Dismissed

Mr. Inderchand Tarachand Jain v. Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Ltd.

Bombay HC16 Sept 2016LPA/216/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Letters Patent Appeal No.216 of 2009, the Bombay High Court in Civil Appellate Jurisdiction dismissed the appeal against the Single Judge's order quashing a Labour Court award. The Labour Court had reinstated the dismissed appellant, finding dismissal disproportionate. The High Court upheld the Single Judge's decision, agreeing the appellant's explanation for absence was inadequate and proper s

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.

Mr. Inderchand Tarachand Jain Vs Tata… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Bombay HC (2016)

1/3

LPA 216 of 2009

Vat

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶6

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.216 OF 2009 IN

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.2115 OF 1999

¶8

Mr. Inderchand Tarachand Jain ….Appellant Vs.

¶9

Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Ltd. ….Respondent

¶10

¶11

None for the Appellant

¶12

Mr. K.S. Bapat a/w. Mr. A.K. Gopalan a/w. Mr. Aniket Mokashi i/b. Haresh Mehta and Co. for the Respondent

¶13

¶14

CORAM : V. M. KANADE &

¶15

SMT. SWAPNA S. JOSHI, JJ

¶16

DATE : SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

¶17

P.C. :

¶18

None appears on behalf of the Appellant. Heard Shri Bapat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.

¶19

The Appellant has challenged the order passed by the Learned Single Judge dated 21.8.2007. By the said order, the Learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the award passed by the Labour Court.

¶20

Brief facts, which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the

¶21

appeal, are as under:

¶22

2/3

¶23

LPA 216 of 2009

¶24

The Appellant was employed in Respondent – Company as miller w.e.f. 25^th September, 1978. During the course of his employment, Appellant took number of leave. He was, therefore, suspended for one day. However, he has not improved his performance and continued to remain absent for 56 days on 24 occasions. A charge sheet was issued to the Appellant on 26.10.1987 alleging that he has committed misconduct by remaining absent on number of days. The Appellant was dismissed from the services on 26.1.1988 after taking into consideration the finding of the Enquiry officer. Therefore, the Conciliation Officer issued a Failure Report and the Reference (IDA) No. 176 of 1991 came for adjudication before the Labour Court at Pune. The Labour Court was pleased to adjudicate the Reference and pass an Award Part II dated 28.8.1998. It was held that the enquiry conducted against the second party was legal, fair and in proper manner. It was further held that the finding of the inquiry is not perverse and the misconduct is proved. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct which was committed by the Appellant and therefore, directed the Respondent to reinstate the Appellant without back wages.

¶25

Being aggrieved by the said order, the Respondent preferred a writ petition before this Court which was allowed by the Learned Single

¶26

3/3

¶27

LPA 216 of 2009

¶28

Judge by a detailed order dated 21^st August, 2007.

¶29

We have, with the assistance of Shri Bapat, learned counsel for the Respondent, gone through the impugned judgment and order of the Learned Single Judge. The Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration various judgments of this Court and also of other High Courts, has observed that the Labour Court has erred in giving a direction that the Appellant should be reinstated.

¶30

The Learned Single Judge, in our view, after going through the record, has correctly held that the explanation given by the Appellant for his absence was not adequate and the stand taken by the Appellant was not proper.

¶31

In our view, it will not be possible to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the Learned Single Judge. Hence, LPA is dismissed.

¶32

SWAPNA S. JOSHI, J. V.M. KANADE, J.

¶33

Vaishali Tikam

Mr. Inderchand Tarachand Jain v. Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Inderchand Tarachand Jain v. Tata Engineering Locomotive Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Airex Logistics Expres Services P. Ltd. Vs Asit C. Mehta Investment Intermediates Ltd.

Jamil Shafi Ansari Vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and 3 Ors.

Eco Recycling Ltd. Vs Key Note Capitals Ltd.

Anil Pundlik Abhave Vs M/S.Vidya Enterprises and Anr.

Mr. Parth Krishnakant Shah Vs Mrs. Palak Parth Shah

Baban Maruti Yesne Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.