Bombay High Court
VIJAY DAGADU HATEversusGENERAL MANAGER B E S AND T
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the Labour Court’s Part‑I Award was erroneous for failing to properly assess the fairness of the enquiry and the perversity of the findings, and therefore set aside the Part‑I and Final Awards and remanded the matter for a fresh enquiry.
Summary
The petitioner, Vijay Dagadu Hate, challenged the Part‑I and Final Awards passed by the Labour Court in a disciplinary proceeding concerning alleged misappropriation, as well as the revisional orders upholding those awards. The Labour Court had held the enquiry fair and the Enquiry Officer’s findings not perverse, but the petitioner argued that crucial documents were not supplied and that the court failed to examine the fairness and perversity issues adequately. The High Court found that the Labour Court’s reasoning was perfunctory, conflating the fairness and perversity issues without proper analysis of the voluminous evidence. Consequently, the High Court held the Part‑I Award erroneous and therefore set aside both the Part‑I and Final Awards along with the revisional orders. The complaint was restored to the Labour Court for a fresh enquiry on the fairness of the enquiry and the perversity of the Enquiry Officer’s findings, with all merits kept open.
Issues considered
- Whether the Labour Court correctly determined the fairness of the enquiry and the perversity of the Enquiry Officer’s findings in the Part‑I Award.
- Whether the Part‑I Award is erroneous and thus the Final Award should be set aside.
- Whether the complaint should be remanded for a fresh enquiry on the issues of fairness and perversity.
Subjects
- labour law
- industrial dispute
- fairness of enquiry
- perversity of findings
- remand
- high court
- writ petition
- award set aside
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:39295
Megha 38_wp_112_2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.112 OF 2024
Vijay Dagadu Hate ...Petitioner
V/s.
General Manager, B.E.S. & T.
Undertaking ...Respondent
________________
Mr. Sadashiv Limaye for the Petitioner.
Mr. Mahesh Shukla with Ms. Heena Shaikh and Mr. Siddhkesh Shinde i/b.
M/s. M.C. Kini & Co. for the Respondent.
________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATED: 24 SEPTEMBER 2026.
P.C.:
1) Petition challenges Part-I and Final Awards passed by the Labour
Court as well as orders passed by the revisional Court upholding both the
Awards. By Part-I Award dated 23 July 2018 the Labour Court has held
that enquiry conducted against the Petitioner was fair and proper and
that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not perverse. Part-I Award is
upheld by the Industrial Court by dismissing the revision vide order
dated 13 March 2019. The Labour Court thereafter proceeded to deliver
Final Award dated 17 December 2019 dismissing Complaint (ULP) No.86
Page No.1 of 4
24 September 2026
Megha 38_wp_112_2024
of 2017. Final order is confirmed in revision by the Industrial Court by
order dated 10 February 2022.
2) I have heard Mr. Limaye, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent-BEST Undertaking and considered the submissions
canvassed by them.
3) Charge of misappropriation levelled against the Petitioner
contained detailed allegations running into 21 pages. The charge was
held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer at the end of the enquiry. In
Part-I Award, the Labour Court was expected to determine as to whether
enquiry was fair and proper. It is the contention of Mr. Limaye that
concerned 23 bills were never supplied to the Petitioner. However, in the
Part-I Award the Labour Court has failed to adjudicate this objection
raised by the Petitioner. The manner in which the Part-I Award is
delivered by the Labour Court is clearly perfunctory. Though issue of
fairness of enquiry has no relation to the issue of perversity in the
findings of the enquiry report, the Labour Court has proceeded to club
both the issues and has decided them in the Part-I Award by recording
common findings. There is no discussion by the Labour Court as to how
enquiry is fair or proper. Even findings recorded by the Labour Court
relating to the issue of perversity do not inspire confidence. The Labour
Court has devoted just about three pages in deciding the issues of
fairness in the enquiry and perversity in the findings of the enquiry
report. When charges arose out of complicated transactions and
Page No.2 of 4
24 September 2026
Megha 38_wp_112_2024
voluminous evidence, it was necessary that the Labour Court ought to
have discussed the evidence while deciding the issue of perversity.
4) In my view, therefore, the manner in which preliminary issues
relating to fairness in enquiry and perversity in the findings of the report
of Enquiry Officer are recorded by the Labour Court, the same does not
appeal to this Court. Since Part-I Award itself is erroneous, Final Award
rendered by the Labour Court cannot be upheld. The revisional court has
unfortunately failed to correct the error committed by the Labour Court.
In my view, therefore, order dated 23 July 2018 deserves to be set aside
and the Complaint deserves to be remanded for conduct of fresh enquiry
in the fairness in the enquiry and perversity in the findings of the
Enquiry Officer. Since Part-I Award itself being set aside I have not gone
into the correctness of findings recorded in the Final Award. All
contentions in this regard are expressly kept open.
5) Petition accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the following
order:-
(i) Part-I Award dated 23 July 2018, revisonal order dated
13 March 2019, Final Award dated 17 December 2019
and revisional order dated 10 February 2022 are set
aside.
(ii) Complaint (ULP) No.86 of 2017 is restored on the file of
the Labour Court, Mumbai, for fresh adjudication on
the issues of fairness in the enquiry and perversity in
the findings of the Enquiry Officer’s report.
Page No.3 of 4
24 September 2026
Megha 38_wp_112_2024
(iii) All contentions of the parties on merits are expressly
kept open.
(iv) Remanded proceedings shall be decided by the Labour
Court uninfluenced by the findings recorded by this
Court in the order.
6) With the above directions, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
Signed by: Megha S. Parab
Page No.4 of 4
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 24 September 2026
Date: 28/09/2026 15:14:57
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.