pvr ca1-11-lpal9239-lpa179-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (LODG)NO.9239 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3942 OF 1997 Vishwanath N.Jadhav. ...Appellant vs. 1.Thermax Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.A.S.Rao, for Appellant. Mr.K.S.Bapat with Mr.Anupam Surve i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co., for Respondent no.1. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED: 21st January, 2011 P.C.: Heard. Civil application is granted in terms of prayer clause (a). (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (K.K.TATED,J.) pvr ca1-11-lpal9239-lpa179-10 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL (LODG)NO.9239 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3942 OF 1997 Vishwanath N.Jadhav. ...Appellant vs. 1.Thermax Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents AND LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.179 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3525 OF 1997 Vishwanath N.Jadhav. ...Appellant vs. Thermax Ltd. ...Respondent --- Mr.A.S.Rao, for Appellant. Mr.K.S.Bapat with Mr.Anupam Surve i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co., for Respondent no.1. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED: 21st January, 2011 P.C.: 1. In both the Letters Patent Appeals same order passed by the learned Single Judge is pvr ca1-11-lpal9239-lpa179-10 - 2 - challenged, therefore, both the appeals can be conveniently disposed by common order. 2. The appellant was in the employment of the Respondent no.1. He was found guilty of insubordination and was dismissed. The inquiry was found to be defective, therefore, evidence was led before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the charge is proved but interfered with the punishment holding that the punishment of dismissal imposed is shockingly disproportionate. The Labour Court granted the appellant reinstatement in the service but without backwages for intervening period. The order was challenged by both the parties before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court dismissed the revision and endorsed the finding of the Labour Court. Therefore, the petitions were filed in the High Court by both, the employer and the employee. The employer pvr ca1-11-lpal9239-lpa179-10 - 3 - challenged the order of reinstatement and the employee challenged the order of denial of backwages. The learned Single Judge disposed of both the petitions by common order. The learned Single Judge held that the finding of the Labour Court that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate is not proper, considering the previous misconduct admittedly committed by the employee. The learned Single Judge held that insubordination is a serious misconduct and cannot be termed as a minor misconduct and punishment cannot be said to be shocking if one considers previous admitted misconduct of the appellant. 3. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for Appellant-workman. We have perused the record. The learned Counsel submits that the charge of insubordination was only partly proved and the labour Court has recorded a finding that the workman refused to do the work which was pvr ca1-11-lpal9239-lpa179-10 - 4 - assigned to him because the work which was previously assigned to him was incomplete. In our opinion, the submission has no substance because the Labour Court has held that the charge of insubordination is clearly proved and has interfered only with the punishment imposed. The reason given by the learned Single Judge is that when the workman is held guilty of insubordination, it cannot be termed as minor misconduct, and considering the foul language that was used by the workman on two occasions which he admitted, punishment cannot be held to be shockingly disproportionate. 4. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, there is no room to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Both the appeals are, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (K.K.TATED,J.)