-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1377 OF 2009 Shri Balkushna K. Nandivadekar : Petitioner V/s. M/s.Dhanwantri Rugnalaya & Research Centre : Respondent ... Mr.Jamila Shaikh for the petitioner. None present for the respondent. ... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2009. P.C. 1. The petitioner has challenged the award of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.152 of 1999 dismissing the reference. The petitioner has questioned his termination and demanded full back wages and continuity of service. 2. The petitioner was working as a Ward Boy in the salary of Rs.2525/- per month. The respondent issued a charge-sheet on 12.1.1996 alleging misconduct committed by the petitioner in participating in demonstration, gherao and threatening of the respondent’s staff. This was after the respondent had filed a complaint (ULP) no.1259 of 1995 in respect of the illegal strike. After holding an -: 2 :- inquiry in which it was held that the petitioner has committed a misconduct mentioned in the charge-sheet dated 12.1.1996, the petitioner was dismissed. It was found that the petitioner and other workmen had threatened and abused the Doctors and management staff. The labour Court has delivered Part-I and Part-II Awards. Admittedly, Part-I Award which was dated 20.12.2002 has not been questioned by the petitioner at any stage. So the only question is as regards Part-II award i.e. mainly proportionality of the punishment of dismissal. The Labour Court has rejected the petitioner’s contention that the punishment of dismissal is not proportionate to the charges. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having gone through the order of the Labour Court, I am of the view that the order of the Labour Court does not suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Labour Court has referred to several decisions which deal with the scope of interference on the ground that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate. There is no misapplication of law on the subject. In particular, the Labour Court has held that the petitioner was a Ward Boy in the operation theatre of the hospital and it is well-known that on occasions, patients have to undergo emergency surgery. In the circumstances, the -: 3 :- petitioner ought not to have remained absent from his duties and taken part in the strike, etc., on the direction of the Bombay Labour Union. The Labour Court has rightly upheld the findings in respect of charges which were in respect of "Willful insubordination or disobedience, to go on illegal strike, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment, commission of act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment etc." The Labour Court has rightly concluded that the nature of misconduct is grave and serious as the respondent is a charitable trust which runs the hospital. There is no reason to interfere with the finding arrived at by the Labour Court in paragraph 14 of the Award. 4. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J.