BHARAT FORGE CO. LTD. versus UTTAM MANOHAR NAKATE

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 545 · Decided: 18-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
BHARAT FORGE CO. LTD. 
A 
v. 
UTTAM MANOHAR NAKATE 
JANUARY 18, 2005 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Labour Laws: 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 
Labour Practices Act, 1971-Schedu/e IV Item l(a),(b),(d), (j) and (g)- C 
Misconduct of sleeping during duty hours-Domestic enquiry-Misconduct 
admitted by employee and proved-On previous occasions also found guilty 
of misconduct-Punishment of dismissal-Labour Court held the punishment 
disproportionate and directed reinstatement with back wages-Dismissal order 
approved by Industrial Tribunal and Single Judge of High Court-Division D 
Bench of High Court held the punishment disproportionate and as such 
amounted to legal victimization and unfair labour practice under clause (a) 
of Item I-Factual foundation for legal victimization not laid by emp/oyee-
On appeal, held: In the facts of the case, punishment was not disproportionate 
or arbitrary-Jn absence of any plea of victimization and in absence of 
foundational fact in arriving at conclusion of legal victimization invoking of E 
clause (a) by High Court was erroneous-Model Standing Order framed under 
the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946-Standing Order 24(1). 
Industrial Courts-Jurisdiction-Scope of-Industrial Courts would not 
sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there exists statutory F 
provision in that behalf 
Respondent was employed with appellant-Company. Disciplinary 
proceeding was initiated against him under Standing Order 24(1) of Model 
Standing Order framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing 
Orders) Act, 1946, as he was found asleep during duty hours. The act of G 
misconduct was admitted by him. Domestic enquiry was held. He was 
found guilty and was dismissed. On earlier three occasions also he was 
>..( 
found guilty of misconduct wherein only minor punishment was imposed. 
He filed complaint under item l(a), (b), (d), (f) and (g)of Schedule IV of 
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair 
545 
H 
546 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005] I S.C.R. 
A Labour Practices Act, 1971. Labour Court held that domestic enquiry 
against the respondent was fair and proper and the finding recorded by 
the Enquiry Officer was not perverse. However, it held that the 
punishment was harsh and disproportionate and directed reinstatement 
with 50% back wages. Respondent as well as appellant filed revision 
B application. Industrial Tribunal while allowing the application of appellant 
and dismissing that of the respondent held that in case of proved 
misconduct, question of victimization does not arise. Writ Petition of 
respondent was dismissed by Single Judge of High Collrt. His Letters 
Patent Appeal was allowed by the Division Bench holding that though 
respondent was guilty of major misconduct, his punishment was 
C disproportionate and as s11ch the same amounted to legal victimization and 
employer was guilty of having engaged in an unfair labour practice under 
clause (a) of Item I of Schedule IV. However, it directed payment of a 
sum instead of reinstatement. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that in case of proved 
D misconduct, question of victimization did not arise; that respondent had 
prevaricated his stand from Court to Court inasmuch as in Industrial 
Court he invoked clause (g) of Item (l) of Schedule IV, before Single Judge 
invoked clause (b) thereof but Division Bench, passed judgment invoking 
clause (a) although no foundational fact was pleaded in support thereof. 
E 
Allowing th!) appeal, the Court 
HELD: l.l. In the facts and circumstances of the case and having 
regard to the past conduct of the Respondent as also his conduct during 
the domestic enquiry proceedings, it cannot be said that the quantum of 
F punishment imposed upon the Respondent was wholly disproportionate 
to his act of misconduct or otherwise arbitrary. (558-G-Hf 
1.2. All the courts have answered the question as regards commission 
of misconduct by the Respondent in one voice. The Labour Court evidently 
had taken recourse to Clause (g) of Item I of Schedule IV of Maharashtra 
G Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices 
Act, 1971 which ex facie was inapplicable. The said provision clearly 
postulates two situations, namely, (i) the misconduct should be of minor 
or technical character, and (ii) the punishment is shockingly 
disproportionate without having any regard to the natu

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.