Vijaykumar Kanchalal Kayasth vs Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemicals ... on 22 June, 2015

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Vijaykumar Kanchalal Kayasth vs Gujarat State Fertilizer & Chemicals ... on 22 June, 2015

Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt

        C/SCA/9927/2015                                  ORDER




         IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION            NO. 9927 of 2015

==============================================================
         VIJAYKUMAR KANCHALAL KAYASTH....Petitioner
                           Versus
        GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER & CHEMICALS LTD &
                      1....Respondents
==============================================================
Appearance:
MR YOGEN N PANDYA, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner
==============================================================

        CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT

                          Date : 22/06/2015

                             ORAL ORDER

1. Heard learned advocate for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner, who happened to be 2nd party workman in Reference (LCS) No.419 of 2009 in the Court of Labour Judge, Surat, has approached this Court by way of this petition challenging the award and order dated 24.12.2014 for the reasons stated in the petition.

3. Facts in brief, as could be culled out from the memo of petition and the award, deserve to be set out as under.

4. The petitioner was working as Junior Operator in the respondent employer organization since 19 years. The petitioner was given charge-sheet on 23.03.2007 in respect of his habit of remaining unauthorized absent from duty. The past records were Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/9927/2015 ORDER mustered for framing the charge and on that basis the petitioner's reply and defense was considered, which ultimately culminated into order of dismissal which came to be assailed by way of reference, wherein the Court after recording its elaborate reasons came to the conclusion that the dismissal order did not warrant any interference. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with this order of rejection dated 24.12.2014, the present petition is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition.

5. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the unauthorized absence for which punishment had been granted earlier, could not have been formed a part of the charge-sheet and, therefore, the order and inquiry were not justified.

6. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited And Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri And Others, reported in (2009) 15 Supreme Court Cases 620, submitted that when there was unauthorized absence for a period of six months, the Court did not view that the termination was justified. Therefore, on this ground also the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside and the workman is required to be reinstated.

7. This Court is of the considered view that this petition is required Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/9927/2015 ORDER to be dismissed for the following reasons namely;

(i) The unfortunate aspect of the entire matter, if one read closely, is that the workman is said to have been in habit of unauthorizedly remaining absent from duty very frequently. The fact remains to be noted that in the past also for such misconduct he was visited with appropriate warning, punishment etc. But, if one takes into consideration the overall conduct of the workman in the charge- sheet, which was in respect of the workman's conduct hampering the production activities and setting out the bad precedent for other workman, the same could not have been said to have been ill founded or ill conceived at all. Therefore, if one takes that into consideration, one will have no difficulty to come to the conclusion that the charges were levelled against the petitioner were serious and unfortunate that the petitioner has in fact accepted them, as he stuck to his defense or explanation to the charge-sheet, which he gave on 01.04.2007.

(ii) The Labour Court has, in detail, considered all the aspects and come to the conclusion that against the number of documents going in favour of the employer in establishing the charge against the employee, the employee has not even challenged the inquiry procedure and has accepted the procedure to be appropriate and proper, then only the findings of the inquiry authority are challenged to be perverse and the punishment aspect is only challenged.

Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/9927/2015 ORDER

(iii) The Labour Court had a very-very limited scope of examining this challenge and when the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner's reply to the charge-sheet did not justify petitioner's conduct in any manner, nor did it contain any explanation justifying his absence or his past conduct and when the factum of charges were proved, then the findings recorded by the inquiry officer cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. Based thereupon when the punishment is imposed, which is said to be appropriate, looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner, then this Court is of the considered view that there exists no scope for interference with the order impugned in this petition. The same being just and proper, interfere therefore, will be uncalled for.

8. Hence, the petition being meritless, deserves rejection and is accordingly rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

(S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) Pankaj Page 4 of 4

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court