Maflow India Pvt Ltd Through Representative v. Himmatsingh Babulal Girase

k 1/6 43-50 wp 1345.25 as.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1345 OF 2025 Maflow India Private Limited ....Petitioner V/S Ashok Nishakant Chalake ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1346 OF 2025 Maflow India Private Limited ....Petitioner V/S Jivan Dnyaneshwar Khedke ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1351 OF 2025 Maflow India Private Limited ....Petitioner V/S Badrinarayan Ramesh Kumar ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1365 OF 2025 Maflow India Private Limited ....Petitioner V/S Sanjay Bhimrao Magdum ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1366 OF 2025 Maflow India Private Limited ....Petitioner V/S Nitesh Vitthal Gadge ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1367 OF 2025 1 of

k 2/6 43-50 wp 1345.25 as.doc Maflow India Private Limited ....Petitioner V/S Himmatsingh Babulal Girase ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1368 OF 2025 Maflow India Private Limited ....Petitioner V/S Shankar Appasaheb Patil ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1370 OF 2025 Maflow India Private Limited ....Petitioner V/S Sopan Kisan Hande ....Respondent _________ Mr. Varun Joshi a/w Ms. Rama Somani, Mr. Bhushan Bhadgale i/b Mr. Chetan A. Alai for the Petitioner. __________ CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATE : 06 FEBRUARY 2025.

P.C.:

1.

The Petitions challenge final Awards dated 12 August 2024 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.4, Pune, answering the References partly in the affirmative by directing reinstatement of the concerned workmen with 40% backwages and consequential benefits.

2 of

k 3/6 43-50 wp 1345.25 as.doc 2.

I have heard Mr. Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioner and have considered the submissions canvassed by him. I have also gone through the findings recorded by the Labour Court while answering the references partly in affirmative as well as the relevant records of the case placed alongwith the Petitions.

3.

The Respondents faced following charges:

"

तुम्हीकारखान्यातकामगारम्हणूनउत्पादनविभागातकामालाआहात. सोमारविदनांक०४.०४.

२०१६रोजीतुम्हीपविहल्यापाळीतकामारहोतात तसेचतुम्हीकंपनीच्याबसनेयेणेअपेक्षि+तहोतापणतुम्हीबसमधूनआला नाहीत ैयवि.करीत्याआलात.

तुमच्यापाळीचीेळसकाळी०६.

३०ते दुपारी०२.

३०पय0तहोती.

तुमच्याबाबतअसेविनदर्श2नासआलेआहेविकसोमारविदनांक०४.०४.२०१६ रोजीसकाळी०६.

४५ाजेच्यासुमारासतुम्ही तुमचेबरोबरइतरसह कामगारनामेश्री.

संजयमगदूम, श्री.

सोपानहांडे, श्री.

जीनखेकडे, श्री.

बद्रीनारायणकुमार, श्री.

र्शंकरपाटील, श्री.

अर्शोकचाळके, श्री. हिंहमतसिंसग विगरासे, श्री.

विनतेर्शघाडगे इतरकामगारहैकामारकंपनीच्याआतयेण्याच्या ऐजीमेनगेटरआलात जोरजोरातघोषणाद्यायला, लागलातसेच कंपनीच्यात्याेळेसजेअक्षिधकारीकंपनीच्याआतत्यांच्याकामाच्यापाळी प्रमाणेयेतहोतेत्याअक्षिधकाऱ्यानाधमक्याद्यायलासुरातकेली त्यानंतरसाधारण७ा.

जेव्हाश्री.

रोविहतअग्राल स्नेहामगरयांनीगेटर जाऊनतुम्हालाविनंतीकेली समजाूनसांगण्याचाप्रयत्नकेलाविक"तुम्ही कामारया कंपनीच्याबाहेरराहणेतसेचअर्शाघोषणादेणे, गोंधळघालणेहे बेकायदेर्शीरआहे"

त्यारतुम्हीयादोन्हीअक्षिधकाऱ्यानाधमकाले  खालीलप्रमाणेधमकीच्यास्रूपातबोललेतेयेणेप्रमाणे, "

तूमलाशिर्शकतोकाकायदा, बाहेरये, मगतुझेहातपायआशिणतोंडजागेर राहतातकाबघ"

