Gujarat High Court
Bayer Crop Science Pvt. Ltd vs Jayesh J Patel on 5 February, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2803 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
BAYER CROP SCIENCE PVT. LTD.
Versus
JAYESH J PATEL & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.NIRAV JOSHI AND MS.RACHNA PASTORE for GANDHI LAW
ASSOCIATES(12275) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 05/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 05.09.2019 passed by the learned labour court, Himmatnagar in Reference (LCH) No.45 of 2014 Page 1 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined whereby, the learned labour court has set aside the punishment of termination awarded to respondent No.1 on the ground that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct and directions were issued to reinstate the respondent No.1 to his original post with continuity of service without any ancillary benefits and back wages. Learned labour court has further directed to pay cost of Rs.1501/- to respondent No.1. While issuing the notice, this Court has observed in the order dated 03.02.2020 in paragraph 5 as under:-
"5. Thus, NOTICE, for the limited purpose of considering the proposal of the petitioner of lump sum compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, or to permit the respondent-workman to work along with other three employees on demoted post, returnable on 14TH FEBRUARY, 2020. Over and above the normal mode of service, direct service through SPEED POST or RPAD is also permitted. "
2.1. Therefore, keeping in mind the limited scope of interference with the impugned judgment with regard to the lump sum compensation or reinstatement, this Court has heard the matter on merits.
3. At the outset learned advocate Mr.Mishra stated at bar in the presence of the respondent that he is not interested in the lump sum compensation and he is Page 2 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined claiming the benefit of reinstatement. Respondent projected the case before the learned labour court by raising the dispute and filing the statement of claim, that his appointment was made on 19.09.2010 as a Trainee and thereafter, he was made permanent on the post of Junior Operational Technician from 30.11.2011, his monthly salary was of Rs.18,500/- and he has served for three years with the petitioner-establishment. On 15.05.2013, show cause notice was issued by the petitioner to the respondent No.1 having found sleeping while on duty on 11.05.2013 at 2.20 a.m. and he was asked to submit his explanation with regard to the said misconduct. The reply was given to the show cause notice by the respondent No.1 denying the charges of sleeping on duty, thereafter the initiation of the Domestic Inquiry was done and the respondent was given sufficient opportunities to defend himself and the Inquiry Officer has submitted his finding on 23.12.2013 thereafter, the second show cause notice was issued on 20.01.2014, alongwith the report of Inquiry Officer and he was called upon to explain the proposed disciplinary action to be taken against him in view of the proved Page 3 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined misconduct.
4. On 15.02.2014, the order of dismissal was passed against the respondent No.1 which was challenged by raising the industrial dispute which was registered as a Reference (LCH) No. 45 of 2014 before the learned labour court. Respondent No.1 has filed the statement of claim and the petitioner has also filed the written statement before the learned labour court. Learned labour court, vide the order dated 04.08.2018 held the domestic inquiry as legal and valid and after following due procedure and principle of natural justice, thereafter, learned labour court, on considering the evidence adduced by both the parties concluded the reference in favour of the respondent by holding that the petitioner has given discriminatory treatment, as in the identical charge the co-employees were dropped by giving the apology before the petitioner-establishment and thereafter, the learned Presiding Officer had directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No.1 on his original post with continuity of service without back wages and ancillary benefits, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court. Page 4 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Nirav Joshi for Gandhi Law Associates and learned advocate Mr.Mishra for the respondent.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the learned labour court while holding the charges levelled against the respondent No.1 were proved and the findings of the Inquiry Officer was not perverse, has committed error in exercising the powers under section 11(A) of the ID Act, 1947 by holding that the punishment which was imposed was disproportionate to the misconduct. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the learned labour court has relied on the disciplinary proceedings initiated against other three workers and observed that as they had tendered their apology they have been exonerated, however, the respondent No.1 was given capital punishment in the nature of dismissal. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that learned labour court has completely overlooked the facts which was placed before the court wherein it is specifically averred that the other similarly situated persons has accepted the charges, tendered unqualified apology and indicate remorse and thereafter, also the punishment in Page 5 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined the nature of degradation was imposed certainly the same was a minor punishment but there was financial loss caused to other employees. The present petitioner neither accepted the charge, nor has tendered the apology therefore, his case cannot be said to be stand on same footing, however, learned reference court has set aside the order of termination and directed to reinstate the respondent-workman. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi submits that the service period of the respondent was very short as he had served with the petitioner- establishment hardly for three years and has chosen to confront his employer by flatly denying the charges leveled against him, despite overwhelming the evidence produced by the company. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Joshi that the learned labour court has overlooked the crucial aspect and shown undue sympathy towards respondent No.1 and therefore, the impugned award deserves to be set aside. 6.2. Learned advocate Mr.Joshi appearing for the petitioner also submits that even as on date the petitioner-establishment is ready to pay the compensation whichever amount is suggested by this Page 6 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined Court in lieu of the reinstatement and other benefits as there was a loss of confidence and therefore, reinstatement would amount to industrial unrest as in identical situation, the person who has tendered the apology, accepted the charge has been placed on degradation and respondent No.1 who did not accept the charge and though the same was proved during the disciplinary proceedings through ample evidence would be reinstated. In that view, the learned advocate Mr.Joshi has requested to set aside the impugned order by allowing the present petition.
