ANANTA RAJARAM WALUNJversusGRUPO ANTOLIN PUNE (P) LTD

2026:BHC-AS:30741
              k                              1/13                      WP 12101 of 2019




                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                WRIT PETITION NO.12101 OF 2019

              Ananta Rajaram Walunj
              Rupee Nagar, Nigdi, Pune                                   ....Petitioner

                       V/S

              Grupo Antolin Pune (P) Ltd.
              Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirur, Dist. Pune                      ....Respondent
                                              _________

              Mr. Nitin A. Kulkarni with Mr. Ramchandra R. Muley and Mr. Avinash
              Belge for the Petitioner.

              Mr. Ishan Agrawal with Mr. Kush Khandelwal and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra
              i/b Nyaayam Associates LLP for Respondent.
                                             __________


                                        CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
                                        RESERVED ON :    16 JULY 2026.
                                        PRONOUNCED ON : 27 JULY 2026.


              JUDGMENT:


             1.        Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the
             learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Petition is taken up for
             final hearing and disposal.


             2.        By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged the Awards dated 16
             October 2018 and 19 June 2019 passed by the learned Member, Industrial
             Tribunal, Pune, answering Reference (IT-2A-2) No.46 of 2013 in the
             negative. Reference was at the instance of the Petitioner in connection

              katkam                                Page No. 1 of 13
k                              2/13                      WP 12101 of 2019




with his demand for reinstatement in service by setting aside dismissal
order dated 9 August 2013.



3.       Petitioner was employed in the factory of Respondent at MIDC,
Ranjangaon, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. While so working, Petitioner
was deputed to work at Respondent’s Warehouse at Chakan, Pune. For
traveling to the Warehouse at Chakan, Petitioner was paid transport
allowance of Rs. 3/- per km. Petitioner accordingly claimed transport
allowances for 60 km every day for onward and return journey from his
home at Nigdi, Pune to Chakan during January and February 2011. Later,
the Petitioner claimed transport allowance in respect of distance of 48
km during March 2011 to March 2012. Petitioner claims to have
discovered even shorter route and claimed transport allowance for
distance of 44 km during April 2012 to June 2012. It appears that a
verification of distance was carried out by the Respondent through Shri
Sanjaykumar Singh, Driver on 18 August 2012, who reported that one
way distance from Petitioner’s home to the warehouse at Chakan was
only 16.5 km.


4.       Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued on 17 September
2012 to the Petitioner alleging claiming of excess conveyance allowance
during January 2011 to June 2012 in respect of inflated distance.
Petitioner gave reply to the show-cause notice on 29 September 2012
and expressed remorse for the incident stating that the same arose out
of misunderstanding. On 28 January 2013, a charge-sheet was issued to
the Petitioner proposing to conduct an enquiry into the allegation of
excess drawl of conveyance allowance of Rs.17,868/-. Petitioner replied

katkam                                Page No. 2 of 13
k                              3/13                      WP 12101 of 2019




to the charge-sheet and denied the charges. Enquiry was conducted into
the charges in which the Petitioner participated. At the end of the
enquiry, report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer holding that the
charges were proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, Order
dated 9 August 2013 was passed dismissing the Petitioner from service.
Petitioner raised Reference under Section 2A (2) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) which was registered as Reference (IT-2A/2)
No.46 of 2013 before Industrial Tribunal at Pune. Petitioner filed his
Statement of Claim, which was resisted by Respondent by filing Written
Statement. Based on pleadings, the Industrial Tribunal framed
preliminary issues relating to fairness in the enquiry and perversity in
the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner examined himself as a
witness. The Industrial Tribunal passed order on preliminary issues on
16 October 2018 answering both the issues against the Petitioner and in
favour of the Respondent. The enquiry was held to be fair and proper
and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were held to be not perverse.
Petitioner thereafter led evidence on the issue of legality of punishment.
Respondent did not lead any evidence. By Award dated 19 June 2019, the
Industrial Tribunal has answered the Reference in the negative.
Aggrieved by Award dated 19 June 2019, the Petitioner has filed the
present Petition.


