The Bombay High Court, through a single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne, overturned a Labour Court’s order that directed the reinstatement of a worker dismissed for sleeping on duty, along with back wages. While acknowledging that sleeping on duty constitutes misconduct, the High Court ruled that the penalty of dismissal was excessive. It emphasized that an employee’s service record should be considered when determining the severity of punishment. The court also clarified that labour and industrial courts cannot override the findings of a domestic inquiry if there is supporting evidence. Instead of reinstatement and back wages, the High Court awarded Rs. 22 lakh as lump-sum compensation to the dismissed worker.
Case Background
Nadeem Dolare, employed as a Skilled Worker-II at Asahi’s Waked Plant, was found sleeping in the changing room during a surprise inspection on 27 October 2006 during a night shift. A disciplinary inquiry followed, leading to his termination on 31 August 2007. Dolare challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court, claiming it violated the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
The Labour Court found the inquiry’s findings flawed and ordered Dolare’s reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. This decision was upheld by the Industrial Court. However, Asahi challenged these rulings before the Bombay High Court, arguing that reinstating Dolare, especially after the Waked Plant’s closure in 2013, was unfeasible.
Arguments Presented
- Asahi’s Arguments:
Asahi argued that Dolare’s misconduct jeopardized operations at the Clariflocculator Plant, crucial for manufacturing float glass. They presented photographs and eyewitness testimony as evidence of his misconduct. The company also stated that reinstating Dolare was impractical after the plant’s closure. - Dolare’s Defense:
Dolare claimed the allegations were fabricated because of his objections to the company’s pollution practices. His counsel argued the punishment was disproportionate, especially given his clean service record and long tenure. They also urged the court to respect the Labour and Industrial Courts’ findings.
Court’s Observations and Reasoning
- Misconduct Confirmed but Dismissal Disproportionate:
The court agreed that sleeping on duty constitutes misconduct under Asahi’s standing orders but noted that Dolare did not hold security or safety-critical responsibilities. Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate (2005), the High Court emphasized that an employee’s past record and the proportionality of punishment must be considered. A single incident, without prior misconduct, did not justify dismissal. - Credibility of Evidence:
The court dismissed the Labour Court’s findings that minor inconsistencies in witness testimony discredited the evidence. It clarified that in departmental inquiries, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probability, and minor inconsistencies do not undermine overall credibility. - Impracticality of Reinstatement:
Considering the passage of 14 years and the plant’s closure in 2013, the court ruled that reinstating Dolare was impractical. It noted that Asahi had offered relocation and financial support, which Dolare declined.
Relief Granted
The High Court concluded that while Dolare’s dismissal was disproportionate, reinstatement was no longer feasible. Instead, it awarded him Rs. 22 lakh as compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
The court’s decision highlights the importance of balancing proportionality in disciplinary actions with practical considerations in labour disputes. The petition was partly allowed, bringing closure to a 14-year-old case.