“Challenging Termination: A Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 in the Face of Industrial Court Judgment”
Title: Dattaprasad Narayan Kulkarni vs. M/s. Auchtel Products Ltd.
Citation: W.P NO. 3008 OF 2019
Coram: Justice MILAND N. JADHAV
Decided on: 07-11-2023
Introduction:
The Writ Petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the common judgment dated 01.04.2017 by the Industrial Court No.1 in Kolhapur. The petitioner, represented by Mr. Koregave, seeks to contest the decision rendered in Revision (ULP) Nos. 90 of 2014 and 131 of 2014. The nature of the case involves a dispute related to the termination of the petitioner’s services, and the writ has been filed to challenge and seek relief from the mentioned judgment.
Facts:
In this case, the petitioner, employed as a Technical Officer with the respondent company, faced charges of chronic absenteeism. The company issued a charge sheet in 2001, citing instances of unauthorized absence in previous years. The labour court initially directed reinstatement with compensation, but the industrial court set aside this decision, emphasizing the legality of the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner’s admission of engaging in a milk business during unauthorised absence influenced the denial of back wages. The court deemed the termination justified, citing chronic absenteeism and lack of improvement despite warnings. The medical certificates provided were considered insufficient to support claims of illness. Ultimately, the court found the lumpsum compensation awarded by the labour court to be illegal and arbitrary.
Judgement analysis:
In the judgment, the court concludes that the termination of the petitioner’s services by the respondent company was justified and not deemed as an ‘unfair labour practice.’ The court criticizes the labour court’s decision to grant one-time compensation to the petitioner for denying back wages, deeming it erroneous and unsustainable in law. It commends the industrial court for rightly interfering in its revisional jurisdiction, ultimately dismissing the petitioner’s complaint. The judge expresses complete agreement with the industrial court’s findings, upholding the judgment in its entirety. The court states that there is no reason to interfere with the industrial court’s decision, citing the cogency and correctness of the reasons recorded in paragraphs 10 to 18. As a result, the writ petition is dismissed without imposing any costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written By: Gauri Joshi