Advocates:
['T R YADAV', 'JAIPRAKASH SAWANT R', '', 'SMT ANJALI P PURAV']

1

wp12.09.sxw

CPM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 12 OF 2009

Mukesh Valera,

Age 54 years,

A/5 Tejmahal,

Umed Ashram Road,

Borivali (W) Mumbai-400 092

...Petitioner.

Vs.

1.

Permanent Magnets Ltd.

Dattapada Road,

Village Magathane,

Borivali (E) Mumbai-400 066

2.

S.V. Modgi

Vice President (Tech.)

Permanent Magnets Ltd.

Dattapada Road,

Village Magathane,

Borivali (E), Mumbai-400 066.

3.

S.S. Naik,

General Manager Works,

Permanent Magnets Ltd.

Dattapada Road,

Village Magathane,

Borivali (E) Mumbai-400 066

4.

S.S. Taparia

Managing Director,

Permanent Magnets Ltd.

Dattapada Road,

Village Magathane,

Borivali (E) Mumbai 400 06

...Respondents.

WITH

1/12

2

wp12.09.sxw

WRIT PETITION NO. 1958 OF 2012

Permanent Magnets Ltd.

incorporated under Companies Act 1956

Dattapada Road,

Village Magathane,

Borivali (E) Mumbai-400 066

At present located

at Plot No. B-2/3, Mira MIDC

Industrial Area, Mira Road (East),

Thane- 401 104

...Petitioner.

Vs.

Shri Mukesh Valera

A/5 Tejmahal,

Umed Ashram Road,

Borivali (W) Mumbai-400 092

..Respondent.

Mr. Arshad Shaikh i/by T.R. Yadav for the Petitioner.

Mrs. Anjali Purav for Respondent No.4.

CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J.

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 7 MAY, 2013.

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 19 NOVEMBER, 2013

JUDGMENT:

The order of the Labour Court dated 4 December 2007 is impugned in

these cross Petitions filed by the workman and the Company. The operative part

of the impugned order reads as follows:

“ORDER

1. The reference is hereby answered in the affirmative.

2. The first party is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,48,080/-

to the Second party workman.

2/12

3

wp12.09.sxw

3. The prayer in respect of reinstatement and back wages is hereby

rejected.

4. The award be sent to the appropriate government for its publication.

5. No order as to costs.”

The workman is aggrieved by the order to the extent of denial of reinstatement

and back wages whereas Company is aggrieved by the order granting

compensation.

2.

The workman was employed with the Company from 15 February 1979.

He was working as a Chemist at the time of termination of his service on 6

September 2000. The workman was terminated on the ground that he had

indulged in a dishonest act of forging a letter dated 9 August 2000 purported to

have been sent by the Personnel Officer of the Company to Abhyudaya Co-

operative Bank. In the said letter dated 9 August 2000 addressed to Abhyudaya

Co-operative Bank, it was stated that the Company agree to deduct the

instalment of the loan taken by the workman from his salary till repayment of the

loan. According to the Company, this fact came to be known to it when it

received a letter dated 2-9-2002 from the Bank and after making due inquiry

and correspondence with the Bank. The workman was therefore terminated from

service on 6 September 2000 on the ground that the Company had lost

confidence in him and it was a high risk to continue him in service. By a letter

dated 23 September, 2000, the workman called upon the Company to reinstate

3/12

4

wp12.09.sxw

him to the original post with full back wages and continuity of service with effect

from 6 September, 2000. In the said letter it was stated that without furnishing

any reasons or issuing any charge-sheet or holding any inquiry the Company

had issued the termination order dated 6 September, 2000 and the ground on

which his services were terminated were illegal and unjustified.

3.

The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for

adjudication to the Labour Court by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour upon

failure of conciliation. The workmen filed a Statement of Claim and the

Company filed its Written Statement. The workman examined himself and the

Company examined a hand-writing expert, Shri Harish T. Gajjar. After hearing the

partie