त्याचेळेससुर+ाविभागचेसुपरायझरयांनीमध्यस्थीकरत तुम्ही तुमचेइतरउपरो. नामोल्लीखीतकामगारांनासमजाण्याचा अर्शा कृत्यापासूनदूरराहण्याच्यासूचनादेूनतुम्हालापटूनदेण्याचाप्रयत्नकेला पणतुम्हीत्यांचेम्हणणेऐकण्याच्यामनस्थिस्थतीमध्येनव्हता तुम्हीकोणतेही 3 of

k 4/6 43-50 wp 1345.25 as.doc कारणनसतानाकोणत्याहीअक्षिधकाऱ्याच्याआदेर्शाचेपालनकेलेनाहीउलट प+ीतुम्हीशिर्शराळभाषेतत्यांनाप्रक्षितउत्तरदेतांनाम्हणालातविक"तुम्ही कंपनीचेनौकरआहात, तुम्हीमध्येपडूनका"

त्याहीपुढेजाूनतुम्हीया अक्षिधकाऱ्यानाधमकीविदलीविक"

तुम्हीकुणीहीमधेपडलाततरमारखाल, तुम्हालाकंपनीच्याबाहेरबघूनघेईल"

त्याचेळेसतुम्हीशिर्शराळभाषेचाापर करीतअभद्रघोषणादेतखालीलप्रमाणेओरडतहोतात"

व्यस्थापनमुदा2बाद", "एच. उतर.

विभागमुदा2बाद", "

व्यस्थापनपागलआहे", "

कंपनीचोरआहे", "

कंपनीलाघोडालाणार"

असेबोलूनतुम्हीकंपनीच्यागेटरउभेराविहलात पणकामालाआतमधेआलानाहीत.

त्यानंतरविदनांक११.०४.

२०१६लाअचानकपणेतुम्हीपुन्हाकंपनीच्यागेटर आलात अक्षिधकान्यानांबोलाूनआतयायचीविनंतीकेलीतुम्ही१०am ला आतआला.

तेव्हाकंपनीअक्षिधकारीस्नेहामगरयांनीतुम्हालातुमच्यारील गैरकृत्यामुळेविनलंबनाचेपत्रदेऊकेलेजेतुम्हीघेण्यासस्पष्टपणेनकारविदला स2 २४कामगारांनाकंपनीच्याबाहेरघेूनगेलात हेआरोपपत्रदेईपय0तबाहेर आहात कामारयेतनाहीत."

4.

The above charges were held to be proved in the domestic inquiry and punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on them on 16 March 2017. In the References made at the instances of the Respondents, Part-I Award on preliminary issue Nos.1 and 2 was decided in favour of the Petitioner and against the Respondents holding that the enquiry was fair, legal and proper and that findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. In final Award, the Labour Court however directed reinstatement with 40% backwages by invoking the principle of proportionality by holding that the punishment imposed is disproportionate.

5.

Perusal of the charges levelled against the Respondents would indicate that the same relate essentially to shouting 4 of

k 5/6 43-50 wp 1345.25 as.doc slogans and threatening the company officials. Though Mr. Joshi has strenuously sought to suggest that lady official of the company was threatened by the Respondents, there is nothing to indicate that the alleged act of threatening was aimed only because the official happened to be a lady. It appears that Smt. Snehalata Magar was merely accompanying Shri Rohit Agarwal and the act of threatening was towards the duo without making any specific reference to Smt. Magar. The charge-sheet does not indicate that any inappropriate words were used towards Smt. Magar. In fact, the threatening words " तूमला शिर्शकतोकाकायदा] बाहेरये, मग तुझेहातपायआशिणतोंडजागेरराहातात काबघ" would indicate that the threat was possibly aimed at a male official (Rohit Agarwal) and not to Smt. Magar. 6.

Admittedly the workmen have not actually assaulted any person nor created obstruction to fellow workmen from performing their duties. It is not that the act of threatening or shouting slogans continued for more than one day. It was only a stray incident which took place on 4 April 2016. In such circumstances, though the Respondents workmen indulged in misconduct on 4 April 2016, they ought to have been awarded penalty other than dismissal from service. The penalty of dismissal from services is not commensurate with the charges levelled and proved against them. The punishment of dismissal from services has shocked the conscience of Labour Court and it shocks the conscience of this Court as well. I am therefore, not 5 of

k 6/6 43-50 wp 1345.25 as.doc inclined to interfere in the order passed by the Labour Court which ensures that the concerned workmen are denied 60% of wages for five long years on account of the misconduct committed by them. Denial of 60% wages to them would represent adequate penalty for the Respondents-workmen. No interference is therefore warranted in the impugned Awards passed by the Labour Court. Writ Petitions are accordingly rejected. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date:

2025.02.11 18:20:59 +0530 SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM 6 of