7. On the other hand learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that learned reference court has awarded detailed reasons in holding that the punishment which is imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct which is alleged. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that as it is observed by the learned reference court that in identical situation, other persons were exonerated from the charges by accepting the apology and they have been permitted to continue in the establishment, however, learned reference court has, by not granting the back wages and other consequential benefits has balanced Page 7 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined the situation and therefore no interference in required. 7.1. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra submits that learned reference court after considering the decision rendered in the Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. vs Jitendra Pd. Singh And Anr. reported in (2001) I LLJ 595 SC and Binny Ltd vs Their Workmen And Anr reported in 1972 (1) LLJ 478 52 has concluded the reference in favour of the present petitioner and therefore also no interference in required and the petition is required to be dismissed.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the reasons assigned by the learned labour court for setting aside the termination order, it is undisputed fact that legality and validity of the departmental inquiry was never challenged by the respondent before the reference court, the findings which was challenged by the respondent which was held not perverse by the learned reference court and the same remained unchallenged further by the respondent before the Higher Forum. 8.1. In that view, holding the finding just and proper which attained finality learned reference court has Page 8 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined interfered with the punishment by considering that the same is disproportionate to the misconduct. For concluding the same, learned reference court has assigned only reasons that in an identical situation, the co-employees who were also found to have been sleeping while on duty were exonerated by accepting the apology tendered by the employees and the present respondent has been given the discriminatory treatment by imposing harsh and final punishment of dismissal. This Court has referred the written arguments which was part of the memo of petition filed by the respondent- employee wherein, it is stated that the other three employees have been punished with the punishment of grade down. Learned reference court appears to have overlooked this aspect and concluded the reference by assuming and presuming that they were dropped from the charges and no punishment was imposed. Learned reference court, while assigning the reasons has discarded the said material aspect and observed that merely tendering the apology and accepting the same, not awarding any punishment would amount to discriminatory treatment to the present respondent- Page 9 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined employee.
9. The judgment which was relied by the learned advocate Mr.Joshi for the petitioner in the case of Obettee Pvt. Ltd vs Mohd. Shafiq Khan reported in 2005 8 SCC 46 where the case before the Apex Court was that the charge sheet was given to the workman concerned and was suspended. Alongwith the said workman, two other persons were also proceeded and the respondent- workman and other two persons had given in writing that the suspension may be withdrawn since they were giving assurance to perform their duties diligently and not to indulge in any activity like a strike. The further assurance was given that full cooperation would be given in the departmental proceedings. The domestic inquiry was instituted and charges leveled against the five persons including the respondent-workman concerned was proved. During the inquiry, other two employees gave further assurance that they had tendered their unqualified apology and indicated their remorse for having resorted to the illegal strike. On the basis of unqualified apology and the undertaking the employer did not proceed against the two employees, Page 10 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined but considering different situations in the case of respondent therein, further departmental proceedings were initiated and order of termination was passed. In that background the Apex Court has held that the case of the other two employees were on different footing. So far as the respondent-workman was concerned he had, unlike the other two, continued to justify his actions that was clearly a distinctive feature which High Court has unfortunately failed to properly appreciate. The employer accepted to chose the unqualified apology given and regrets expressed by two other workmen therefore, it cannot be said that the employer has discriminated so far as the respondent-workman is concerned as the respondent had tried to justify his action for which the departmental inquiry was initiated. In that scenario appeal was allowed and the order of termination was held legal and valid.
10. In the present case also similar is the fact where the other two employees were given the punishment of grade down by tendering the apology and accepting the charge. The present respondent did not accept the charge neither did he tender any apology and the Page 11 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined departmental proceeding initiated were proved through sufficient evidence. Therefore, the reasons given by the learned labour court that the respondent was discriminated by imposing a harsh punishment is unsustainable.
11. As this Court has issued the notice for limited purpose of compensation or for reinstatement, this Court is of the view that the amount of Rs.6,00,000/-, which is proposed by the petitioner, appears to be reasonable and fair. Another ground for awarding the compensation is that in a similar situation, employees who have accepted the charge and given the undertaking were put under the degradation and if the respondent is permitted to reinstate then it would amount to give premium of the misconduct which was committed and proved and that may result into industrial unrest. In that view the petition is partly allowed.
12. The petitioner is directed to pay the lump sum compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the respondent towards full and final amount in lieu of back wages, reinstatement and other consequential benefits. In the event he is not accepting the amount of lump sum Page 12 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/2803/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined compensation, the same shall be deposited with the Registry of this Court who shall invest it to the Nationalized Bank for a period of three years initially. The amount towards lump sum compensation shall be deposited within a period of six weeks from today.
13. Petition is disposed of accordingly
14. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 13 of 13 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Mon Feb 17 2025 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 22 00:13:19 IST 2025