Dismissed¶20

Ganpat Namdev More v. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyemandir

Bombay HC30 Jan 2025WP/1223/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; Labour Court award upheld. Keywords: reinstatement reference; 2nd Labour Court Nashik; termination during probation; termination letter dated 11 February 2020; alleged oral termination 11 April 2018; manufactured/afterthought documents; absence of pleading in Statement of Claim and affidavit of evidence; no salary after 15 January 2018; no palpable error; Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandir; Ganpat Namdev More; Sandeep V. Marne J.

What did the court decide?

In the light of no attempt by the Petitioner to even deal with the letters dated 3 January 2018, 17 February 2018 and 11 February 2020, the Labour Court cannot be faulted in holding that his services were indeed terminated on 11 February 2020 by way of a specific letter, falsifying his claim of oral termination. ¶19

Ganpat Namdev More vs Mahatma Gandhi Vidyemandir — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's services were orally terminated on 11 April 2018 as claimed by him, or were terminated by a letter dated 11 February 2020 on failure to complete probation, as contended by the employer and found by the Labour Court. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Mere surmise raised by the Petitioner that he did not receive any salary after 15 January 2018 is not enough to rebut the concrete evidence produced by the employer showing his termination being effected on 11 February 2020.

¶19

Key takeaways

No palpable error exists in the impugned Award of the Labour Court; the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is rejected.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Coram Sandeep V. Marne, J.; Writ Petition No. 1223 of 2025, decided 30 January 2025. The Court dismissed the petition challenging the Award dated 27 February 2024 of the Presiding Officer, 2nd Labour Court, Nashik, by which the Reference for reinstatement of the workman was answered in the negative. Held: the employer proved that the workman's earlier spell ended with termination dated 3 January 2018, he was re-appointed on 17 February 2018 on probation until 18 February 2020, and his services were terminated by letter dated 11 February 2020 for unsatisfactory service/failure to complete probation. The workman's claim of oral termination on 11 April 2018 stood falsified; although he possessed copies of all three documents from the conciliation stage, neither his Statement of Claim (15 November 2021) nor his affidavit of evidence (8 March 2022) pleaded that they were manufactured, and mere surmise that he received no salary after 15 January 2018 could not rebut the employer's concrete evidence. Finding no palpable error in the Award, the petition was rejected.

¶1

Neeta Sawant 59-WP-1223-2025.docx

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1223 OF 2025

¶4

Ganpat Namdev More ….Petitioner

¶5

: Versus :

¶6

Mahatma Gandhi Vidyamandir ….Respondent

¶7

Ms. Anubha Rastogi, i/by. Ms. Bhavana Mhatre, for the Petitioner.

¶8

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 30 January 2025.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

The petition challenges the Award dated 27 February 2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, 2^nd Labour Court, Nashik by which Reference made with regard to reinstatement of the Petitioner has been answered in the negative.

¶11

I have heard Ms. Rastogi, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by her. I have also gone through the findings recorded by the Labour Court in the impugned order, as well as the pleadings and evidence produced before the Labour Court which is placed on record alongwith the petition.

¶12

Before the Labour Court, there was a basic confusion about the exact date of termination of the Petitioner. He came up with a case that his services were orally terminated on 11 April 2018.

¶13

Page No. 1 of 3 30 January 2025

¶14

Neeta Sawant 59-WP-1223-2025.docx

¶15

The employer, on the other hand, contended that the last spell of his appointment was made on 17 February 2018 for a period from 19 February 2018 to 18 February 2020 by placing him on probation. The employer further contended that due to unsatisfactory services rendered by the Petitioner, his services were terminated by letter dated 11 February 2020.

¶16

The Petitioner now contends that the whole theory of termination of earlier spell of service on 3 January 2018, fresh appointment issued on 17 February 2018 and alleged termination letter dated 11 February 2020 is totally false and that the concerned documents have been manufactured by the employer by way of an afterthought. It is Petitioner’s contention that he received copies of those documents only when the matter was taken in conciliation. Thus as per the admission given by the Petitioner, he possessed the documents being termination letter dated 3 January 2018, appointment order dated 17 February 2018 and second termination order dated 11 February 2020 before he filed his Statement of Claim on 15 November 2021. However in the entire Statement of Claim, there is not even a whisper about the said documents being manufactured or that the defence set up by the employer about continuation of his services till 11 February 2020 being false. Similar is the case in the Affidavit of evidence filed by the Petitioner on 8 March 2022 in which again he did not make any efforts to deal with the first termination letter dated 3 January 2018, re-appointment order dated 17 February 2018 and last termination order dated 11 February 2020. The employer, on the other hand, gave evidence about Petitioner’s earlier termination, his fresh appointment on 17 February 2018 and his termination on account of failure to complete the period of

¶17

Page No. 2 of 3 30 January 2025

¶18

Neeta Sawant 59-WP-1223-2025.docx

¶19

probation on 11 February 2020. Thus, the Labour Court had before it evidence of behalf of the Management about termination of the Petitioner being effected on 11 February 2020 due to non-completion of probation period satisfactorily and absence of any pleading or evidence on the part of the Petitioner to rebut the above position. In my view, in the light of no attempt being made on the part of the Petitioner to even deal with the letters dated 3 January 2018, 17 February 2018 and 11 February 2020, the Labour Court cannot really be faulted in holding that Petitioner’ services were indeed terminated on 11 February 2020 by way of a specific letter thereby falsifying his claim of oral termination on 11 February 2018. Mere surmise raised by the Petitioner that he did not receive any salary after 15 January 2018 would not be enough for rebutting concrete evidence produced by the employer showing his termination being effected on 11 February 2020.

¶20

I therefore do not find any palpable error in the impugned Award passed by the Labour Court. The petition being devoid of merits is accordingly rejected.

¶21

Digitally signed by NEETA NEETA SHAILESH SHAILESH SAWANT SAWANT Date: 2025.01.30 19:19:06 +0530

¶22

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

¶23

Page No. 3 of 3 30 January 2025

Ganpat Namdev More v. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyemandir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Namdev More v. Mahatma Gandhi Vidyemandir

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh R Dubey vs the State of Maharashtra through Chief Secretary State of Maharashtra

Hdfc Bank Ltd. vs the Dy Commissioner of Labour Kamgar Bhavan

Punyashlok Ahilyadevi Holkar Solapur University Solapur Thr. Vice Chancellor vs Shrikant Rajaram Kaokare

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs MD Supreme Transport Co.

Tata Motor Finance Ltd. vs Ncs Autocraft Pvt. Ltd.

Mahendra Realtors and Infrastructure Private Limited vs the Managing Director, Maharashtra Fisheries Development Corporation Limited