'Dismissal Shockingly Disproportionate For 240 Day-Absence': Bombay High Court Awards ₹15 Lakhs Compensation

The Bombay High Court has held that dismissal from service is a shockingly disproportionate punishment for the misconduct of unauthorized absence for 240 days, particularly where the employee had rendered long years of service, and no other serious charges ultimately survived. The Court substituted the punishment of dismissal with a lump sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne was hearing a writ petition filed by a co-operative sugar factory challenging the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court directing reinstatement of an employee with continuity of service and 100% back wages. The respondent had been employed as a seasonal industrial worker since 1986 and was confirmed as a Clerk in 1996. He was subjected to disciplinary proceedings on charges of remaining unauthorizedly absent for 240 days and other acts of misconduct. Following a domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service on 12.02.2002.

The Court observed that although the Labour Court had held the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper, it failed to frame and decide the issue relating to perversity of the Enquiry Officer's findings before proceeding further. As a result, the employer was denied the opportunity to justify the dismissal by leading evidence before the Labour Court. The Court held that the procedure adopted by the Labour Court was legally unsustainable.

The Court further examined the evidence and held that the principal charge of unauthorized absence for 240 days stood established. It noted that the employee had neither ensured the sanction of his leave nor made enquiries regarding the status of his leave applications. The Court held that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court erred in proceeding on the assumption that non-communication of rejection of leave applications automatically entitled the employee to presume that leave had been sanctioned.

While holding that the misconduct of unauthorized absence was proved, the Court found the punishment of dismissal to be disproportionate. It observed that the employer had not pressed the remaining charges before the High Court and that the employee had rendered about sixteen years of service. In these circumstances, the Court held that dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct ultimately found proved and that a lesser penalty ought to have been imposed.

The Court declined to award reinstatement or back wages, observing that the employee had not been given a complete clean chit and that some misconduct had been established. Taking into account the employee's sixteen years of service, the period remaining until his retirement, his agricultural income, and the disability suffered by him due to an accident, the Court held that the award of lump sum compensation would meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, the Court partly allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court, and directed the employer to pay the respondent a lump sum compensation of Rs.15 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.

Case Title: Shree Vighnahar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Vishwas Yeshwant Dhomse [Writ Petition No. 2312 of 2017]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 315

Click Here To Read/Download Order