Sleeping On Duty Is Misconduct; Employee's Past Service Record Relevant In Deciding Quantum Of Punishment: Bombay HC

Background

Nadeem Dolare worked as a Skilled Worker-II at Asahi's Waked Plant. On 27 October 2006, during a night shift, a surprise inspection reportedly found him asleep in the changing room. A disciplinary inquiry was held, and Dolare was terminated on 31 August 2007. However, he challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court, and argued that his termination violated the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971. The Labour Court agreed, and deemed the inquiry and its findings perverse. Then, Asahi presented further evidence to justify terminating Dolare. However, the Labour Court ruled in Dolare's favor. It ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. This decision was also upheld by the Industrial Court on revision. Dissatisfied, Asahi challenged it before the High Court.

Arguments

Asahi's counsel argued that sleeping on duty endangered the operations of the Clariflocculator Plant, which is essential for float glass manufacturing. They contended that the misconduct was proven through photographs and eyewitness testimony and that the lower courts had wrongly dismissed this evidence. Moreover, they argued that reinstating Dolare, especially after the plant's closure in 2013, was not feasible.

Dolare's counsel countered that the allegations were fabricated, and arose from his objections to the pollution caused by the company's operations. They argued that the punishment was disproportionate, especially when Dolare had an otherwise clean record and long tenure. They also asserted that the concurrent findings of both the Labour and Industrial Courts should not be interfered with.

Court's Reasoning

The court first held that sleeping on duty in a responsible role, would constitute a misconduct under Asahi's standing orders. However, it noted that Dolare was not entrusted with any security or safety related duties. Further, the court also referred to Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate ((2005) 2 SCC 489) to highlight that an employee's past record of service is a relevant factor in deciding the quantum and proportionality of the punishment imposed. Thus, the court observed that a single instance of such behavior—absent any prior record of misconduct—did not justify the extreme penalty of dismissal.

Further, while the lower courts had identified inconsistencies in the evidence led by witnesses—such as minor variations in the reported time of the incident—the High Court held that it did not undermine the overall credibility of the witnesses. The court clarified that in departmental enquiries, minor inconsistencies cannot be a reason for discarding eyewitness evidence. It also explained, that the standard of proof in such enquiries is the preponderance of probability. It held that as long as there is some evidence in support of the charge, labour and industrial courts cannot interfere by analysing the sufficiency of evidence. Only in cases where there is no evidence, the court noted, can it override the domestic enquiry's findings.

On relief, the court explained that 14 years have passed since the dismissal. It held that the company had made reasonable offers of relocation, including financial support, which Dolare declined. Since he refused to relocate to the Karouli Plant following the closure of the Waked Plant, the court concluded that reinstatement was impractical. Thus, it ordered a compensation of Rs. 22,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages, while concluding that Dolare's dismissal was disproportionate. The petition was partly allowed.

Decided on: 13 December 2024

Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:48931, Asahi India Glass Ltd. v. Nadeem A. A. Dolare

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Avinash Jalisatgi with Mr. Vaibhav Jagdale

Counsel for the Respondent: Dr. Uday Warunjikar i/b Mr. Sumit Kate

Click Here To Read/Download The Order