5.       Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submits that the Industrial Tribunal has grossly erred in answering the
Reference in the negative. He submits that Petitioner has not committed
any misconduct. That the claim for conveyance allowance for 60 km was
based on initial longer route used by the Petitioner. That there are

katkam                                Page No. 3 of 13
k                             4/13                      WP 12101 of 2019




several routes for accessing the warehouse of the Respondent. That
immediately after securing knowledge of shorter route, Petitioner
claimed lesser conveyance allowance for only 48 km from March 2011
onwards. That he discovered another shorter route and claimed
allowance for 44 km from April 2012. That if the Petitioner had any mala
fide intention, he would not have voluntarily reduced the distance for
claiming conveyance allowance. That whatever conveyance allowance
was claimed by the Petitioner, was always sanctioned by the superior
officers. That other workers against whom similar misconduct was
alleged were let off and by accepting an apology, were reinstated in
service. That Petitioner has also tendered an apology, but is given
discriminatory treatment. That the Industrial Tribunal has not
considered the issue of proportionality of penalty. That the misconduct
proved against the Petitioner is not serious and stems out of difference
in computation of the distance in respect of various routes. That the
charge does not involve an act of misappropriation. He therefore submits
that the punishment is harsh and shockingly disproportionate to the
proved misconduct. He prays for setting aside the Award of the Industrial
Tribunal as well as the punishment of dismissal.


6.       The Petition is opposed by Mr. Agrawal, the learned counsel
appearing for the Respondent. He submits that Petitioner is found guilty
of serious misconduct of misappropriation and therefore punishment of
dismissal is clearly warranted. He submits that the enquiry is held after
affording full opportunity of defence to the Petitioner. That the
misconduct is virtually admitted by the Petitioner and in any case,
proved by leading cogent evidence. That the Driver of Respondent has

katkam                               Page No. 4 of 13
k                                      5/13                      WP 12101 of 2019




conducted verification of the distance in presence of the Petitioner. That
Petitioner has acted dishonestly by claiming excessive conveyance
allowance and has thereby caused financial loss to the employer. That
the case involves loss of faith and therefore the employer is justified in
keeping out a dishonest employee by dismissing him from service. He
relies on judgments of the Apex Court in Janatha Bazar (South Kanara
Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and Ors. vs. Secretary,
Sahakari Noukarara Sangha and others1 and U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Chand Sharma2. He prays for
dismissal of the Petition.

7.       Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for my
consideration.

8.       Petitioner faced the charge of claiming undue conveyance
allowance during the period from January 2011 to June 2012 by claiming
excessive distance of travel from his home to the warehouse. As observed
above, Petitioner was deputed at factory’s warehouse at Chakan for
performing the work of product assembly, quality/quantity and line
sequencing. As per company’s policy, transport allowance for traveling
to the warehouse by a two-wheeler at the rate of Rs.3/- per km was
payable to the Petitioner. Petitioner initially claimed conveyance
allowance in respect of 60 km for January to February 2011, which was
reduced to 48 km from March 2011 to March 2012 and was further
reduced to 44 km during April 2012 to June 2012. According to the
Respondent, the distance both ways was only 35 km. Petitioner was
initially issued a show-cause notice on 17 September 2012 and while

1    (2000) 7 SCC 517
2    Civil Appeal No.3086 of 2007, decided on 26 May 2010.
katkam                                        Page No. 5 of 13
k                                          6/13                            WP 12101 of 2019




denying the allegation he had expressed regret and had demanded
written instructions to avoid future misunderstandings by his letter
dated 29 September 2012, which reads thus:

         आपले दिनांक - 17/09/2012 रोजीचे पत्र मिळाले . पत्रात नमूद करण्यात आले ला प्रकार सत्याला
         धरून नाही व घडले ला प्रकार केवळ गैरसमजातून निर्माण झाले ला आहे. असे असून देखील झाले ल्या
         प्रकाराबाबत दिलगिरी व्यक्त करीत आहे.

         मी या पत्राद्वारे आपणास अशी विनंती करीत आहे कि प्रवास भत्त्याबाबत कंपनीचे ध्येय धोरण व रूल्स
         बाबत मला लिखित स्वरूपात कळविण्यात यावे जेणे करून गैरसमजाला वाव मिळणार नाही.

         मी आपणास अशी विनंती करतो की घडले ला प्रकार गैरसमजातून घडले ला असल्यामुळे पुढील
         कार्यवाही टाळावी.


