Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 2529
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
N.J.JAMADAR, J
Godrej and Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Sanjay Gangaram Dagade – Respondent
Writ Petition No.202 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.998 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.207 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.205 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.209 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.210 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.1081 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.195 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.203 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.206 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.213 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.194 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.218 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.212 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.208 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.220 of 2023 | Writ Petition No.204 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Mr. J.P.Cama, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Varun Joshi, Mr. Chetan Alai, Ms. Rama Somani i/by Mr. Chetan Alai
For the Respondents: Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni
A dismissal without a domestic inquiry violates labor laws, warranting interim wage relief but not reinstatement; employers maintain the right to justify their terminations under industrial disputes.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 - Section 10A, Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 - Dismissal of employees - Court found that dismissal without a domestic enquiry violated the Act, directing employer to deposit 50% wages as interim relief - Exercise of the employer's right to justify dismissal does not restore employer-employee relationship - The interim order is affirmed with modifications preventing employees from withdrawing deposited amounts (Paras 3.6, 35-66).
(B) Right of employer to justify dismissal - No statutory right exists to grant interim relief absent a disciplinary enquiry - Inspiring confidence in judicial proceedings to resolve disputes does not permit automatic reinstatement - The proportionate punishment principle applies in misconduct cases (Paras 36-59).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner company terminated services of employees without a domestic enquiry, leading to complaints and counter-complaints over union representation and labor practices. The Labour Court ordered the employer to pay subsistence allowance while adjudicating the legitimacy of the dismissal.
Findings of Court:
The Labour Court correctly discerned absence of a disciplinary enquiry constituted a prima facie case for interim relief that favors workmen, asserting initial payments towards wages.
Issues: The viability of interim relief by an industrial tribunal, the legality of the dismissal without a preliminary domestic inquiry, and the applicability of Section 10A concerning subsistence allowance were main points debated.
Ratio Decidendi: Employers may justify dismissals even without domestic enquiries but should not elevate their position above employers who follow due process. The order for 50% wages as interim relief balances the interests of both workmen and management until the final resolution of disputes.
Result: Writ Petitions partly allowed, interim relief affirmed with restrictions on withdrawal of deposited wages.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. inquiry into employment disputes (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. legality of interim measures in industrial disputes (Para 4 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. arguments against labour court's interim order (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. precedents regarding interim relief powers (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. court's evaluation of the dismissal's validity (Para 60 , 61 , 62) |
| 6. final ruling on petitions and interim compensation (Para 65 , 66) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2. Since common questions crop up for consideration in all these Petitions, arising out of identical facts, these Petitions were heard together and are decided by a common judgment. Writ Petition No.202 of 2023 is considered as the lead Petition and the facts in the said Petition are noted for the purpose of determination.
3. Background facts can be stated in brief as under :
3.1 The Petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The Petitioner is engaged, inter alia, in the manufacturing of motors for home appliances and general purpose specialized motors. The Petitioner runs a factory at Shindewadi, Shirval. It employs about 172 permanent workmen; out of which 168 are in the skilled category.
3.2 The Respondents in each of the Petitions were the employees of the Petitioner. Lawkim Kamgar Sangh, a recognized union, was functioning in the establishment of the Petitioner. In the month of June 2017, the Respondents- workmen allegedly joined another Union – Engineering Kamgar Sangh. It seems, dispute arose over the right to represent the workmen employed in the Petitioner’s establishment between the recognized Union and Engineering Kamgar Sangh, affiliated to Bhartiya Mazdoor Sangh.
3.3 A Complaint (ULP) No.24 of 2017 was filed by the Engineering Kamgar Sangh to restrain the Petitioner from deducting membership subscription and remitting the same to Lawkim Kamgar Sangh. Alleging that the Respondent and other workmen had resorted to illegal acts of willful and deliberate go-slow and obstructed the very ingress and egress of men, machinery and material as well as the general public at large and, otherwise, created reign of terror amongst the employees, the Petitioner preferred Complaint (ULP) No.79 of 2019 of unfair labour practices under Items 1, 2(a), 2(b), 5 and 6 of Schedule III of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (the Act, 1971).
3.4 The Union, in turn, alleged that 58 workmen were not allowed to join the duties and filed Complaint (ULP) No.93 of 2019. Pursuant to the consent terms arrived at in the said Complaint, those 58 workers were allowed to join the duties, on 3 August 2019.
3.5 The Petitioner alleged in spite of consent terms, individual declaration, the Respondents and other workmen concerned continued to indulge in illegal acts of willful and deliberate go-slow and low output and were also found missing from the work-place over a period of time. The Petitioner was, thus, constrained to issue notice on 20 February 2020 calling upon the Respondents to show cause. It was alleged that the Respondents committed breach of the consent terms in not giving required output / productivity, not being found at the work place and also being found idling / wasting time during the working hours. The Respondents were put to notice that the management contemplated to take strict disciplinary action.
3.6 A reply was issued to the show cause notice, on 1 March 2020. As the reply was not found satisfactory, a chargesheet was served on the Respondents, on 21 August 2020. It was contended that the imputations against the Respondents detailed in the chargesheet amount to acts of misconduct under the Model Standing Order No.24(a), (e), (h) and (l), in addition to the contempt of Court. Alleging that the Respondents did not give satisfactory reply to the chargesheet within the extended period and continued to indulge in the misconduct
