The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition as the Petitioner had made out no case for this Court to conclude that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner was in any manner disproportionate. A single-judge bench of this Court comprising Hon’ble Justice G.S. Kulkarni held that to warrant the interference of the Court, punishment has to be outrageously disproportionate in comparison to the gravity of the misconduct.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner was an employer of Respondent from 30 November 1991 as a bus driver. In 2008, a chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner alleging misconduct of unauthorized absenteeism from 1 June 2007 to 31 May 2008. When the disciplinary enquiry commenced, the Petitioner remained absent despite receiving ample opportunities to participate. The termination order dated 6 September 2008 was issued by the disciplinary committee. Being aggrieved by the termination of his services, the Petitioner approached the Labour Court with the Complaint (ULP) in question.
The Labour Court considering the materials on record, was not persuaded to accept the case of the Petitioner so as to justify his absenteeism, that there was some incident of fire to the bus the Petitioner was plying, which took place sometime in November 2006, and in which the Petitioner had suffered some burn injuries on his hands, which had prevented him from offering the duties/work. Further, the findings as rendered by the Labour Court have also been confirmed by the Industrial Court by its judgment and order dated 13 January 2016. In dealing with the Petitioner's disproportionate punishment, the learned Member of the Industrial Court observed that the punishment could not be said to be shockingly disproportionate.The present petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and order dated 13 January 2016 of the Industrial Court at Pune, whereby the Revision Application filed by the Petitioner had been dismissed, confirming the judgment and order dated 30 July 2014 rendered by the 2nd Labour Court, Pune on Complaint whereby the Petitioner’s complaint alleging unfair labor practice by the Respondent was rejected.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner attempted to connect the incident of fire which had taken place in a bus plied by the Petitioner in November 2006 to justify his unauthorized absence for the period from 1 June 2007 to 31 May 2008. Further, the learned Counsel submitted that the punishment of dismissal awarded to the Petitioner is disproportionate in the current scenario.
Observations of the Court:
In respect to the first contention of the Petitioner, this Court observed that there was no material as to why he remained absent from duties for such a long period without authorization. Further, it was noticed from the record that the Petitioner was demonstrably negligent and callous as he failed to attend the enquiry proceedings despite notices served on him at every stage of the proceedings. The Petitioner also did not examine any witness and/or did not produce any tangible material on record so as to justify his unauthorized absenteeism.
Regarding the submission of the Petitioner that the punishment of dismissal awarded is disproportionate, this Court referred to the settled proposition of law that “the authority to impose punishment in disciplinary proceedings vests with the disciplinary authority and/or the appellate authority. When any such decision, either of the disciplinary authority or of the appellate authority, falls for consideration of the Court, including in exercise of powers of judicial review, in such a situation the normal rule is that the Courts would not lightly interfere with the discretion of the disciplinary authority in imposing a penalty or punishment. However, there is an exception to this rule. The exception being when the penalty or punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the misconduct of the delinquent employee, that no reasonable body of persons can come to a conclusion to impose such punishment/penalty, only in such situation the Courts would step in by invoking the doctrine of proportionality”. Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, in view of this Court, the Labour Court had rightly rejected the Petitioner's contention that in the case, the punishment on such count could not be said to be disproportionate.
The decision of the Court:
The Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition as the Petitioner has made out no case to warrant the interference of this Court.
Case Title: Nijam Mohamad Mulani vs Transport Manager, Pune Mahanagar Pariwahan Mahamandal Ltd.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice G.S. Kulkarni
Case no.: WRIT PETITION NO.11978 OF 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr.Anand S. Kulkarni
Advocate for the Respondents: None
Read Judgment
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments