ssp 1 LPA 258 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.258 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6043 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.322 OF 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.258 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6043 OF 2010 Dilip G. Bidwi .....Appellant versus Franco Indian Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ..... Respondent Mr.Charanjeet Chanderpal, for the appellant. Mr.J.P.Cama, Senior Advocate i/by Sanjay Udeshi & Co., for the respondent. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR& A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 11th JANUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. This appeal is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 23-10-2010, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant and confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. The appellant was an employee of the respondent-Company. At the relevant time, the appellant was holding the post of Lab Assistant. The respondent-Company issued show cause notices against the appellant as to why inquiry should not be ssp 2 LPA 258 of 2010 held against him, which were in connection with the mis-appropriation of certain amount between the period 1995-96. It is pointed out that three instances were found wherein appellant had tried to commit financial irregularities and in this behalf, three separate notices were issued against the appellant. It is an admitted fact that the appellant pleaded guilty in response to the show cause notices and requested the respondent- Company to take lenient view in the matter of punishment. Since the appellant had pleaded guilty on his own, the respondent Company passed an order of dismissal against the appellant. The appellant challenged the said action by raising a dispute before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that it was not necessary to hold an inquiry, as the appellant had already admitted the allegations levelled against him and pleaded guilty before the Management. The Labour Court accordingly dismissed the Reference (IDA) No.685 of 1998. 2. So far as the allegations against the appellant is concerned, it is the case of the respondent-Company, as recorded by the learned Judge of the Labour Court in Para No.4 of the Award that during the investigation of the vouchers, it was found that the workman has committed fraud of Rs.3,390/- by preparing false and bogus vouchers for the period April 1995 to December 1995, for which show cause notice was given and the concerned workman pleaded guilty to the same and ssp 3 LPA 258 of 2010 expressed his apology. The learned Labour Judge has given cogent reasons and has also considered the quantum of punishment and it was held that the workman was found in mis-appropriating the amount of the respondent-Company on three occasions and found that it is not a case for granting lesser punishment to the workman. The said finding has been given by the learned Labour Judge in para No.21 of its Award. 3. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge held that the Award passed by the Labour Court is not required to be interfered with and accordingly, writ petition was dismissed. 4. During the course of hearing, the only argument that is canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant is that since at the first instance the appellant pleaded guilty, this is the case in which the appellant should have been subjected to lesser punishment especially when he had served more than 30 years and except the incident in question, the past record of the appellant was unblemished. Since the learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the quantum of punishment given to the appellant, we have examined the said aspect. It is required to be noted that the appellant was found to have committed misconduct by misappropriating certain amount on three occasions by tampering with the vouchers of the Company, though the learned counsel ssp 4 LPA 258 of 2010 for the appellant states that he had not tampered with the vouchers of the respondent-Company. In our view, when the Labour Court has rightly dealt with the quantum of punishment, this is not a case in which this Court would like to interfere with the order of the Labour Court, which order is also confirmed by the learned Single Judge. It is required to be noted that the appellant committed similar type of act not a once, but several times. It is not a case of solitary incident. The appellant in our view, has committed a serious misconduct in the matter of misappropriating the amount, which according to Mr.Cama roughly comes to Rs.8,592/-, and the said fact as such is not in dispute. This is not a case in which the punishment awarded to the appellant can be said to be shockingly disproportionate in any manner. We accordingly do not find any substance in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. 5. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application No. 322 of 2010 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )