The High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by a dismissed workman. It upheld the Labour Court's finding that the enquiry was fair and the dismissal for theft was proper, rejecting the plea that the punishment was disproportionate.
The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 194 OF 2007
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6861 OF 2006
K. H. Sathale.... ... Appellant.
Versus
M/s. Philips India Ltd... .... Respondent.
Smt.Seema Sarnaik for the Appellant.
Mr.Sarosh Bharucha i/by M/s.Daftary Pereira & Diwan
for the Respondent.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
DATED : 3RD OCTOBER, 2007.
P.C.:
The present appeal is directed against the order
dated 10th July, 2007 passed by the learned single
Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 6861 of 2006.
2. The appellant, who was a workman, was served with
the show cause-cum-charge-sheet related to the theft
of certain articles when the appellant was subjected
to a surprise check by the concerned authority.
Regular enquiry was held, in which, admittedly, the
appellant participated and the Enquiry Officer
ultimately submitted the report wherein the appellant
was found guilty of the article of charge and was
consequently dismissed from service. This was
-: 2 :-
questioned before the Labour Court, which made its
award dated 15th May, 2006 holding that the enquiry
was fair, proper and the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer were based upon the evidence. As such
the Labour Court declined to set aside either the
enquiry or the punishment relating to dismissal from
service. Learned single Judge while entertaining the
writ petition against the award of the Labour Court
dated 15th May, 2006 held as under:
"Ms. Sarnaik, learned advocate appearing
for the petitioner contended that there was no
police complaint lodged by the respondent
regarding the missing articles. She submits that
a duplicate key to the locker used to remain with
the respondent and, therefore, anybody could have
had access to the petitioner’s locker. She also
submits that the articles found in the
petitioner’s locker were not those with which he
was concerned as was not employed on the same
belt where these articles were manufactured.
These submissions cannot be accepted since there
is no evidence that there was any previous
discord between the petitioner and the respondent
or that the respondent had any animus against the
petitioner. There is no allegation of
victimization either.
-: 3 :-
As rightly submitted by Mr. Bharucha,
learned counsel for the respondent, that the
Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court have both
held on the basis of the evidence recorded at the
enquiry that the misconduct is proved. No
interference is called for since there is no
error apparent on the face of the record.
Writ petition rejected."
3. While challenging the above judgment of the learned
single Judge, contention raised before us is that on
true appreciation of evidence the appellant cannot be
held to be guilty of theft as the articles of charges
were not proved against the appellant. Secondly, it is
argued that the punishment of dismissal from service is
disproportionate to the gravity of article of charges
levelled against the appellant.
4. We find that both these contentions are without any
merits. Once the enquiry is held to be fair and proper
by the Labour Court coupled with the findings based
upon the correct appreciation of evidence, there is
hardly any scope for this Court to reappreciate any
evidence that to in Letters Patent Appeal. These are
findings of fact which even from the record before us
-: 4 :-
appear to be based upon correct appreciation of
evidence. Merely because another view could be taken
on the same fact, would be no ground for the court to
interfere in the present appeal.
5. Once the appellant was found guilty of the charge
of theft, the punishment of dismissal from service can
neither be termed as disproportionate nor
inappropriate. Any treatment of punishment primarily
falls in the domain of the Disciplinary Authority. In
the present case, even the Labour Court has duly
examined the matter and found that no error existed on
facts and law in the order passed by the Enquiry
Officer.
6. In view of the above, we find no merits in the
L.P.A. and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No
order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEFJUSTICE
Sd/-
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the high court can reappreciate evidence on the facts found by the Labour Court in a labour dispute dismissal case.
Whether the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charge of theft upheld by the Labour Court.
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal against the rejection of the writ petition has any merit.
K. H. Sathale
M/s. Philips India Ltd
Swatanter Kumar
D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court