IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 20 WRIT PETITION NO. 5795 OF 2016 SHAIKH LATIF SHAIKH AHMED VERSUS THE CHAIRMAN FAIZ E AZAM TRUST ... Mr. C.R. Thorat, Advocate for petitioner Mr. S.V. Dankh, Advocate for sole respondent ... CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026 ORDER : . Services of the present petitioner were orally terminated by the employer / respondent on 11.09.2006. The termination was assailed at the behest of petitioner on a reference made under Section 10(1) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court (II), Aurangabad has decided the reference in favour of the employer and against the petitioner / employee vide impugned Judgment and order dated 09.03.2025 passed in Reference (IDA) No.17/2007. It is not in dispute that services have been terminated without holding disciplinary inquiry. However, respondent / employer has led evidence in support of the allegations 2026:BHC-AUG:45363 2 20_WP_5795_2016 regarding misconduct. The services have been terminated by the employer, the petitioner has distributed medicines to patients visiting to the hospital of respondent / employer without prescription and that it was also noticed that he was practicing as a Doctor, although he did not hold the requisite qualification. 2 In order to prove the allegations the respondent examined District Health Officer and Doctor, Administrator of the Hospital, Sarpanch, two villagers and Chairman of the Trust which runs the Hospital. Dr. Heena Irshad Quadri, who was one of the witnesses, has stated in his deposition that a patient named Mr. Anil Rao was given some medicines by the petitioner on 11.09.2006 without any medical prescription. She stated that report was made by her to Dr. Javed and Administrator. She has stated that similar incident of distributing medicine was noticed on 27.08.2007. The Sarpanch of the village has also made a complaint to the Chairman of respondent hospital stating that the petitioner used to distribute medicine to the villagers without medical prescription and that he was practicing as a Doctor. Two villagers were also examined in support of the said allegation. 3 Learned Labour Court has marshalled the evidence brought on record by the respondent. With respect to the evidence of Dr. Heena the learned Labour Court has observed that the allegations that the petitioner 3 20_WP_5795_2016 was found distributing medicines to patient Mr. Anil Rao was proved by her evidence. However, subsequent incident dated 27.08.2007 is not taken into consideration by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the same was after termination of the services of the petitioner on 11.09.2006. With respect to the evidence of two villagers the evidence of one of them was discarded in the light of his cross-examination, however, evidence of villager Sunil is found to be creditworthy and is relied upon. The respondent has also examined Chairman of the Trust in support of its contention that having regard to the conduct of the petitioner, respondent / employer has lost confidence in the petitioner / employee and was accordingly entitled to terminate his services. 4 The contention of learned Advocate for petitioner is that merely on the basis of sole incident reported by Doctor, services of the petitioner should not have terminated. It is his contention that except for word of Doctor there is no evidence on record to bring home the charges against the petitioner. The learned Advocate, therefore, contends that this is a case of termination without any evidence to support the allegations of misconduct. 5 Per contra, learned Advocate for respondent / employer justified the order. Contention of the learned Advocate is that disciplinary action against an employee can be taken by the employer on the charge being 4 20_WP_5795_2016 proved by preponderance of probabilities. Learned Advocate argued that there was no reason for Dr. Heena, Sarpanch and other witnesses, whose evidence recorded, to depose against the petitioner. It is contended that the act of distributing medicines without prescription is a serious misconduct, which may endanger life of a patient. With respect to the post-termination incident, the learned Advocate argued that this behavior demonstrates the employer can no longer place trust or confidence in the employee, particularly given the fact that the establishment is a hospital. 6 Upon perusal of the findings of learned Labour Court it is seen that the incident of distributing medicine to a patient on 11.09.2006 is established by the evidence of Doctor. The employee was working in a hospital. The misconduct of distributing medicines without prescription is a serious misconduct. There is no reason to assume that Dr. Heena would falsely implicate the petitioner / complainant. Apart from this, there is evidence of the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat, as also one of the villagers to support the contention that the petitioner was practicing as a Doctor and he was distributing medicines to the villagers. He is admittedly not a qualified Doctor. Having regard to the evidence on record and findings recorded by the learned Labour Court, it appears that a possible view of the factual situation is taken by the learned Labour Court. The misconduct of 5 20_WP_5795_2016 distributing medicines is obviously serious. In view of the aforesaid the order of termination of services of the petitioner / complainant does not warrant any interference. 7 Learned Labour Court has taken a possible view of the matter, which cannot be interfered with while entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. ) agd