9.       Thereafter the Respondent-employer issued chargesheet to
Petitioner on 28 January 2013 alleging charge against the Petitioner:

         आपण आपण वाहतुक भत्ता क्लेम करतांना आपण आपले घर ते कामाचे ठिकाण (जाऊन येऊन)
         किलोमीटर ३५ होते पण आपण जानेवारी २०११ ते फेब्रुवारी २०११ मध्ये ६० (जाऊन येऊन)
         किलोमीटर प्रतिदिनप्रमाणे क्लेम केले होते व सदरचे किलोमिटर हे जास्त क्लेम करत आहात असे तुमच्या
         निदर्शनास आणल्यानंतर तुम्ही मार्च २०११ ते मार्च २०१२ मध्ये ४८ (जाऊन येऊन) किलोमीटर
         प्रतिदिनप्रमाणे क्लेम करावयास सुरवात केली. त्यानंतर पुन्हा व्यवस्थापनाने आपल्या निदर्शनास आणुन
         दिले की आपले ४८ किलोमीटर हे पण जास्तीचे आहेत व त्यानंतर आपण एप्रिल २०१२ ते जुन
         २०१२ मध्ये ४४ (जाऊन येऊन) किलोमीटर प्रतिदिनप्रमाणे क्लेम करावयास सुरवात केली. व अशा
         प्रकारे खोटे किलोमिटर दाखवुन दिनांक जानेवारी २०११ ते जुन २०१२ पर्यंत कंपनीकडू न रक्कम रु
         १७८६८ (रुपये सतरा हजार आठशे अडु सस्ट फक्त) लबाडीने व फसवणुक करुन वसुले केली आहे.

10.      While responding to the charge-sheet, Petitioner denied the
charges, and took a defence that there were multiple routes to access the
warehouse and that the Petitioner initially used longer route to reach
the warehouse and as and when he discovered shorter routes, he claimed
allowance in respect of reduced distance.


11.      In the enquiry, the charge has been proved. As observed above, the
order on preliminary issues went against the Petitioner vide order dated
16 October 2018. Not much is argued by Mr. Kulkarni on the aspect of
fairness in the enquiry.
katkam                                            Page No. 6 of 13
k                                            7/13                              WP 12101 of 2019




12.      Coming to the aspect of perversity in the findings of the Enquiry
Officer, it is seen that the Respondent examined Shri Sanjaykumar
Tejnarayan Singh as its witness. The said witness had apparently
conducted the exercise of verification of distance on 18 August 2012. He
deposed that he took Petitioner to Chakan and after adjusting the trip
meter to ‘0’, he reached Petitioner’s house and deposed that the distance
was 16.5 km. However, he also deposed that "लॉन्ग कटसे गयेतो इनका २२
किमी वनसईड होता है." (if longcut is taken one side is 22 km). Thus, the witness
was not certain about the exact distance, and it appears that he gave
deposition about distance in respect of two routes. Even Enquiry Officer
has taken note of this aspect and has recorded following finding:


         "सरळ रस्त्याने गेल्यास एकमार्गी फक्त १६.५ किलोमीटर होतात व आरोपपत्रित कामगार यांच्या
         रस्त्याने गेल्यास एकमार्गी २२ किलोमीटर होतात.”

         (if straight route is taken only 16.5 km and if route of delinquent employee is used
         it is 22 km one way)


13.      The report of the Enquiry Officer, I must say is sketchy. The
findings recorded by him are vague which are as under:

         ८. व्यवस्थापनाने पुराव्यादाखल कागदपत्रांचे सादरीकरण केले . आरोपपत्रीत कामगार बांनी आरोप
         मान्य जरी केले नसले तरी पुराव्यास आव्हान दिले नाही. आरोपपत्रीत कामगार यांनी खुलासे तसेच
         त्यांचे बचावाचे निवेदन सादर केले . त्यामधे त्यांचे म्हणणे असे मांडले की त्यांना जो रस्ता माहित होता
         त्याने ते गेले व त्या रस्त्याचे किलोमीटर क्लेम केले . सबब व्यवस्थापनाने सादर केले ली कागदपत्रे
         निर्विवाद ठरली. त्यामुळे मी विचारार्थ घेतले ल्या मुद्यांस माझे उत्तर होकारार्थी आहे.

