SHANU RAM GAONKAR (SINCE DECEASED) REP. BY SAPNA S. GAONKAR., v. GOA BAGAYTDAR SAHAKARI KHAREDI VIKRI SAUNSTHA MARYADIT AND ANR.,
Domestic Inquiry Fairness and Proportionality of Punishment - High Court Directs Compensation Despite Upholding Inquiry, Citing Mitigating Circumstances and Tribunal's Error in Characterizing Workman.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2025:BHC-GOA:2529
Decision Date: 17-12-2025
List of Laws
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; Principles of Natural Justice; Labour Law
- Facts: A workman, employed as a weigh man, was charge-sheeted for demanding a "Mamuli" (tip/bribe) from a truck driver, obstructing the truck's movement upon refusal, and using abusive language. He was also accused of obstructing and abusing the Assistant Branch Manager. The workman was dismissed after a domestic inquiry. The workman has since passed away and is represented by his widow.
- Procedural Posture: The workman's widow filed a writ petition challenging the Industrial Tribunal's awards (Part I and Part II) which upheld the fairness of the domestic inquiry and the proportionality of the dismissal. The High Court is reviewing the Tribunal's awards.
- Issue: (1) Was the domestic inquiry conducted fairly, considering the workman's illiteracy and the fact that the inquiry was conducted in English despite the service rules being in Marathi? (2) Was the punishment of dismissal proportionate to the charges, especially considering the workman's 17 years of service and the fact that some charges were not proven? (3) Did the Tribunal err in considering the workman a "habitual offender" when this was not alleged in the charge sheet?
- Holding: The High Court partly interfered with the Part II award, directing the employer to pay the workman's widow Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. The Court upheld the fairness of the inquiry but found that the Tribunal had not adequately considered mitigating circumstances and the disproportionality of the penalty.
- Reasoning: The Court found no perversity in the Part I award regarding the fairness of the inquiry, noting that the inquiry officer explained the proceedings to the workman in Konkani. However, regarding the Part II award, the Court noted that the Tribunal erred in considering the workman a "habitual offender" when this was not a charge. The Court also found that the Tribunal did not adequately consider the workman's long service and the fact that some charges were not proven. While the Court acknowledged the seriousness of the incident, it held that the Tribunal should have considered these factors when assessing the proportionality of the penalty. The Court cited Ved Prakash Gupta Vs M/s Delton Cable India (P) Ltd., Rama Kant Misra Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others and Ram Kishan Vs Union of India and others to support the argument that the penalty was disproportionate. The court also cited Kanhaiyalal Agrawal and others Vs Factory Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd. regarding the plea of loss of confidence. The Court ultimately concluded that while reinstatement was not warranted, some compensation was appropriate given the circumstances.
🔒 For Members Only