M/S Zf Ste vs Mukesh Pat

M/S Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd. Vs Mukesh Patel

Case Details

Case Type	Application IT
Filing Number	781/2018
Registration Number	234/2018
Filing Date	26-10-2018
Registration Date	26-12-2018

First Hearing Date	26th December 2018
Decision Date	04th February 2020
Case Status	Case Disposed
Court Number and Judge	2-Member, 2Nd Industrial Court, Pune.;
Nature of Disposal	Contested--Judgment;

Petitioners & Respondents

Petitioner

M/S Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd., ;

Petitioner Advocate

A. K. Gupte;

Respondent Name

Mukesh Patel;

Order Details

Order not found.

Final Order Judgement

Order Date

04-02-2020

..1.. Appro.App.(IT) No.234/2018 CNR. No. MHIC120004432018 Filed on 26.10.2018 Registered on 26.10.2018 Decided on 04.02.2020 Duration 1 yrs 3 mths 8 days IN THE INDUSTRIAL COURT MAHARASHTRA AT PUNE Approval App. (IT) No.234 of 2018 in Ref. (IT) No. 02/2018 CNR. No. MHIC120004432018 M/s. ZF Steering Gear (India) Ltd., 1242/1244, Vadu Budruk, TalShirur, Pune – 412 216. ... Applicant V/s. Shri Mukesh Patel, A/PJalgane, TalPansemal, DistBarwani, MP451 770. ... Opponent CORAM : Shri M.R. Kumbhar, Member. Appearances : Shri Jayesh Vaidya, Advocate for applicant. Opponent in person J U D G M E N T ( Dated : 04/02/2020 ) This is an application filed by applicant company U/s.33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the I.D. Act), for granting of approval of the action of dismissal inflicted by applicant company on the opponent employee w.e.f. 26/10/2018. 2. The case of the applicant is that, it is a limited company and the opponent employee was working with the applicant company. The ..2.. Appro.App.(IT) No.234/2018 CNR. No. MHIC120004432018 general demands of the workmen are referred for adjudication to this Tribunal by Addl. Commissioner of Labour, Pune and the matter is pending before this Tribunal by Ref.(IT) No.2/2018, and this application is being submitted for seeking approval of the action of dismissal taken against opponent. 3. Further contended that opponent was served with charge sheet dt.06/02/2018 as he has committed the serious misconduct of absenteeism. Further contended that after issuance of chargesheet full fledge enquiry was conducted against the charges levelled against opponent. During the course of enquiry opponent was given full opportunity for his defence and all the principles of natural justice was followed, and thereafter enquiry officer submitted his findings. The applicant company considered the past record of opponent before taking action and there were no extenuating circumstances which would tempt to take any lenient view in the matter. As a matter of fact misconducts committed by opponent were of serious nature and considering the gravity of misconduct, length of service, nature of misconduct & nature of work of applicant company as well as of opponent, and thereafter the services of opponent were terminated w.e.f. 26/10/2018 & the dismissal is fully legal, justifiable & bonafide. Lastly contended that, applicant company paid one month's wages and also paid earned salary, encashment of leave, balance bonus due and payable to opponent by depositing the said amount in his bank account as per normal practice. Further contended that enquiry conducted by enquiry officer is legal, fair & proper and the findings of the enquiry officer are based on evidence come before him, and prayed to grant approval as claimed. ..3.. Appro.App.(IT) No.234/2018 CNR. No. MHIC120004432018 4. The opponent employee appeared in person & filed pursis at Exh.U1 stating that opponent employee giving consent to grant the approval application, and prayed to pass the appropriate order. 5. Considering the pleadings of the parties, following points arise for my determination, and my findings to them are as follows: POINTS FINDINGS 1 Whether the applicant company is entitled for the approval as prayed ? Yes; 2 What order ? As per final order. R E A S O N S 6. Heard Shri Jayesh Vaidya, Ld. Advocate for the applicant company & opponent employee in person at length. Both of them submitted their case as per pleadings, and relied on the enquiry papers filed at Exh.C3 and pursis Exh.U1. 7. The scope of Sec33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act is limited to the extent as to whether the proper domestic enquiry is conducted in accordance with relevant rules/standing orders and whether the principles of natural justice has been followed or otherwise, and whether primafacie case of dismissal is based on legal evidence adduced during the course of enquiry. Lastly, at the time of inflicting the punishment whether one month's salary was paid to opponent and the action is not contemplated with victimization. Let us now see whether the aforesaid requirements are satisfied in the present case in hand. ..4.. Appro.App.(IT) No.234/2018 CNR. No. MHIC120004432018 8. With the help of Shri Jayesh Vaidya, ld. Advocate. I have gone through the enquiry papers filed on record, in which I find there is copy of chargesheet dated 06/02/2018 & reply given by opponent. The independent enquiry officer was appointed, and thereafter applicant company & opponent both of them were allowed to appoint an advocate as their defence representative and management representative. Thereafter, I find that applicant examined one witness and he was duly crossexamined by opponent and after closing evidence of applicant company, opponent examined himself and also examined three more witnesses on his behalf. All of them were duly crossexamined by the management representative of the applicant company. I further find that opponent was allowed to file his final defence statement. Thereafter the termination order dtd.26/10/2018 was served to opponent. After bare perusal of the termination order, I find that at clause6 it is mentioned that, “the copy of the findings of enquiry officer is attached herewith. You can submit the comments in reply to the said findings within 2 days which we will treat as review application”. But till date opponent has not filed any comments on the findings of the enquiry officer. Primafacie it appears that enquiry officer has followed each & every stages of enquiry by affording reasonable opportunity to opponent and by following the principles of natural justice the enquiry was conducted. Further I find that primafacie the enquiry conducted against opponent is legal, fair and proper and findings are based on legal evidence before the enquiry officer. Lastly, I find that applicant has paid one month's wages as per provisions of Sec33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act and also paid other legal dues before taking decision of termination of service of opponent. I do not find any principles of ..5.. Appro.App.(IT) No.234/2018 CNR. No. MHIC120004432018 natural justice were denied by enquiry officer during the enquiry to the opponent. 9. From the above factual position, it is clear that applicant company has not engaged in unfair labour practice or I do not find any victimization or malafide while issuing dismissal order as the charges were duly proved during the enquiry. Hence, in my opinion prima facie, applicant has complied the mandatory provisions of law as per Sec33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, before taking action. Therefore, the applicant is entitled to get relief as prayed. Hence, I answer all Points in affirmative, & proceed to pass following order. :ORDER: 1. The application for approval is allowed. 2. The action of the dismissal of the opponent dtd.26/10/2018 is hereby approved. 3. No order as to costs. ( M. R. Kumbhar ) Member, Pune: Industrial Court, Pune. Date:04/02/2020. Srw/ Argued on 04/02/2020 Judgment dictated on 04/02/2020 Judgment transcribed on 04/02/2020 Judgment checked & signed on 05/02/2020 2020-02-05T12:10:02+0530 Murgyappa Ramanna Kumbhar

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case M/S Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd. vs Mukesh Patel is M/S Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd..

The Respondent in case M/S Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd. vs Mukesh Patel is Mukesh Patel.

The case against Mukesh Patelwas filed on 26-10-2018 by M/S Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd..

The status of case M/S Zf Steering Gear (India) Ltd. against Mukesh Patel is Case Disposed.