{"id":189539,"date":"2008-11-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-11-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008"},"modified":"2015-08-03T23:33:48","modified_gmt":"2015-08-03T18:03:48","slug":"kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008","title":{"rendered":"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha … vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & … on 19 November, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha … vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & … on 19 November, 2008<\/div>\n
Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud<\/div>\n
                                      1\n\n           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                            \n                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION\n\n\n\n\n                                                    \n                     WRIT PETITION NO.6419 OF 2008\n\n    Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha Utpadak\n    Sangh, Kolhapur                                ..Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                                   \n              Vs.\n    Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & another            ..Respondents.\n                                        ....\n    Mr. S.S. Pakale for the Petitioner.\n\n\n\n\n                                         \n    Mr. Abhay Nevagi with Mr. Rajesh Mirchandani and Mr. Vivek Patil i\/b\n    M\/s. Paras Kuhad and Associates for Respondents 1 and 2.\n                              ig        ....\n\n                          CORAM:  DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                  19th November, 2008.\n<\/p>\n
    ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
    1.        Rule, by consent of the learned counsel made returnable<\/p>\n
    forthwith. Counsel appearing for the Respondents waives service.\n<\/p>\n
    By consent of the learned counsel, the matter is taken up for hearing<\/p>\n
    and final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
    2.        The two workmen who are Respondents to these<\/p>\n
    proceedings were employed by the Petitioner as temporaries. The<\/p>\n
    Petitioner is a Federation of Milk Supply Societies in the District of<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        2<\/span><\/p>\n
    Kolhapur and is registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative<\/p>\n
    Societies Act, 1960. The Petitioner is engaged in the collection of<\/p>\n
    milk from village societies and     in the processing and distribution<\/p>\n
    thereof. The Petitioner employs about 1891 employees and has a<\/p>\n
    processing plant at Borawade (Bidri). A charge- sheet was issued to<\/p>\n
    the two workmen on 8th August, 1989 in respect of an incident which<\/p>\n
    took place on 1st April, 1989. It was alleged in the charge-sheet that<\/p>\n
    the First Respondent had taken leave of absence on 1st April, 1989<\/p>\n
    due to personal reasons on the ground of a marriage in the family.\n<\/p>\n
    However, on 1st April, 1989 the workman stayed for the night in the<\/p>\n
    precincts of a hotel. At about 1.30 a.m. an officer by the name of Mr.<\/p>\n
    R.D. Patil came to the hotel and took the workman with him, informing<\/p>\n
    him that a tanker had to be filled. The workman accompanied the<\/p>\n
    said officer to the chilling plant in the tanker. The tanker came to be<\/p>\n
    filled unauthorizedly with milk of a total volume of nearly 10,000 liters<\/p>\n
    together with the assistance of the First and Second Respondents. A<\/p>\n
    trap was laid by the management on a suspicion that milk belonging<\/p>\n
    to the Petitioner was being unauthorizedly secreted away. The tanker<\/p>\n
    was apprehended.      It is accordingly alleged that though the First<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        3<\/span><\/p>\n
    Respondent was not on duty on 1st April, 1989, he had during the<\/p>\n
    hours of the night proceeded to the chilling center in a private tanker<\/p>\n
    and had aided in facilitating the theft of milk from the precincts of the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner by unauthorizedly filling up a private tanker to the extent of<\/p>\n
    10,000 liters. The Second Respondent was also charged with having<\/p>\n
    committed misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
    3.