         ९. घटनाक्रमाचा व रेकॉर्डवरील कागदपत्रांचा साक्षेप घेता, आरोपपत्रीत कामगार यांच्या गैरवर्तनाबाबत
         व्यवस्थापनाचे म्हणणे नाकारण्याजोगी एकही बाब मला आढळू न आली नाही. व्यवस्थापनाने सिद्ध केले
         आहे की आरोपपत्रीत कामगार यानी गैरवर्तन केले आहे व ते त्यांना लागू असले ल्या नमुनेदार स्थायी
         आदेशाच्या तरतुदींनुसार गैरवर्तन या सदरात मोडते

         १०. आरोपपत्रीत कामगार यांचे वर्तन हे त्यास लागू असले ल्या नमुनेदार स्थायी आदेशाच्या वर उल्लेख
         केले ल्या बाबींनुसार गैरवर्तन असल्याने मी आरोपपत्रीत कामगार श्री. अनंत वाळुं ज यांना दोषी ठरवतो.



katkam                                              Page No. 7 of 13
k                              8/13                      WP 12101 of 2019




14.      The Enquiry Officer had both the figures of 16.5 km and 22 km
quoted by the witness Sanjaykumar Singh. It was Petitioner’s specific
defence that the route used by him involved distance of 22 km one way.
In that view of the matter, how the charge of claiming excess conveyance
allowance in respect of the period April 2012 to June 2012 is held to be
proved is difficult to comprehend. It becomes difficult to hold that
findings of the Enquiry Officer are supported by the evidence on record.
The evidence on the contrary appears to support Petitioner’s version of
availability of a route involving one-way distance of 22 km. Though
Petitioner has not seriously disputed the distance of 16.5 km verified by
the witness Sanjaykumar Singh, some weightage also needs to be given
to the deposition of the witness about distance of 22 km for alternate
route. Therefore, the whole of the charge cannot be held to be proved
and there is some evidence to disprove part of the charge relating to the
period April 2012 to June 2012, when Petitioner had claimed allowance
for distance of 44 km. Remaining part of the charge about distance of 60
km for January and February 2011 and distance of 48 km for March 2011
to March 2012 can be held to be proved.

15.      Coming to the issue of proportionality of punishment, I have
already held that the charge in respect of period April 2012 to June 2012
is erroneously held to be proved in ignorance of the evidence of the
witness of distance of 22 km by alternate route. This leaves the charge in
respect of first two periods of January and February 2011 (60 km) and
March 2011 to March 2012 (48 km). Undoubtedly, there is a vast
difference between the distance figure of 44 km and first distance figure
of 60 km. Therefore, Petitioner can be held responsible for misleading
the Company in claiming transport allowance in respect of January and
katkam                                Page No. 8 of 13
k                              9/13                      WP 12101 of 2019




February 2012 for distance of 60 km. There is substantial difference of
about 16 km and when seen from the light of last claimed distance of 44
km by Petitioner himself, there is excess claim of about 35% by the
Petitioner for the two months of January and February 2011.


16.      So far as the second period from March 2011 to March 2012 is
concerned, the distance claim was 48 km and the excess is less than 10%.
Considering that transport allowance at the rate of Rs.3/- per km was
being paid, the excess claim was only Rs.12/- per day during March 2011
to March 2012. Substantial portion of that amount must have been spent
on purchase of fuel by the Petitioner. Thus, in respect of first two periods
also there are certain mitigating factors. Petitioner had also taken a
defence that there were multiple routes available to reach warehouse
and he was not aware of shorter routes. This is not to give a clean chit to
the Petitioner, but this can be considered as one of the mitigating
factors.


17.      Mr. Agrawal has contended that charge of misappropriation is
proved against the Petitioner. I am unable to agree. The case involves
making of wrongful claim in respect of distance for transport allowance.
It appears that the Respondent itself was not sure about the exact
distance and went on sanctioning the claims for varied distances over a
period of time. The charge itself indicates that Respondent initially
objected to claim for distance of 60 km, after which Petitioner reduced it
to 48 km. The Respondent paid allowance for over a year for 48 km and
then brought to the notice of the Petitioner that even 48 km were
excessive. Petitioner thereafter brought the claim down to distance of 44

katkam                                Page No. 9 of 13
k                               10/13                       WP 12101 of 2019




km. Thus, while the Petitioner was not sure about the distance, even
Respondent appears to be unsure about the same.

18.      Petitioner had rendered about 13 years of service and it appears
that his past record was clean and unblemished. The case does not
involve misappropriation of funds of the employer or causing deliberate
financial loss to it. The charge basically relates to claiming wrongful
distance for transport allowance. This misconduct cannot be treated as
misappropriation of monies. Therefore, reliance of Mr. Agrawal on
judgment of Janatha Bazar (supra) becomes inapposite. In that case, the
employee concerned was found responsible for shortage of goods and
admissions were given that the goods were deliberately misappropriated
by sending the same to sales counter without keeping accounts. It is in
the light of this serious charge that the Apex Court held that the case did
not warrant display of sympathy by reinstating the employees in service.
In U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) the charge proved
was about carrying 10 passengers in the bus by the conductor without
ticket but after recovering the fare from them. The charges thus clearly
involved misappropriation of funds. Both the judgments therefore would
have little application to the facts of the present case.

