 2025
Decided On : 04-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr Hamesh C Naidu
For the Respondent: IG Joshi
Unauthorized absence constitutes indiscipline justifying termination; previous misconduct and disciplinary records must be considered in disciplinary contexts.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11(A) - Challenge against an award for reinstatement and back wages - Court found that the Labour Court erred in substituting the punishment of termination with reinstatement due to misconduct and previous disciplinary actions of the respondent - Evidence indicated unauthorized absences and failure to provide a required fitness certificate. (Paras 4, 6, 8, 10).
(B) Disciplinary Action - Failure of employee to appear for medical examinations and respond to charges - Unauthorised absence is treated as indiscipline which may justify termination. (Paras 8.1 to 8.3)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was terminated after a departmental inquiry established misconduct due to prolonged unauthorized absences from work and failure to provide a fitness certificate, despite numerous opportunities for compliance.
Findings of Court:
Labour Court's findings were deemed perverse; past disciplinary actions were ignored, thus reinstatement with back wages was unjustified under Section 11(A).
Issues: The main issues were the appropriateness of the Labour Court's substitution of punishment and the legitimacy of the findings based on the employee's past service record and misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court confirmed that unauthorized absence constitutes indiscipline and can warrant termination; the Labour Court failed to provide sufficient reasoning for interference with the disciplinary decision.
Result: Petition allowed, and the Labour Court's award set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. final hearing consent granted. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. challenge of termination and reinstatement. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. hearing of parties' advocates. (Para 5) |
| 4. contentions of petitioner and respondent. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's observations on labour court's findings. (Para 8) |
| 6. cited precedent on misconduct and absence. (Para 9) |
| 7. court's opinion on disciplinary action. (Para 10) |
| 8. conclusion and order to set aside earlier award. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
JUDGMENT :
M. K. THAKKER, J.
1. Upon consent of both parties, the matter was taken up for final hearing.
2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi waives notice of Rule on behalf of respondent.
3. The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the award dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned Labour Court, Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No. 407 of 2013, whereby the learned Labour Court directed the present petitioner to reinstate the respondent with 25% back wages, and further observed that continuity of service shall be counted for the purpose of extending terminal benefits.
4. It is the case of the present petitioner that the respondent was appointed as a Teacher on 01.07.1996 and continued in service until his termination on 05.09.2011. The respondent proceeded on medical leave on 02.12.2008. As on 17.02.2009, his leave balance was one month and six days. Accordingly, for the period from 02.12.2008 to 19.12.2008 (i.e., 18 days), the respondent was treated as being on commuted leave, and from 20.12.2008 onwards, his leave was treated as leave without pay. The respondent was directed to appear before the Medical Board of Sheth V.S. Hospital on 05.01.2009 for obtaining a fitness certificate. Although he appeared on the said date, he did not possess the required certificate, and was therefore instructed to appear again with the same. Thereafter, he was informed to remain present before the Medical Board on multiple dates, namely 20.03.2009, 13.04.2009, 07.05.2009, 20.05.2009, and 04.06.2009. Despite receiving all the communications, the respondent failed to remain present before the Medical Board. In view of the respondent’s conduct, a chargesheet was issued on 11.08.2009. Though the chargesheet was duly served, the respondent failed to submit any response thereto. A departmental inquiry was initiated by the petitioner, and the first hearing was scheduled on 08.09.2009. Despite being duly informed, the respondent failed to participate in the inquiry proceedings. The inquiry had to be deferred on multiple occasions due to the respondent’s continued absence, specifically on 17.09.2009, 30.09.2009, 29.10.2009, 13.11.2009, 23.12.2009, 07.01.2010, 21.01.2010, and 28.01.2010. On each of these dates, the respondent chose not to remain present before the Inquiry Officer. Ultimately, based on the findings of the departmental inquiry, which held the charges against the respondent to be proved, and considering the gravity of the misconduct, an order of termination was passed on 05.09.2011. The respondent preferred a departmental appeal against the order of termination, which came to be rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 22.02.2012. Challenging the said order, the reference came to be filed before the learned labour court, Ahmedabad which was registered being Reference (T) No.407 of 2013. Upon considering the statement of claim, written statement filed by the petitioner, and the evidence adduced by both parties, the learned Labour Court exercised its powers under Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and substituted the penalty of termination with reinstatement along with 25% back wages. The said award is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Hamesh Naidu for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.I.G.Joshi for the respondent
6. Learned advocate Mr.Naidu submits that learned labour court has committed an error in interfering with the punishment awarded by the
