Dismissed¶19

Ramesh Vishnu Jadhav v. Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd.

Bombay HC20 Feb 2025WP/19505/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proportionality of penalty; shockingly disproportionate punishment; dismissal for absenteeism; habitual absentee; three domestic enquiries (absence 24/33/56 days); Part-1 Award; First Labour Court Nashik; judicial non-interference in quantum of punishment; employer's prerogative to decide punishment; Article 142 of the Constitution; Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Ajit Mondal (SC, Civil Appeal No. 10604 of 2010, 15-03-2023) distinguished; writ petition against labour court award rejected. Court: Bombay High Court; Coram: Sandeep V. Marne, J.; Decision date: 20-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

The Labour Court cannot substitute itself for the employer and routinely interfere in the matter of punishment; it is for the employer to decide which punishment suits the nature of the misconduct. ¶15

Ramesh Vishnu Jadhav vs Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the punishment of dismissal imposed on the Petitioner for absenteeism was so disproportionate to the proved misconduct as to justify this Court interfering with the Labour Court's award and substituting a lesser penalty.

¶9

Court's answer

The Labour Court cannot substitute itself for the employer and routinely interfere in the matter of punishment; it is for the employer to decide which punishment suits the nature of the misconduct.

¶15

Ratio / Principle

Imposition of a lesser penalty can be suggested only in very rare cases where a Court or Tribunal finds the punishment shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

¶15

Key takeaways

In the present case the Petitioner was apparently a habitual absentee who faced three charge-sheets for absence of 24, 33 and 56 days; absence of almost two months in a private manufacturing establishment means the punishment of dismissal cannot be stated to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved.ratio¶15
There is no valid reason to interfere in the impugned award; the Petition is rejected.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Sandeep V. Marne, J.), Writ Petition No. 19505 of 2024, decided 20 February 2025 - rejected. The Petition by Ramesh Vishnu Jadhav challenged the award dated 18 July 2024 of the First Labour Court, Nashik, which answered the Reference in the negative and upheld his dismissal. The workman had faced three domestic enquiries for absences of 24, 33 and 56 days; the charges were held proved, and the Part-1 Award had held the enquiries fair and proper and the findings not perverse. Counsel for the Petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's order dated 15 March 2023 in Eastern Coalfields Limited v. Ajit Mondal (Civil Appeal No. 10604 of 2010), where the penalty of dismissal was substituted by a lesser penalty under Article 142 of the Constitution. Held, rejecting the Petition: (i) a Labour Court cannot substitute itself for the employer and routinely interfere in the matter of punishment - the choice of penalty is for the employer; (ii) a lesser penalty can be suggested only in very rare cases where the punishment is found shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct; (iii) the Petitioner being apparently a habitual absentee who faced three charge-sheets, absence of almost two months in a private manufacturing establishment cannot render dismissal shockingly disproportionate; therefore there was no valid reason to interfere with the impugned award.

¶1

k 1/3 49 wp 19505.24 as.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.19505 OF 2024

¶4

Ramesh Vishnu Jadhav ....Petitioner V/S Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd. ....Respondent

¶5

Mr. Gaurav Kalekar for the Petitioner.

¶6

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 20 FEBRUARY 2025.

¶7

P.C.:

¶8

The Petition challenges award dated 18 July 2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, First Labour Court, Nashik, answering the Reference in the negative.

¶9

Petitioner faced three domestic enquiries alleging absence for period of 24 days, 33 days and 56 days. The charges were held to be proved in the domestic enquiries. The enquiries were held to be fair and proper and the findings were held to be not perverse in the Part-1 Award. Coming to the issue of proportionality of penalty, the Labour Court has upheld the order of punishment.

¶10

The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has relied upon order dated 15 March 2023 of the Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Limited and others vs. Ajit Mondal and katkam Page No. 1 of 3

¶11

k 2/3 49 wp 19505.24 as.doc

¶12

others, (in Civil Appeal No.10604 of 2010) in which it is held as under:

¶13

“The test of proportionality has to be seen in a larger context. The larger context in the present case is that admittedly from 1975 the respondent no.1 had an unblemished record of service. Therefore, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in its approach in applying the rest of proportionality. Hence, in normal circumstances, we must dismiss the appeal and confirm the impugned order. But then the same may give rise to one more round of litigation with the disciplinary authority passing a fresh order and the same coming under challenge in another round of litigation.

¶14

The respondent was a poor line mazdoor and superannuated more than a decade ago. Therefore, we would like to exercise our power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution and substitute the penalty of dismissal of service by a lesser penalty.”

¶15

In my view, the Labour Court cannot substitute itself with that of the employer and routinely interfere in the matter of punishment. It is for the employer to decide as to which punishment would actually suit the nature of misconduct committed by the delinquent employee. It is only in very rare cases where a Court or Tribunal finds the punishment to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct that imposition of lesser penalty can be suggested. In the present case, Petitioner was apparently habitual absentee. He faced three charge-sheets for absence of 24 days, 33 days and 56 days.

¶16

5. When an employee does not report for duty for almost two months in a private establishment engaged in manufacturing

¶17

katkam Page No. 2 of 3

¶18

k 3/3 49 wp 19505.24 as.doc

¶19

activities, it cannot be stated that punishment of dismissal would be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. I therefore do not find any valid reason to interfere in the impugned award. The Petition is accordingly rejected.

¶20

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed SUDARSHAN by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM RAJALINGAM KATKAM KATKAM Date: 2025.02.24 14:07:39 +0530

¶22

Page No. 3 of 3

¶23

katkam

Ramesh Vishnu Jadhav v. Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Vishnu Jadhav v. Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Regus South Mumbai Business Centre Private Limited vs Marie Gold Realtors Private Limited

Sowil Limited vs Chief Engineer (Mmrda) Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority

Sadguru Daskishan Sai Baba Mandal vs Vaishali More

Thane Municipal Corporation Mahapalika Bhavan and Anr. vs Municipal Labour Union and Anr.

Jawed Habib Hair and Beauty Limited vs Max-Link

Tata Motors Finance Limited vs Samsuj Jaman