Lengthy Period Of Absence Without Leave Documentation Is Unjustified, Bombay High Court Reduces Back Wages Of MSRTC's Employee

The High Court of Bombay single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that lengthy periods of absence from duty without proper leave documentation are unjustified, regardless of the plausibility of the reason behind the absence.

The High Court acknowledged that the Labour Court's decision of reinstatement of the absent employee with 25% back wages could not be reversed as the employer failed to challenge it. However, the Industrial Court was unjustified to increase the back wages to 100%, in the absence of concrete reasons.

Brief Facts:

Mr Dattatraya Ganpat (“Respondent”) was employed with Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (“MSRTC”) as a driver since November 23rd, 1978. On January 17th, 1991, he was transferred from Rajgurunagar Depot to Baramati Depot and was relieved on the same day. However, the Respondent did not report to duty at Baramati, leading to a memorandum of chargesheet issued on April 5, 1991, alleging unauthorized absence from duty since January 17, 1991. A departmental inquiry was conducted, during which the Respondent failed to report for duties until September 1993. Additionally, another chargesheet was issued on January 18, 1991, alleging encroachment by the Respondent in MSRTC premises at Manchar. The Respondent claimed that the alleged shed belonged to his father and denied any connection.

Based on the findings recorded in the chargesheet dated April 5, 1991, the Respondent was dismissed from service by order dated April 25, 1995. Appeals were made to the First Appellate Authority, which was rejected, leading to subsequent appeals also being turned down. The Respondent then approached the Labour Court, Pune, filing a complaint seeking reinstatement and full back wages under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The complaint was initially dismissed by the Labour Court but was later allowed by the Industrial Court on June 25, 2012, setting aside the previous order, and remanding the complaint to the Labour Court for fresh decision.

After remand, the Labour Court decided on the preliminary issue on October 6, 2012, holding that misconduct was not established and granting MSRTC the opportunity to prove the charges. However, MSRTC failed to provide sufficient evidence during the proceedings, leading the Labour Court to conclude that the Respondent was entitled to reinstatement but restricted the amount of back wages to 25% due to MSRTC being a non-profit organization. Additionally, the Labour Court did not accept the Respondent's contention regarding the inability to secure alternate employment post-termination.

Both MSRTC and the Respondent challenged the Labour Court's decision in the Industrial Court, Pune. MSRTC's revision application was dismissed, while the Respondent's application was allowed, directing MSRTC to pay 100% back wages from April 29, 1995, until reinstatement or superannuation, whichever was earlier.

Feeling aggrieved, MSRTC subsequently filed a petition challenging the Industrial Court's decision specifically regarding the increase in back wages from 25% to 100%.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court noted that the Respondent faced the charge of remaining unauthorizedly absent since January 17, 1991, following his transfer from Rajgurunagar Depot to Baramati Depot. Until the issuance of the chargesheet on April 5, 1991, the Respondent failed to report to duties, and even during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, he continued to remain absent until September 1993. The High Court emphasized that the period of absence spanning over 2 1/2 years couldn't be overlooked lightly. Additionally, it criticized MSRTC for its conduct during the disciplinary proceedings, stating that the failure of its officers to present evidence for cross-examination led to the Labour Court setting aside the punishment of dismissal.

Furthermore, the High Court acknowledged that the order directing reinstatement with 25% back wages had become final as MSRTC did not challenge it. Therefore, the High Court focused on whether the Industrial Court was justified in increasing the quantum of back wages from 25% to 100%. It highlighted that while there was no dispute regarding the Respondent's absence from duties, the justification for this extended absence was vague. The Respondent attributed the absence to his wife's illness, but the High Court found this explanation insufficient to justify the lengthy absence without proper leave documentation.

The High Court held that the Respondent did not follow the procedure to obtain sanctioned leave during his absence, noting a violation on his part. It opined that even if the Respondent had valid reasons for his absence, proper leave applications supported by medical certificates should have been submitted. The High Court also expressed concern over MSRTC's financial burden due to the increased back wages and highlighted the organization's status as a state government transport undertaking facing losses.

Conclusively, the order of the Industrial Court (Pune) was set aside. The High Court deemed it appropriate to award 50% back wages considering the long intervening period and the Respondent's prolonged absence from service. It also clarified that the intervening period would be treated as a duty for retirement benefits.

Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Shri Dattatraya Ganpat Bankhele

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2017

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr Dhananjay Rananaware with Ms Manjeet Lotankar

Advocate for the Respondent: Mr Shyam Patole

Click Here To Read/Download Order