The Bombay High Court has modified the relief granted to a dismissed employee of Shree Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., holding that while his prolonged unauthorised absence from duty was established, the punishment of dismissal was disproportionately severe. Setting aside the Labour Court and Industrial Court orders granting reinstatement and back wages, the Court directed the employer to pay a lump sum compensation of ₹15 lakh in full and final settlement.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose after Shree Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., a cooperative sugar factory, challenged two orders passed by the Industrial Court on March 10, 2016. The Labour Court had earlier directed the reinstatement of employee Vishwas Yeshwant Dhomse with continuity of service and 50% back wages. The Industrial Court upheld the reinstatement and further enhanced the back wages to 100%.
Dhomse joined the sugar factory as a seasonal industrial worker in 1986 and was confirmed as a clerk in 1996. In November 1999, the management issued two charge sheets alleging that he had remained unauthorisedly absent for 240 days. Additional allegations included spreading false rumours, insubordination, refusing lawful instructions, declining to accept official communications, leaving the workplace without permission and tampering with the attendance register. Following a departmental enquiry, the employer dismissed him from service with effect from February 12, 2002.
The employee challenged the dismissal before the Labour Court, which held that the employer had engaged in unfair labour practices and ordered his reinstatement with 50% back wages. Both sides challenged that decision before the Industrial Court, which increased the back wages to 100%, prompting the employer to approach the High Court.
Take CourtBook Everywhere
Access your account on the go with our mobile app.
Court's Observations
Justice Sandeep V. Marne noted that although the Labour Court had held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper, it failed to frame and decide the important issue of whether the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse. As a result, the employer was deprived of an opportunity to justify its action by leading evidence before the Labour Court.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Private Ltd., the High Court observed that such an opportunity ought to have been provided where necessary.
On the merits, the Court found that the employee had admittedly remained absent from duty for 240 consecutive days. Although he relied on medical certificates to explain his absence, the Court found that all three certificates, though dated December 1998 and January 1999, were submitted together only in July 1999 after the period of absence had ended.
"The Labour and Industrial Courts have completely ignored this vital aspect while granting relief in favour of the Respondent," the Court observed.
The High Court also disagreed with the reasoning adopted by the Labour Court and Industrial Court that the employer's failure to communicate rejection of leave applications justified the employee's prolonged absence.
The bench observed, "An employee cannot presume that once leave applications are submitted, the same must necessarily be granted."
Justice Marne further noted that although some leave was available in the employee's account for part of the relevant period, leave could not be treated as automatically sanctioned. The employee neither verified the status of his leave applications nor produced the medical certificates contemporaneously during the period of absence. The Court also found that the ailments mentioned in the certificates did not satisfactorily explain an uninterrupted absence of nearly eight months.
Accordingly, the High Court held that the principal charge of unauthorised absence stood proved.
Dismissal Held Disproportionate
Despite upholding the misconduct relating to unauthorised absence, the Court concluded that dismissal from service was excessively harsh.
Justice Marne noted that the employee had served the sugar factory for nearly 16 years. Before the High Court, the employer fairly stated that it was not pressing the remaining allegations, and the Court therefore confined its examination to the principal charge of unauthorised absence.
The bench observed, "Punishment of dismissal from services is not proportionate to the misconduct of unauthorised absence proved against him."
The Court held that although the employee could not be given a complete clean chit because misconduct relating to unauthorised absence had been established, dismissal was "shockingly disproportionate" to the misconduct ultimately proved before the Court.
Decision
After concluding that dismissal was disproportionate but that the employee was not entitled to complete exoneration, the High Court considered the appropriate relief. It took into account the employee's 16 years of service, the misconduct proved, the remaining period of service before retirement, his agricultural income and the disability he later suffered due to an accident.
The High Court set aside and modified the Labour Court's order dated July 18, 2014 and the Industrial Court's orders dated March 10, 2016. It directed the sugar factory to pay ₹15 lakh as lump-sum compensation to the employee in lieu of reinstatement and back wages within four weeks. The Court clarified that no other service-related benefits would be payable. If the compensation is not paid within the stipulated period, it will carry interest at 8% per annum. The writ petition was accordingly partly allowed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Shree Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Vishwas Yeshwant Dhomse
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2312 of 2017
Judge: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Decision Date: 7 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