\n              A disciplinary enquiry was initiated on the aforesaid charge<\/p>\n
    of misconduct involving theft of the property of the employer.                An<\/p>\n
    Enquiry Officer was appointed and both the workmen who were<\/p>\n
    charge- sheeted were permitted to be represented by an advocate.\n<\/p>\n
    On 11th June, 1990 the evidence of the Managing Director of the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner was recorded. On 27th February, 1991 during the pendency<\/p>\n
    of the disciplinary proceedings a letter was addressed by the<\/p>\n
    Respondent workmen accepting the charge of misconduct and<\/p>\n
    requesting the management, in view of their financial position, to allow<\/p>\n
    them to resume duty. The record of the proceedings of the Enquiry<\/p>\n
    Officer shows that the workmen were asked as to whether they had in<\/p>\n
    fact addressed such a letter to which the answer was in the<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
    affirmative.   The workmen were asked as to whether the charges<\/p>\n
    were acceptable to which the answer was again in the affirmative.\n<\/p>\n
    The workmen stated upon enquiry that the letter had been addressed<\/p>\n
    by them voluntarily and without any coercion. The workmen stated<\/p>\n
    that in terms of the request a lenient view may be taken of the matter<\/p>\n
    and they may be allowed to resume duty.          Insofar as the First<\/p>\n
    Respondent is concerned, he had stated in his letter that he accepted<\/p>\n
    the charge contained in the letter dated 1st April, 1989. The First<\/p>\n
    Respondent stated that at the behest of Mr. R.D. Patil who was in<\/p>\n
    charge of the chilling plant, he had proceeded to fill the tanker when<\/p>\n
    he was apprehended by the Managing Director of the Petitioner<\/p>\n
    together with certain other members of the management. The First<\/p>\n
    Respondent stated that he had carried out the aforesaid course of<\/p>\n
    conduct at the behest of his superior and that he should be excused<\/p>\n
    for the lapse. The First Respondent stated that he had no intention to<\/p>\n
    defraud the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
    4.        The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. It has not been<\/p>\n
    disputed that both the workmen had on 27th February, 1991 submitted<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                         5<\/span><\/p>\n
    similar applications accepting their guilt. The record of the enquiry<\/p>\n
    also shows that on the aforesaid date of hearing, the advocate<\/p>\n
    appearing on behalf of the workmen was present.              Following the<\/p>\n
    report of the Enquiry Officer, the workmen were dismissed from<\/p>\n
    service.\n<\/p>\n
    5.          Complaints of unfair labour practices were instituted by the<\/p>\n
    workmen before the Labour Court at Kolhapur under Item 1 of<\/p>\n
    Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and<\/p>\n
    Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.          The complaints<\/p>\n
    were dismissed by the Labour Court on 7th June, 2005. The Labour<\/p>\n
    Court relied upon the application submitted by the two workmen which<\/p>\n
    according to the Court amounted to a confession of guilt. The Labour<\/p>\n
    Court observed that from the proceedings dated 27th February, 1991<\/p>\n
    it emerged that the advocate appearing on behalf of the workmen was<\/p>\n
    present and that the Enquiry Officer had enquired as to whether the<\/p>\n
    statements contained therein were made voluntarily and without any<\/p>\n
    coercion.      Before the Labour Court it was submitted that the<\/p>\n
    complainant workmen had obeyed the orders of the superior. While<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                         6<\/span><\/p>\n
    rejecting this submission the Labour Court observed that one of the<\/p>\n
    complainant workmen was at the time of the incident not on duty, but<\/p>\n
    had slept in a hotel near the plant at Bidri        from where he was<\/p>\n
    summoned at 1.30 a.m. by Mr. R.D. Patil.             The workmen had<\/p>\n
    engaged in the filling up of the tanker until it was apprehended by the<\/p>\n
    raiding party. The Labour Court held that the punishment of dismissal<\/p>\n
    was not disproportionate. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
    6.<\/p>\n
              The workmen carried the matter in revision. The Industrial<\/p>\n
    Court held that it being the grievance of the workmen that the enquiry<\/p>\n
    had not been held properly, the Labour Court ought to have framed<\/p>\n
    an issue in respect of the fairness of the enquiry. The Industrial Court<\/p>\n
    held that the workmen were not given an opportunity to lead their<\/p>\n
    evidence in defence in the domestic enquiry because the Enquiry<\/p>\n
    Officer took into consideration the confessional statements following<\/p>\n
    which the enquiry was concluded. The Industrial Court was also of<\/p>\n
    the view that a specific issue in regard to the perversity of the findings<\/p>\n
    ought to have been framed so that in the event that the enquiry was<\/p>\n
