:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5527 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 5527 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 5527 OF 1997 1. The Deputy Controller (A) ] M.T.S., Greater Bombay Milk ] Scheme, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 ] 2. The State of Maharashtra ]..Petitioners versus 1. Shri Kandaswamy Murugan ] Aarey Milk Colony, Mali Nagar, ] Unit No. 31, Goregaon (East) ] Mumbai 400 065 ] 2. Shri V. E. Potdar ] Presiding Officer, 5th Labour ] Court, having office at Arun ] Chambers, Tardeo, Mumbai 400034 ] 3. Shri V. L. Kamble ] Member, Industrial Court, ] Mumbai ]..Respondents WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4133 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 4133 OF 1997 WRIT PETITION NO. 4133 OF 1997 Shri Kandaswamy Murugan, ] Aarey Milk Colony, Mali Nagar, ] Unit No. 31, Goregaon (East), ] Mumbai 400 065 ]..Petitioner versus 1. The Assistant Commissioner, ] Dairy Development Corporation ] (Adm), Greater Bombay Milk ] Scheme, K. A. Gafar Khan Marg, ] Worli, Mumbai 400 018 ] 2. Shri V. E. Potdar, ] Presiding Officer, 5th Labour ] Court, having his office at ] Arun Chambers, Tardeo, ] Mumbai 400 034. ]..Respondents :2: Mr. A. H. Palekar, AGP, for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 5527 of 1997 and for the Respondents in W.P. No. 4133 of 1997. Mr. P. L. Patange for the Petitioner in W.P. No. 4133 of 1997 and for the Respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 5527 of 1997. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 13TH JANUARY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By these two petitions, the petitioners, who are opposite parties in the Reference decided by the Labour Court have challenged a common Award dated 29.4.1995 of the Labour Court. 3. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4133 of 1997 one Kandaswamy Murugan was a milk distributor working with the respondent Dairy Development Corporation. Apparently, an enquiry was instituted against him for unauthorised absence. The Enquiry officer submitted a report with the observation that the misconduct was proved since Kandaswamy had admitted the charge sheet. He however recommended :3: that the matter does not call for any major punishment. Notwithstanding this recommendation, the Dairy Development Commissioner passed an order of compulsory retirement against Kandaswamy who was about 35 years old at the relevant time. Kandaswamy questioned the order of compulsory retirement under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court who heard the Reference upheld the fairness and proprietary of the enquiry. It held that though the order of compulsory retirement does not amount to victimisation but punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate. However, having regard to the unwarranted absence, the Labour Court declined to award full back wages but awarded back wages only to the extent of 25%. The petitioner - Kandaswamy challenges the Award that it withholds 75% of the backwages. The Dairy Development Corporation in Writ Petition No. 5527 of 1997 questioned the legality and proprietary of the Award to the extent that it holds that the punishment imposed on Kandaswamy was shockingly disproportionate. 4. Mr. Patange appearing for Kandaswamy vehemently argued that the Labour Court committed a mistake in withholding 75% of the back wages since the enquiry itself was unfair and apart from that :4: the misconduct was not actually proved. It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel since the Labour Court has held that the enquiry is fair and proper and I see no reason to interfere with that finding. Secondly, I see no reason why the Dairy Development Commissioner was bound to prove the misconduct when Kandaswamy admitted the charges against him. 5. The only question that remains is the correctness of the order withholding 75% of the backwages. Normally, it is not for a court of law to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer unless the punishment is found to be shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges. Obviously in the present case the court found the punishment to be shockingly disproportionate because it found 35 years old man who was suffering from ailment was compulsorily retired from the services. Clearly that part of the order is not liable to be interfered with. However, one cannot find fault with the Labour Court in withholding 75% of the backwages since the employee himself admitted the charges against him, which obviously implied that he had remained absent long periods of time. Mr. Patange submitted that the finding is not based on :5: any documentary evidence which was withheld from the Enquiry Officer as well as the Labour Court. I am not inclined to go into this question since there is a clear admission by Kandaswamy about the correctness of the charge. 6. Learned AGP submitted that Kandaswamy was found to have been absent for a period of 776 days. However, the enquiry report does not bear out this absence. 7. No sufficient ground has been made out for interference in both the petitions. In the circumstances, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order in both the petitions, which are hereby dismissed. Rule discharged in both the petitions. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)