19.      Considering the totality of circumstances, in my view, the
punishment of dismissal imposed on the Petitioner appears to be grossly
disproportionate to the proved misconduct. As observed above,
misconduct in respect of third period from April 2012 to June 2012 is not
proved. The misconduct in respect of the second period from March 2011
to March 2012 involves difference of just 4 km. It is only in respect of the
first period of January and February 2011 that the difference in distance
was substantial, but the claim for that period was in respect of only two
katkam                                  Page No. 10 of 13
k                               11/13                       WP 12101 of 2019




months. Petitioner appears to have reduced the distance immediately
after an objection was raised by the Respondent. The Respondent also
needs to blame itself in sanctioning conveyance allowance for 48 and 44
km. The charge indicates that Respondent had objected to the distance
claimed by the Petitioner and after he reduced the distance, such
reduced distance was accepted by the Respondent. There thus appear to
be some mitigating factors in favour of the Petitioner, reducing the
seriousness of misconduct proved against him.


20.      Ordinarily, this Court would not have interfered with the quantum
of punishment as it is for the employer to choose the punishment to be
imposed for the proved misconduct. This Court cannot sit in appeal over
the judgment of the employer and hold that lesser punishment was
warranted for the proved misconduct. However, in the present case,
Respondent has chosen to impose the harshest possible punishment of
dismissal from the services of the Petitioner. Considering the nature of
charge proved against him coupled with existence of various mitigating
factors and clean past record, the punishment appears to be shockingly
disproportionate to the proved misconduct.


21.      Though Petitioner has sought to introduce the case of other
similarly situated workers being reinstated on tendering of apologies,
this claim was neither pleaded in the Statement of Claim nor any
evidence was led by the Petitioner to prove the said claim. He did not
even name the employees who were allegedly reinstated. In cross-
examination, Respondent clearly denied the said case set up by the
Petitioner. It therefore becomes difficult to hold that any discretionary
treatment was meted out to the Petitioner.
katkam                                  Page No. 11 of 13
k                                   12/13                        WP 12101 of 2019




22.      Having held that punishment imposed on the Petitioner is
shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct, the next issue
that arises for consideration is about the nature of relief that can be
granted in favour of the Petitioner. It appears that current age of the
Petitioner is about 46 years. He has worked for 13 long years with the
Respondent before he was terminated. He is not in service since 9 August
2013. Thus, for the last 13 long years, the Petitioner has lost track of the
work environment under the Respondent. The relationship between the
parties has also soured on account of pendency of litigation during last
13 years. Petitioner is also found to have committed some misconduct,
and he is not exonerated out of the charges. In such circumstances, I
deem it appropriate not to award reinstatement or backwages in favour
of the Petitioner even though I am of the view that punishment imposed
on him is shockingly disproportionate. Instead, it would be appropriate
to award lumpsum compensation to the Petitioner in lieu of
reinstatement and backwages. Considering the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, ends of justice would meet if Petitioner is
awarded       lumpsum compensation of                   Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu      of
reinstatement and backwages.


23.      The Petition accordingly succeeds in part and I proceed to pass the
following order:


         i)    Award dated 19 June 2019 passed by the Presiding Officer,
               Industrial Tribunal, Pune in Reference (IT-2A/2) No.46 of
               2013 is set aside.


katkam                                      Page No. 12 of 13
                         k                                  13/13                            WP 12101 of 2019




                                  ii)    Dismissal of the Petitioner is held to be illegal and void.


                                  iii)   Respondent     shall       pay     to      the   Petitioner    lumpsum
                                         compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- in lieu of reinstatement and
                                         backwages.


                                  iv)    Beyond compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- Petitioner shall not
                                         be entitled to any other service related benefits from the
                                         Respondent.


                                  v)     The awarded compensation shall be paid to the Petitioner
                                         within a period of two months, failing which awarded sum
                                         shall carry interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the
                                         date of expiry of the stipulated period.


                         24.      With the above directions, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is
                         made partly absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.


                                                                            (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)




                          katkam
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam                                      Page No. 13 of 13
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 27/07/2026 19:37:44