Bombay High Court in the case of Maruti Krishna Naik & Others v. M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd., decided on 22.10.24 upheld the termination of several employees for engaging in an illegal strike and creating an atmosphere of terror, even though the terminations were made without a formal inquiry. The court ruled that the employer was justified in dismissing the employees based on violent behaviour that made it impossible to conduct a fair inquiry.
The case revolved around the termination of 22 employees of M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. (“Oerlikon”), a Pune-based manufacturer of welding machines and equipment. The employees, members of two trade unions, were dismissed in December 1997 and January 1998. The company alleged that the workers participated in an illegal strike, prevented other workers from joining duties, and assaulted company officials, creating an atmosphere of terror at the factory gate.
The First Labour Court, Pune, had earlier dismissed the employees’ complaints of unfair labour practices. The Industrial Court, Pune, confirmed this ruling, leading to the current challenge in the High Court.
The court examined and dealt with the issues of permissibility of Termination Without Inquiry and later justify the action by leading evidence in court?, Justification of Termination Based on Allegations not mentioned in the termination letters and assessment of evidence of misconduct.
Also read – Monetary compensation can replace reinstatement even in cases of illegal dismissal: MP HC
The court reiterated the well-established legal principle that when an employer fails to hold an inquiry before dismissing an employee, it can justify the dismissal later by presenting relevant evidence before the Labour Court. The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. v. Motipur Sugar Factory, where it was held that “where an employer has failed to make an inquiry before dismissing or discharging a workman, it is open to him to justify the action before the tribunal by leading all relevant evidence before it.”
The High Court also addressed whether evidence of misconduct not explicitly mentioned in the termination letters could be considered. In this case, although the termination letters referred to participation in an illegal strike and creating an atmosphere of terror, the company also led evidence of assault on management staff. The court held that since the assaults were related to the same events mentioned in the termination letters, the employer was entitled to rely on this additional evidence to justify the terminations.
The court observed, “The termination is effected essentially on account of conduct of Petitioners in participating in an illegal strike and preventing willing persons from joining duties. The termination order clearly refers to creation of atmosphere of terror at the gate of the company. Thus, the allegations of assault, which came to be added in the Written Statement and proved by leading evidence, have clear connection with the allegation of creation of atmosphere of terror specified in the termination letters.”
The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition filed by the terminated employees, upholding the decisions of the Labour Court and the Industrial Court. The court found that the company had sufficiently justified the terminations by leading evidence of violent misconduct, even though no domestic inquiry had been held.
