1/4 64-WP-2927-22.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.2927 OF 2022 PRAKASH S/O KHEMAJI BAGDE VS M/S SUDAMA TALKIES, THROUGH ITS MANAGER, NAGPUR - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Ranjan Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Shri D. M. Kakani, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 8th September, 2026 P. C. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of counsel for the parties. 2. The present petition challenges concurrent judgments of the Labour Court in Complaint ULP No.593/1997 which is confirmed by the Industrial Court in revision bearing Revision ULP No.35/2018. The said complaint was filed by the petitioner herein challenging the punishment of dismissal imposed upon him after a regular departmental enquiry. It was his case before the Labour Court that apart from the punishment imposed being disproportionate, the enquiry is not in accordance with the procedure prescribed therefor. 3. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court vide its order dated 18/05/2006 on preliminary issue held that the enquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with the 2026:BHC-NAG:12236 2/4 64-WP-2927-22.odt principles of natural justice. 4. Vide another order dated 30/06/2007, it was also held by the said Court that there is no perversity with the said findings. Thus, the findings on said issues have attained finality. 5. In the backdrop of these facts, the Labour Court rejected the complaint of the petitioner herein vide judgment dated 30/06/2007. The matter was carried in revision by the petitioner by filing revision under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practice Act, 1971. However, the said revision was also rejected by the Industrial Court vide judgment dated 18/12/2019. Both these judgments are assailed before me in this petition. 6. I have heard Shri R. N. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D. M. Kakani, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though the charge of absenteeism was leveled against him, it was the respondent who prevented him from joining the duty. He points me out communication dated 12/12/1994 (Annexure-7 page 76 of the petition) stating therein that the petitioner was instructed not to report to the work. He therefore submits 3/4 64-WP-2927-22.odt that only an aspect of absenteeism needs to be adjudicated which will have much relevance on the issue. 8. Per contra, Shri D. M. Kakani, learned counsel for the respondent countered the submission. He points me out a communication of even date i.e. 12/12/1994 informing therein that the concerned employee will have to work as Gate Keeper instead of Booking Clerk from 12/12/1994. He supported the judgment of the Labour Court as also the Industrial Court. 9. In the backdrop of the fact that fairness of enquiry and substantive perversity of finding has attained finality. The only question which in my view needs to be decided is the proportionality of punishment. 10. Rival contentions fall for my consideration. 11. I have gone through the judgment of the Labour Court and Industrial Court as also record of the matter. With the able assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of record and as has been stated by me supra, the only question of proportionality of punishment has to be adjudicated. It is settled proposition of law that it is sole discretion of the employer to impose punishment if employee is found guilty after full fledged enquiry in which employee has been granted sufficient opportunity. There is no dispute that 4/4 64-WP-2927-22.odt perversity of finding has also attained finality. This is not a case where there was no inference alleging that the findings are perverse. As far as proportionality is concerned, I find nothing wrong in the employer dismissing employee who was found to be not interested in work and recording this finding in view of the background that there is nothing on record to show that the concerned employee tried to join the employment in view of the contrary letters dated 12/12/1994. 12. There is no perversity in the impugned judgments. The petition is liable to be rejected. Same is rejected. 13. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 16/09/2026 10:41:48