SAIKH LATIF SHAIKH AHMEDversusTHE CHAIRMAN FAIZ E AZAM TRUST

2026:BHC-AUG:45363


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                              20 WRIT PETITION NO. 5795 OF 2016


                                  SHAIKH LATIF SHAIKH AHMED
                                             VERSUS
                               THE CHAIRMAN FAIZ E AZAM TRUST
                                                 ...
                              Mr. C.R. Thorat, Advocate for petitioner
                            Mr. S.V. Dankh, Advocate for sole respondent
                                                 ...

                                                CORAM :      ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                                DATE :       28th SEPTEMBER, 2026


            ORDER :



            .           Services of the present petitioner were orally terminated by the

            employer / respondent on 11.09.2006. The termination was assailed at the

            behest of petitioner on a reference made under Section 10(1) read with

            Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The learned Labour Court

            (II), Aurangabad has decided the reference in favour of the employer and

            against the petitioner / employee vide impugned Judgment and order dated

            09.03.2025 passed in Reference (IDA) No.17/2007. It is not in dispute that

            services have been terminated without holding disciplinary inquiry. However,

            respondent / employer has led evidence in support of the allegations
                                       2                            20_WP_5795_2016



regarding misconduct. The services have been terminated by the employer,

the petitioner has distributed medicines to patients visiting to the hospital of

respondent / employer without prescription and that it was also noticed that

he was practicing as a Doctor, although he did not hold the requisite

qualification.


2            In order to prove the allegations the respondent examined

District Health Officer and Doctor, Administrator of the Hospital, Sarpanch,

two villagers and Chairman of the Trust which runs the Hospital. Dr. Heena

Irshad Quadri, who was one of the witnesses, has stated in his deposition that

a patient named Mr. Anil Rao was given some medicines by the petitioner on

11.09.2006 without any medical prescription. She stated that report was

made by her to Dr. Javed and Administrator. She has stated that similar

incident of distributing medicine was noticed on 27.08.2007. The Sarpanch

of the village has also made a complaint to the Chairman of respondent

hospital stating that the petitioner used to distribute medicine to the villagers

without medical prescription and that he was practicing as a Doctor. Two

villagers were also examined in support of the said allegation.


3            Learned Labour Court has marshalled the evidence brought on

record by the respondent. With respect to the evidence of Dr. Heena the

learned Labour Court has observed that the allegations that the petitioner
                                      3                           20_WP_5795_2016



was found distributing medicines to patient Mr. Anil Rao was proved by her

evidence. However, subsequent incident dated 27.08.2007 is not taken into

consideration by the learned Labour Court on the ground that the same was

after termination of the services of the petitioner on 11.09.2006.        With

respect to the evidence of two villagers the evidence of one of them was

discarded in the light of his cross-examination, however, evidence of villager

Sunil is found to be creditworthy and is relied upon. The respondent has also

examined Chairman of the Trust in support of its contention that having

regard to the conduct of the petitioner, respondent / employer has lost

confidence in the petitioner / employee and was accordingly entitled to

terminate his services.


4            The contention of learned Advocate for petitioner is that merely

on the basis of sole incident reported by Doctor, services of the petitioner

should not have terminated. It is his contention that except for word of

Doctor there is no evidence on record to bring home the charges against the

petitioner. The learned Advocate, therefore, contends that this is a case of

termination without any evidence to support the allegations of misconduct.


5            Per contra, learned Advocate for respondent / employer justified

the order.   Contention of the learned Advocate is that disciplinary action

against an employee can be taken by the employer on the charge being
                                        4                           20_WP_5795_2016



proved by preponderance of probabilities.       Learned Advocate argued that

there was no reason for Dr. Heena, Sarpanch and other witnesses, whose

evidence recorded, to depose against the petitioner. It is contended that the

act of distributing medicines without prescription is a serious misconduct,

which may endanger life of a patient. With respect to the post-termination

incident, the learned Advocate argued that this behavior demonstrates the

employer can no longer place trust or confidence in the employee,

particularly given the fact that the establishment is a hospital.


6            Upon perusal of the findings of learned Labour Court it is seen

that the incident of distributing medicine to a patient on 11.09.2006 is

established by the evidence of Doctor.       The employee was working in a

hospital. The misconduct of distributing medicines without prescription is a

serious misconduct. There is no reason to assume that Dr. Heena would

falsely implicate the petitioner / complainant.       Apart from this, there is

evidence of the Sarpanch of the Grampanchayat, as also one of the villagers

to support the contention that the petitioner was practicing as a Doctor and

he was distributing medicines to the villagers.        He is admittedly not a

qualified Doctor.   Having regard to the evidence on record and findings

recorded by the learned Labour Court, it appears that a possible view of the

factual situation is taken by the learned Labour Court. The misconduct of
                                       5                           20_WP_5795_2016



distributing medicines is obviously serious. In view of the aforesaid the order

of termination of services of the petitioner / complainant does not warrant

any interference.


7              Learned Labour Court has taken a possible view of the matter,

which cannot be interfered with while entertaining a petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition stands dismissed with no order

as to costs.




                                                  ( ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. )




agd