    set aside and the findings were held to be perverse, the management<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        7<\/span><\/p>\n
    would have an opportunity to justify its action before the Court. Having<\/p>\n
    found fault with the Labour Court for not having framed an issue in<\/p>\n
    regard to the fairness of the enquiry and the perversity of the findings,<\/p>\n
    the Industrial Court proceeded to consider the question as to whether<\/p>\n
    the penalty of dismissal was warranted assuming that the enquiry was<\/p>\n
    fair and the findings were correct. The Industrial Court held that in the<\/p>\n
    evidence of the management’s witness it had come on the record that<\/p>\n
    the workmen had only helped the incharge by following his<\/p>\n
    instructions and there being no charge of collusion and since the<\/p>\n
    workmen were temporary workers, the ends of justice would be<\/p>\n
    warranted if an order of reinstatement is passed without backwages.\n<\/p>\n
    The Industrial Court purported to rely upon an admission of the<\/p>\n
    management’s witness that the workmen had not benefited from the<\/p>\n
    said incident.   An order of reinstatement without backwages was<\/p>\n
    passed.\n<\/p>\n
    7.        In the present case, it has been submitted on behalf of the<\/p>\n
    Petitioner that the Industrial Court in revision has transgressed the<\/p>\n
    limits on its jurisdiction by reassessing the evidence and substituting<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        8<\/span><\/p>\n
    its own conclusions for those of the Labour Court.             The learned<\/p>\n
    counsel submitted that in the event that the Industrial Court came to<\/p>\n
    the conclusion that proper issues were not framed, it was only<\/p>\n
    appropriate and proper that the proceedings should be remanded<\/p>\n
    back to the Labour Court for framing issues specifically in regard to<\/p>\n
    the fairness of the enquiry and the perversity of the findings.\n<\/p>\n
    Secondly, it was submitted that both the workmen had unconditionally<\/p>\n
    admitted their guilt.\n<\/p>\n
                            The incident was not disputed and the only<\/p>\n
    defence of the workmen was that they had acted at the behest of the<\/p>\n
    incharge or their superior. The superior officer, the Court is informed<\/p>\n
    by Counsel for the workmen, died after the incident in a car accident.\n<\/p>\n
    The Enquiry Officer had duly satisfied himself about the voluntary<\/p>\n
    nature of the statements which were recorded in the presence of the<\/p>\n
    advocate who was appearing on behalf of the complainant workmen<\/p>\n
    in the enquiry. In these circumstances, it was submitted that there<\/p>\n
    was no valid justification for the Industrial Court to interfere with the<\/p>\n
    order of the Labour Court in a case where the workmen were involved<\/p>\n
    in a serious case of theft involving 10,000 liters of milk belonging to<\/p>\n
    the Petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        9<\/span><\/p>\n
    8.        On the other hand on behalf of the Respondent workmen it<\/p>\n
    was submitted that having regard to the fact that the incident on the<\/p>\n
    basis of which disciplinary proceedings were initiated dates back to<\/p>\n
    April 1989 and since evidence had been adduced before the Labour<\/p>\n
    Court, there is no reason for this Court now to remand the<\/p>\n
    proceedings back to the Labour Court for the framing of issues. The<\/p>\n
    learned counsel submitted that it would be in the interest of justice if<\/p>\n
    the matter is finally decided by this Court so as to obviate another<\/p>\n
    round of litigation. On behalf of the Respondents it was urged that<\/p>\n
    properly construed, the statement of the two Respondents amounted<\/p>\n
    to a conditional plea which was not acceptable as a valid piece of<\/p>\n
    confession in law. Secondly, it was urged that the charge-sheet itself<\/p>\n
    would not make out an allegation of theft. Thirdly, it was submitted<\/p>\n
    that the admissions elicited during the cross examination of the<\/p>\n
    management’s witness would show that the workmen had not<\/p>\n
    benefited from the incident.    The workmen, it was submitted, had<\/p>\n
    acted on the orders of the superior and consequently, the Industrial<\/p>\n
    Court was justified in ordering reinstatement though without<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                      10<\/span><\/p>\n
    backwages.\n<\/p>\n
    9.        The record of the enquiry discloses that the workmen were<\/p>\n
    permitted to be defended by an advocate.       After the enquiry had<\/p>\n
    commenced upon the issuance of a charge- sheet, the evidence of<\/p>\n
    the management’s witness, the Managing Director of the Petitioner,<\/p>\n
    was recorded on 11th June, 1990.           On 27th February, 1991<\/p>\n
    proceedings took place in the course of the enquiry. The Enquiry<\/p>\n
    Officer noted that the workmen had submitted a representation<\/p>\n
    accepting the allegation of misconduct contained in the charge –\n<\/p>\n
    sheet dated 8th August, 1989.    The Enquiry Officer posed several<\/p>\n
