The Bombay High Court ruled that the State of Maharashtra did not possess any jurisdiction and authority under the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953, to dismiss the Senior Deputy Welfare Commissioner (petitioner) from the services of the Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board (third respondent), given that the Board, not the State, was the employer and appointing authority. The Court therefore quashed the dismissal order passed by the Principal Secretary, Labour Department, terminating the petitioner from service based on a withdrawn complaint.
The Court clarified that the petitioner was an employee of the Welfare Board and not of the State of Maharashtra, and the appointment was made exclusively by the Board under section 11 of the Bombay Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1953 (1953 Act), with the State’s role limited to granting prior approval. While explaining that the power to appoint necessarily includes the power to terminate or dismiss, the Court underscored that section 15 of the 1953 Act, which confers powers on the State to remove a person found “unsuitable” from the Board’s service, does not override the exclusive appointment powers of the Board under section 11.
The Court also explained that section 15 begins with no non obstante clause that would override section 11, thereby indicating that section 15’s removal power must be read within strict limitations. Further, the Court emphasised that the Board, constituted under section 4 of the 1953 Act, is an autonomous body with perpetual succession, common seal, and independent legal status.
While the State exercises general supervisory power, it cannot exercise powers otherwise than those explicitly provided in the 1953 Act, and the Board had its own set of rules and regulations (Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules 1961) to govern service conditions and disciplinary matters, added the Court while pointing out that the imposition of discipline by the State effectively usurped the Board’s autonomous authority.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Aaarti Sathe and Justice G.S. Kulkarni referred to an Apex Court’s decision in the case of Municipal Board Kannauj vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1972) 3 SCC 345], to underscore that a superior government authority cannot exercise powers beyond those conferred by statute, even when purporting to act in the public interest. The Bench drew an analogy with the circumlocution doctrine, holding that implied powers cannot be read into explicit statutory grants when the legislature has deliberately used narrower language.
The Bench clarified that the term “unsuitable” cannot be equated with termination on disciplinary grounds based on moral turpitude. It was observed that the power to find a candidate unsuitable cannot be equated akin to a power of termination. If the legislature intended to confer such power of termination, clearly, such a purport of termination could have been included in plain terms in the said provision.
The Bench further observed that the dismissal order contained no findings whatsoever regarding the petitioner’s suitability or unsuitability for the position of Welfare Commissioner, and found that the entire dismissal order rested upon the complaint filed by employee X, who had explicitly withdrawn her allegations through an affidavit, wherein she categorically stated that “alleged incident of sexual harassment had not occurred and I was under a mistaken assumption that the petitioner was responsible for her non-promotion”.
The Court also found that X’s evidence before the enquiry officer revealed that union office-bearers had influenced and manipulated her into filing false allegations. She testified that she had been used as a tool and that her complaint was motivated by frustration over a failed promotion, not by any actual harassment. The Court thus concluded that the dismissal order miserably fails in taking into consideration the crucial fact that the complainant had withdrawn the allegation against the petitioner, which was the basis of the dismissal order.
Briefly, the petitioner, who was appointed as Senior Deputy Welfare Commissioner by the Maharashtra Labour Welfare Board, was promoted following a meritorious performance review. Later, in 2002, an employee of the Board (referred to as ‘X’) filed a complaint alleging sexual harassment against the petitioner, which stemmed from a failed promotion.
The internal enquiry found the complaint to be motivated by personal vendetta, and accordingly, X withdrew her complaint through an affidavit. The criminal case filed by X against the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate. However, despite such withdrawal of allegations and acquittal in criminal proceedings, the Principal Secretary, Labour Department, issued a dismissal order, terminating the petitioner from service based on the withdrawn complaint.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate P. K. Dhakephalkar, along with Advocates Vishal Ghosalkar, Vaibhav Jagdale, Pandurang Andhak, and Shubham Dhoble, for the Petitioner
AGP Himanshu Takke and Advocate Shrishailya Deshmukh, for the Respondent
