Court rules dismissal for 240-day absence disproportionate; offers compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has modified the dismissal order of an employee from Shree Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a sugar factory, who was terminated for unauthorized absence of 240 days. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, presiding over the case, found the dismissal order disproportionate to the misconduct and instead awarded the respondent, Vishwas Yeshwant Dhomse, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 15,00,000.
The case stemmed from charges against Dhomse, who was absent from work from November 1998 to July 1999. Despite medical certificates presented by Dhomse, which he produced months after his absence, the Labour Court initially directed reinstatement with 50% back wages. The Industrial Court later enhanced the back wages to 100%. The sugar factory contested both decisions, arguing that Dhomse's absence constituted misconduct and that the findings of the inquiry were not perverse.
Justice Marne observed that while the unauthorized absence was indeed established, the penalty of dismissal was not proportionate, especially considering Dhomse's 16 years of service. The Court emphasized that the absence was primarily due to health issues, albeit the medical justification was presented belatedly. Despite the proven misconduct, the Court underscored the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions.
The judgment also highlighted procedural lapses, noting that the Labour Court failed to frame issues related to the perversity of the inquiry findings, thereby denying the employer a chance to justify the dismissal. The High Court set aside the orders of the Labour and Industrial Courts, substituting them with the compensation directive.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in balancing disciplinary actions with fairness, particularly in employment disputes involving long-serving employees. The sugar factory has been given four weeks to comply with the compensation order, with interest accruing at 8% per annum if delayed.
Bottom line:-
Labour law - Unauthorised absence from work for a prolonged period without satisfactory justification constitutes misconduct. However, dismissal from service for such misconduct must be proportional and justified. In lieu of reinstatement and back wages, lump sum compensation can be awarded where reinstatement is not feasible or justified.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (Items 1(a), (b), (d), (f), (g) of Schedule IV)