    questions to the workmen to verify as to whether the representations<\/p>\n
    were addressed by the workmen; whether they were voluntary or<\/p>\n
    otherwise and whether the allegations of misconduct were accepted<\/p>\n
    to the workmen. To this the answer was in the affirmative. In the<\/p>\n
    letter addressed by the First Respondent to the enquiry officer, the<\/p>\n
    incident which took place on 1st April, 1989 was not denied. There<\/p>\n
    was an acceptance of the fact that the workmen were apprehended<\/p>\n
    when they had filled a privately owned tanker on the night of the date<\/p>\n
                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        11<\/span><\/p>\n
    of the incident but it was stated that this was all done at the behest of<\/p>\n
    a superior.   The workmen prayed that they may be reinstated in<\/p>\n
    service.\n<\/p>\n
    10.        Now there can be no dispute about the fundamental<\/p>\n
    principle of law that an admission of misconduct,          in order to be<\/p>\n
    acceptable as a ground for holding that the charge is proved, must not<\/p>\n
    be qualified or
\n                      conditional.   The record of the enquiry dated 27th<\/p>\n
    February, 1991 would in fact reveal that the incident which took place<\/p>\n
    on 1st April, 1989 was not disputed. The presence of the workmen at<\/p>\n
    1.30 a.m. on 1st April, 1989, the presence of a private tanker which<\/p>\n
    was brought into the premises of the chilling plant and the role of the<\/p>\n
    workmen in actually assisting and facilitating the filling up of 10,000<\/p>\n
    liters of milk in the tanker is not in dispute. It must be noted that it<\/p>\n
    was not the defence of the workmen that the incident did not take<\/p>\n
    place or that they were falsely implicated.       The defence of the<\/p>\n
    workmen at all material times       was that they had acted thus in<\/p>\n
    compliance with the direction of the superior. In these circumstances,<\/p>\n
    the Enquiry Officer made due enquiries with the workmen on whether<\/p>\n
                                                      ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                       12<\/span><\/p>\n
    the statement was voluntarily furnished and it was only upon his<\/p>\n
    satisfaction that this was so that the enquiry was closed. The Labour<\/p>\n
    Court noted that in the enquiry proceedings both the complainant<\/p>\n
    workmen as well as their advocate put down their signatures. Once<\/p>\n
    this was the case, the Labour Court was justified in coming to the<\/p>\n
    conclusion that the charge of misconduct stood proved. The Labour<\/p>\n
    Court also took note of the fact that the workmen were acquitted in a<\/p>\n
    criminal case by the J. M. F. C. The approach of the Labour Court is<\/p>\n
    consistent with the law inasmuch as the Labour Court observed that<\/p>\n
    the burden of proof in a criminal case is of a different nature from a<\/p>\n
    disciplinary proceeding. Moreover, from the judgment of the J. M. F.\n<\/p>\n
    C. which was placed on the record of the Labour Court it was noted<\/p>\n
    that the workmen were acquitted because in spite of the summons<\/p>\n
    that were issued to the witnesses on several occasions, the police<\/p>\n
    had failed to bring the witnesses before the Court.\n<\/p>\n
    11.       In this background there is merit in the submission which<\/p>\n
    has been urged on behalf of the Petitioner that the approach of the<\/p>\n
    Industrial Court is inexplicable with reference to any cogent rationale<\/p>\n
    or logic. If the Industrial Court was of the view that a specific issue<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                       13<\/span><\/p>\n
    ought to have been framed on the fairness of the enquiry and on the<\/p>\n
    perversity of the findings, the only appropriate and proper course of<\/p>\n
    action would have been to remit the proceedings back to the Labour<\/p>\n
    Court for a fresh decision after framing issues. Instead the Industrial<\/p>\n
    Court proceeded to determine as to whether the punishment was<\/p>\n
    disproportionate even on the assumption that the enquiry was fair and<\/p>\n
    the findings were not perverse.        During the course of these<\/p>\n
    proceedings, this Court had enquired with the learned counsel<\/p>\n
    appearing for the parties as to whether parties would be desirous of<\/p>\n
    pressing for the remand of the proceedings back to the Labour Court.\n<\/p>\n
    Counsel appearing for the Respondent workmen submitted that in<\/p>\n
    view of the long pendency of the matter and particularly since<\/p>\n
    evidence was adduced before the Labour Court, it would not be in the<\/p>\n
    interests of justice to remand the proceedings. Learned Counsel for<\/p>\n
    the workmen opposed a remand. The submissions have therefore<\/p>\n
    been heard on merits by consent. The reasons which weighed with<\/p>\n
    the Industrial Court in granting reinstatement suffer from a manifest<\/p>\n
    perversity of approach. The Industrial Court was of the view that the<\/p>\n
    workmen had obeyed a superior officer by following his instructions.\n<\/p>\n
