An unproved apology letter cannot justify termination for alleged misconduct without a disciplinary inquiry.

The respondent-workman, Uttam Singh, claimed that he had worked as a Store Incharge with M/s Vinu Auto Parts for approximately 38 years at a last-drawn salary of ₹14,000 per month.

He alleged that his services were terminated on 9 May 2017 after he demanded service benefits and after the management accused him of theft.

The management contended that the workman had committed theft and had tendered an apology, pursuant to which he was discharged from service.

The Labour Court framed the issue whether the termination was illegal or unjustified.

It found that the management had failed to prove the alleged apology letter, as only a photocopy was produced and the relevant witness was neither an eyewitness to the alleged theft nor the person who accepted the letter.

The Labour Court held that the workman had completed 240 days of service in the preceding year and that the termination amounted to retrenchment without compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

It consequently awarded compensation of ₹4,50,000, payable within two months, failing which interest at 9% per annum would accrue.

The management challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the management was justified in terminating the workman without conducting a domestic inquiry on the basis of the alleged apology letter for theft.

2. Whether the Labour Court’s finding that the termination was illegal and that Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, applied was perverse, without jurisdiction, or otherwise liable to interference in writ jurisdiction.

3. Whether the compensation awarded by the Labour Court was liable to be set aside.

The Court applied Sections 2(oo) and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, holding that where a workman who has completed 240 days of service is retrenched, the statutory conditions governing retrenchment must be complied with.

It further applied the principle that an alleged misconduct-based termination cannot be sustained merely on the basis of an unproved apology letter, particularly where the misconduct is disputed and the evidentiary foundation is deficient.

In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate court over factual findings of the Labour Court and may interfere only where the decision is without jurisdiction, perverse, or contrary to principles of natural justice, as recognised in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, International Airport Authority of India v. International Air Cargo Workers’ Union, and Ritz Theatre Private Limited v. Ramesh Chandra.

The authorities cited by the management concerning voluntary resignation letters were held inapplicable because the present case involved an alleged misconduct-based termination, not voluntary resignation.

The Court held that the management’s case depended substantially on the alleged apology letter, but the original document was not produced and the person who allegedly accepted it was not examined.

The management’s witness had neither seen the alleged theft nor independently established that the workman had voluntarily admitted the misconduct; he had himself written the letter and stated that the workman merely signed it.

The alleged theft was also inconsistently described as theft of auto parts in the written statement and theft of polythene rolls in the witness’s testimony.

Since the apology was not proved and the termination was not established as falling outside retrenchment under Section 2(oo), the Labour Court was justified in requiring compliance with Section 25F.

The High Court found no perversity, jurisdictional error, or breach of natural justice warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227, and rejected the management’s reliance on cases concerning voluntary resignation.

The writ petition and pending application were dismissed.

The amount already deposited pursuant to the order directing deposit of 50% of the awarded sum was directed to be released as ordered, and the management was granted six weeks to pay the remaining balance to the workman.

In default, the remaining amount would carry interest at 12% per annum.