W.P. No.3621 OF 2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3621 OF 2010 M/s.Infomedia 18 Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Vijayram A. Mhashilkar ... Respondent Mr.J.P. Cama i/b S.P. Dhulapkar for Petitioner Mr.Rajadhyaksha i/b Kedar Wagle for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: AUGUST 4, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petitioner has approached this Court contending that the awards of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.155 of 2003 are incorrect. By award Part I, the Labour Court has held that the respondent is a workman as defined u/s 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has further concluded that the enquiry held against the workman was legal, fair and proper. He has also found that the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer were not perverse. 2. While dealing with the issue as to whether the punishment awarded to the workman was correct, the Labour Court has held that the termination of service of the workman was not justified. The Labour Court has on the basis of the standing orders applicable to the workman found that the decision of the petitioner to dismiss the workman for late attendance was not justified. The Labour Court has considered the W.P. No.3621 OF 2010 : 2 : employees handbook which permits a grace period of 10 minutes for reporting for work. The Labour Court has also considered the fact that under the Standing Orders applicable late attendance on four days is a misconduct. On the basis of the evidence on record the Labour Court has found that the time of attendance is within the grace period except for certain days. In any event, according to the Labour Court there are less than four occasions in each month when the workman has reported late. On the basis of the Standing orders applicable the Labour Court has found that the punishment to be awarded in case of late attendance is a fine in accordance with the Payment of Wages Act or a warning or a censure. It is in these circumstances, the Labour Court has found that the punishment of dismissal was not justified and has therefore directed reinstatement in service with continuity and full backwages. In my opinion, there is no error committed by the Labour Court. 3. As regards the award part I, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by relying on the judgment in Bharat Bhawan Trust vs. Bharat Bhawan Artists Association & Anr., 2001 III CLR 463 and Management of M/s.Sonepat Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Ajit Singh, 2005 II CLR 66 that the respondent is not a workman and that the Labour Court has taken into consideration extraneous factors while considering whether the respondent was a workman. On a perusal of the award, I find that the Labour Court in paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 has considered the questions which are germane for considering the person is a workman under the Standing Orders. Merely because the respondent was doing art work, it would not necessarily mean that he was not a workman especially since the petitioner itself had treated the respondent as a workman for several years. The submission that the Labour Court has erred in deciding that there is no misconduct and, therefore, the matter should be W.P. No.3621 OF 2010 : 3 : remanded is also unacceptable in view of the rest of the observations in the award. These observations indicate that the Labour Court was dealing with the punishment which was awarded in the facts and circumstances of the case without really going into the question as to whether there was a misconduct. Even assuming there was a misconduct the Labour Court has held that the punishment could only have been a warning or censure or a fine. 4. In my view, the awards of the Labour Court are not perverse and do not contain any infirmities requiring this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. Petition rejected.