                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        14<\/span><\/p>\n
    As already noted earlier, the Court was informed that the superior<\/p>\n
    officer who was alleged to be involved died in the course of an<\/p>\n
    accident. The fact that the workmen were induced to resort to an<\/p>\n
    unlawful course of action at the behest of a superior officer does not<\/p>\n
    dilute or detract from their own involvement in facilitating the theft of<\/p>\n
    property belonging to the employer. The First Respondent was not on<\/p>\n
    duty on the night of the incident. Yet, he came into the premises of the<\/p>\n
    chilling plant to fill up a tanker with 10,000 liters of milk. The time of<\/p>\n
    the incident, the surreptitious nature of the conduct, and the attendant<\/p>\n
    circumstances show that the workmen could not feign ignorance<\/p>\n
    about the illegal nature of the activity in which they were involved. In<\/p>\n
    any event, the workmen were temporaries and if the employer has<\/p>\n
    lost confidence in their ability to discharge their duties with honesty,<\/p>\n
    the decision to terminate after disciplinary proceedings cannot be<\/p>\n
    faulted.\n<\/p>\n
    12.        The Industrial Court laid a     great deal of emphasis on<\/p>\n
    certain admissions which were made during the course of the cross<\/p>\n
    examination of the management’s witness.            A perusal of those<\/p>\n
    admissions will, however, demonstrate that they would have no<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                         15<\/span><\/p>\n
    bearing on the question of guilt or on the quantum of punishment.\n<\/p>\n
    The management’s witness stated that the complainant workmen<\/p>\n
    were not in charge of the plant; that they had not benefited from the<\/p>\n
    incident and what he meant by stating that they were involved in<\/p>\n
    collusion was that they had filled up the tanker upon being asked to<\/p>\n
    do so by the superior. The fact that there was no positive evidence<\/p>\n
    that the workmen had in fact benefited from the incident is no ground<\/p>\n
    to hold that they were not guilty of misconduct. Whether or not a<\/p>\n
    benefit had been or was to be passed on to the workmen is a matter<\/p>\n
    on which on which direct evidence is not always available. In such<\/p>\n
    cases involving disciplinary proceedings the question which the Court<\/p>\n
    must pose is as to whether the findings of misconduct are sustainable<\/p>\n
    on some legally acceptable evidence on record. The Industrial Court<\/p>\n
    has virtually reappreciated the evidence in the course of the exercise<\/p>\n
    of its revisional jurisdiction.   In doing so it has transgressed the<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction which must govern the exercise of revisional jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    The approach of the Industrial Court suffers from a manifest illegality.\n<\/p>\n
    A miscarriage of justice is liable to ensue unless the order of the<\/p>\n
    Industrial Court is interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                        16<\/span><\/p>\n
    Constitution. The Labour Court was correct in its approach and its<\/p>\n
    findings. The admission of guilt by the workmen was categoric and<\/p>\n
    unambiguous. Upon such an admission the punishment of dismissal<\/p>\n
    could not be regarded as disproportionate. Theft involving the<\/p>\n
    property of the employer is a serious charge which would warrant the<\/p>\n
    punishment of dismissal from service.     The conclusion of the Labour<\/p>\n
    Court was correct and the Industrial Court erred in exercising the<\/p>\n
    revisional jurisdiction.\n<\/p>\n
    12A.       Labour and Industrial Courts, when they deal with<\/p>\n
    challenges to findings in disciplinary enquiries, must reflect a robust<\/p>\n
    awareness of the realities of the economic situation. Serious cases of<\/p>\n
    misconduct – such as those involving theft of the property of the<\/p>\n
    employer- have to be dealt with seriously. Businesses cannot survive if<\/p>\n
    those who are under an obligation to enhance productivity corrode the<\/p>\n
    establishment by acts of dishonesty. Once a serious act of misconduct is<\/p>\n
    proved, in a fair enquiry, the approach of the Labour Courts should not be<\/p>\n
    to embark upon a search to find just any technical lapse or lacunae to<\/p>\n
    vitiate the enquiry.   There has to be something more fundamental,<\/p>\n
    such as a breach of the principles of natural justice, some manifest<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                           17<\/span><\/p>\n
    perversity or something that shocks the conscience, for the Court to<\/p>\n
    interfere.     A wide degree of autonomy must be allowed for the<\/p>\n
    disciplinary    jurisdiction,   so   long   as   the   basic      principles         of<\/p>\n
    jurisprudence in labour cases are observed. Within that area of<\/p>\n
                                                           ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                          18<\/span><\/p>\n
