An Letters Patent Appeal against a single judge order dismissing a writ petition challenging termination of service. The court held that the petitioner failed to prove his sickness by examining the doctor, thus upholding the finding that the charge of unauthorized absentism was proved.
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.
Priya 1 202 lpa 12-07
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.12 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7471 OF 2006
Shri Ramchandra Jyoti Patil, Aged 53 years, Occupation : Residing at Chandre Post, Walve, Taluka -Radhanagari, District :Kolhapur. … Appellant (Orig. Petitioner)
V/s. The Managing Director, Kolhapur Zilha Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd. MIDC-Gokul Shirgaon. … Respondent (Orig. Respondent)
Mr.S.K.More, Advocate for the Appellant. None for the Respondent.
--- CORAM : V.M. KANADE & MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 3 rd OCTOBER, 2016
JUDGMENT: (PER MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)
Priya 2 202 lpa 12-07
On 8th April, 1996, the respondent issued charge-sheet to the petitioner on the ground of misconduct of unauthorized absentism from duty. During the pendency of the inquiry the petitioner sought adjournments on the medical ground, however, the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner and concluded the inquiry as ex-parte. The report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 14th February, 1997 stating that the misconduct of the petitioner stands proved. A show cause notice was issued on 15th March, 1997 by the respondent alongwith the copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner, to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply. The respondent terminated the services of the petitioner on 24th June, 1997 on the ground that the misconduct is proved. The petitioner raised an Industrial dispute before the Industrial Court, Kolhapur. The petitioner approached to the Conciliation Authority, Pune. The Additional Commissioner of Labour Court, Pune Division, Pune, referred the matter to the learned Labour Court, Solapur, for adjudication. The learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court, Solapur, Camping at Kolhapur dismissed the reference. He however directed that it would be open for the respondent to appoint petitioner in its employment as a fresh clerk on the basis of his undertaking, not to repeat the misconduct again. Against the said order of the Labour Court, the petitioner preferred the writ petition bearing No.7471 of 2006 before the learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the petitioner has filed the
Priya 3 202 lpa 12-07
present appeal.
Priya 4 202 lpa 12-07
establish the same. It is the case of the appellant that the medical certificate produced by him was actually not disputed, however, the said fact was not considered by the learned Labour Court and it was held that the said medical certificate was not proved by the petitioner, as the contents therein were not proved by examining the Medical Officer. The learned Single Judge has considered the said aspect and has opined that the petitioner ought to have made efforts to establish the truthfulness of the contents of the medical certificate.
(MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J.)
(V.M. KANADE, J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Letters Patent Appeal should be dismissed as the findings of the learned Single Judge were not infirm.
Whether the petitioner failed to prove the contents of the medical certificate by examining the concerned doctor.
Whether the charge of misconduct stands proved due to unauthorized absentism.
Shri Ramchandra Jyoti Patil
The Managing Director, Kolhapur Zilha Sahakari Doodh Utpadak Sangh Ltd.
V.M. KANADE
MRS. SWAPNA S. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
