The Bombay High Court has observed that the punishment of dismissal from service for a single incident of sleeping on duty is excessively harsh. The Court was considering a Writ Petition that challenged the Industrial Court's decision, which upheld the Labour Court’s judgment. The Labour Court had ruled in favor of the Respondent-employee, directing his reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% backwages starting from August 31, 2007. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, who presided over the case, remarked, "In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that his past record was blameworthy or that he was punished or any action was taken against him in the past. Therefore, his stray act of sleeping on duty would not constitute grave misconduct worthy of imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal from service. In my view therefore, though the charge is established on the basis of evidence led before the Labour Court, punishment of dismissal imposed on the Respondent is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct."

The Petitioner was represented by Advocate Avinash Jalisatgi, and the Respondent was represented by Advocate Dr. Uday Warunjikar. The incident in question occurred during a vigilance check conducted by the Manager (O & M) and the Manager (P & A), who found the Respondent absent from his designated workstation without prior permission. He was found in the changing room, lying on a bench and sleeping with his head and arm on the table. Following this, the Respondent was suspended pending an inquiry and served with a charge sheet alleging misconduct under Clauses 24(i) and 24(v) of the standing orders. A domestic inquiry was carried out, led by an independent Enquiry Officer, who found the Respondent guilty of the charges. The Respondent then filed a Complaint with the Labour Court in Thane, contesting the dismissal, and the Court ruled in favor of his reinstatement with backwages.

The Petitioner’s counsel argued that the Respondent's action of sleeping on duty was a serious misconduct, especially given his responsibility for overseeing the operation of the Clarifloculator. Failure to maintain vigilance during its operation could result in a complete shutdown of the plant, causing significant financial losses for the company. The counsel claimed that the Enquiry Officer had substantiated the charge with sufficient evidence, but the Labour Court had erred in its judgment.

The Court initially pointed out that in a domestic inquiry, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability, and it is not required to prove charges beyond a reasonable doubt. It clarified, "So long as there is some evidence in support of charge, Labour Court or Industrial Court cannot interfere in the punishment by going into the aspect of sufficiency of evidence. It is well settled law that courts and tribunals cannot go into the aspect of adequacy of evidence and only in cases where there is complete absence of evidence that Courts or Tribunals can interfere in the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry." The Court concluded that the evidence on record was sufficient to prove the charge of sleeping on duty, and the Labour and Industrial Courts' findings were flawed and unsustainable.

The Court further stated, "In the present case, Respondent was not monitoring security or safety functions. Misconduct committed by a security guard or a person posted to guard an establishment can be viewed very seriously. In fact, I have taken a view in Prahlad Baburao Thale Vs. Union of India Writ Petition No. 3156 of 2017 decided by the Bench at Aurangabad on 20 August 2022 that a constable employed in Central Industrial Security Force carrying weapon if found sleeping on duty is a serious misconduct. However, in the present case, Respondent was apparently not entrusted with any security or safety-related duties. Therefore, a single stray act of Respondent of sleeping on duty would not, in facts and circumstances of the case, construed a grave misconduct, worthy of throwing him out of service." The Court also cited the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd., where the Supreme Court took into account the employee’s past conduct and behavior during the inquiry before ruling on the punishment. In contrast, the Court observed that there was no indication of any previous misconduct or disciplinary action against the Respondent in the present case.

Thus, the Court concluded, "In Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. (supra) though the employee was found sleeping on duty, his past conduct as well as his conduct during domestic enquiry proceedings was taken note of by the Apex Court. In the present case, there is nothing on record to indicate that his past record was blameworthy or that he was punished or any action was taken against him in the past. Therefore, his stray act of sleeping on duty would not constitute grave misconduct worthy of imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal from service. In my view therefore, though the charge is established on the basis of evidence led before the Labour Court, punishment of dismissal imposed on the Respondent is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct."

Consequently, the Petition was dismissed

Cause Title: M/s. Asahi India Glass Ltd. vs. Shri. Nadeem A. A. Dolare

Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:48931

Date: December-13-2024

Bench: Justice Sandeep V. Marne

[Read/Download order]