    autonomy and conscious as they should be of that autonomy, Courts<\/p>\n
    must tread with caution. A disciplined and efficient enterprise is a<\/p>\n
    sine qua non for the survival of industry.         Courts must, in their<\/p>\n
    approach, not be regarded as condoning breaches of discipline. As<\/p>\n
    India evolves into a modern Industrial state, the interpretative<\/p>\n
    jurisdiction of the Court    must facilitate efficiency, productivity and<\/p>\n
    discipline.   Courts will guard against victimization by employers.\n<\/p>\n
    However, recourse to Courts should not be taken lightly as a means<\/p>\n
    of condoning wanton acts of indiscipline. That would neither be in the<\/p>\n
    interest of the workers or of society. This vision must not be lost to<\/p>\n
    industrial adjudication. Industry survives on discipline and ought not<\/p>\n
    to perish on indiscipline and, least of all, indiscipline that is condoned<\/p>\n
    by the Court. Preservation of the rule of law includes preservation of<\/p>\n
    the rules by which business is transacted.          In a rapidly evolving<\/p>\n
    economy, stability of business contributes to conditions of social<\/p>\n
    stability. Rules of discipline are a critical ingredient of the rule of law.\n<\/p>\n
    Courts as institutions involved in        democratic governance must<\/p>\n
    enforce those      rules    rather    than    condone        their       breach.\n<\/p>\n
    Judicial<\/p>\n
                                                        ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>
\n                                         19<\/span><\/p>\n
    legitimacy is founded on the ability of Courts to respond to societal<\/p>\n
    concerns. Maintaining integrity and honesty must rank as one of the<\/p>\n
    foremost concerns in today’s troubled times.      Equity in the hands of<\/p>\n
    a judge is not an unguided instrument. Equity, despite all its breadth,<\/p>\n
    is carefully structured to dispense justice according to law and to deal<\/p>\n
    with injustice in accordance with law.\n<\/p>\n
    13.
\n              In these circumstances, the Petition will have to be allowed<\/p>\n
    and is accordingly allowed.     The judgment of the Industrial Court<\/p>\n
    dated 20th June, 2008 is set aside. The complaint of unfair labour<\/p>\n
    practices shall stand dismissed.       In the circumstances of the case,<\/p>\n
    there shall be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                       *****<\/p>\n
                                                       ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 14:04:27 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha … vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & … on 19 November, 2008 Bench: Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6419 OF 2008 Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha Utpadak Sangh, Kolhapur ..Petitioner. Vs. Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & another ..Respondents. …. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-189539","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha ... vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha ... vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-03T18:03:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha … vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & … on 19 November, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T18:03:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008\"},\"wordCount\":3535,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008\",\"name\":\"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha ... vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-03T18:03:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha … vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & … on 19 November, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha ... vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha ... vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-03T18:03:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha … vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & … on 19 November, 2008","datePublished":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T18:03:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008"},"wordCount":3535,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008","name":"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha ... vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & ... on 19 November, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-11-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-03T18:03:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kolhapur-zilla-sahakari-dudha-vs-shivaji-shankar-pharakate-on-19-november-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha … vs Shivaji Shankar Pharakate & … on 19 November, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189539","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=189539"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/189539\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=189539"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=189539"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=189539"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}