Dismissal From Service For Being Absent From Place Of Work For Just Few Hours Is Disproportionate: Bombay High Court

Brief Facts:

The Petitioner, engaged in manufacturing DMT, a raw material for synthetic yarn, operates a DMT manufacturing plot. The Workman, employed as an Accounts Assistant (Weighbridge) in the Petitioner's DMT factory, was issued a show cause notice on 30 June 1999, alleging misconduct for absence during a heavy workload period without permission.

In response, the Workman sought pardon for his absence and subsequently faced a charge sheet alleging various forms of misconduct. An inquiry was conducted wherein the management presented six witnesses and the Workman examined himself and one additional witness. The outcome of the inquiry led to the Workman's dismissal from service on 24 September 1999. The Industrial Tribunal approved this dismissal through an order dated 21 October 2003.

However, the Workman challenged the dismissal through various legal avenues. Complaint before the Third Labour Court, Thane was deemed barred by limitation. Despite this, the Workman raised an industrial dispute seeking reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. The government referred the dispute to the Labour Court at Thane, later transferred to Mahad. The Labour Court's preliminary award found procedural flaws in the inquiry process. Feeling aggrieved, the Management approached the Bombay High Court (“High Court”).

The Petitioner contended that the Labour Court erred in its findings, arguing that the charges against the Workman were admitted and proven. It further argued that the punishment of dismissal was justified given the Workman's history of misconduct. Conversely, the Workman argued the petition, stating that the allegations were falsified during the inquiry.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court noted that the Workman explicitly acknowledged the validity of the allegation regarding his absence during the specified period. He admitted to being in the canteen from 15:00 to 15:30 for refreshments, engaging with superiors in the Accounts Department from 15:40 to 16:24 due to hunger, and receiving a relative during shift change time. Importantly, he acknowledged the pardonable nature of his absence.

Despite the clarity of the Workman's admissions and the corroborative evidence provided, the Labour Court inexplicably disregarded the entirety of the evidence on record. The High Court held that the charges against the Workman were proven before the Labour Court.

However, the High Court noted that the misconduct, characterized by the Workman's absence from work for a few hours, was not of a serious nature. It held that the penalty of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate. While attempts were made to justify the severity of the penalty by referring to the Workman's past conduct, a scrutiny of his disciplinary record revealed that previous infractions resulted in mere warnings or short suspensions. None of these past incidents were serious. Hence, the High Court held that the penalty of dismissal was excessive in light of the gravity of the proven misconduct.

Considering factors such as the Workman's age, now 54 years, and the protracted litigation spanning approximately 25 years, reinstatement with the Petitioner was held to be impractical and not in the Workman's best interest.

Despite the Workman's proven misconduct and the delay in raising the industrial dispute, the High Court held that he was not completely exonerated. His last drawn wages, along with the wages paid during the pendency of the case, served as the basis for calculating the compensation. After considering these factors, the High Court decreed a lump sum compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 to be paid by the Petitioner to the Workman.

The Workman was permitted to withdraw the awarded compensation from the maturity value of the backwages deposited in Court. The balance amount from the invested backwages shall be refunded to the Workman.

Case Title: Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs Mr. Yogesh Vinayak Tipre

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 4916 OF 2007

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi a/w Mr. T. R. Yadav & Ms. Divya Wadekar

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sachin Punde, for Respondent.