Industrial Tribunal Cannot Bypass Adjudication Of Domestic Enquiry Validity In Termination Disputes: Calcutta High Court

"The total case of dismissal/termination is based on the domestic enquiry and without first prima facie deciding it’s validity the tribunal could not have decided the termination to be bad as it is the domestic enquiry, which is the foundation of the case." Calcutta High Court, in a judgment dated 8th October 2026, has affirmed that an Industrial Tribunal is legally obligated to adjudicate the validity of a domestic enquiry as a preliminary issue before determining the merits of an employee's termination.

Dismissing a writ petition challenging a review order, the bench of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) held that a failure to frame and decide upon the legality of the domestic enquiry—which forms the very foundation of a dismissal order—constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting a review under Rule 27 of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958.

The petitioner, a medical representative, was terminated by the respondent company following a domestic enquiry. The petitioner challenged this termination before the 2nd Industrial Tribunal, which initially passed an award in his favor, declaring the termination illegal and directing reinstatement with full back wages, despite the petitioner not having specifically prayed for a declaration that the domestic enquiry itself was invalid. Aggrieved by this, the respondent company filed an application for review under Rule 27(ii) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules, 1958, which was allowed by the 5th Industrial Tribunal, directing that the validity of the enquiry must be adjudged prior to examining the merits of the dismissal.

The primary question before the court was whether an Industrial Tribunal can bypass the determination of the validity of a domestic enquiry while adjudicating a dispute concerning the legality of an employee's termination. The court also examined whether the failure to frame such an issue constitutes a "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record," justifying the exercise of review powers under Rule 27(ii) of the West Bengal Industrial Disputes Rules.

The High Court observed that the entire edifice of the termination was built upon the findings of the domestic enquiry. Consequently, the tribunal could not have arrived at a legally sound conclusion regarding the dismissal without first scrutinizing the procedural and substantive fairness of that enquiry.

Tribunal's Duty to Frame Preliminary Issues

The court noted that by failing to frame an issue concerning the validity of the domestic enquiry, the original tribunal had fundamentally erred in its adjudicatory process. The Court emphasized that in industrial disputes, the domestic enquiry serves as the foundational basis for the employer's action, and any challenge to the termination inherently necessitates an evaluation of that enquiry's integrity.

"The total case of dismissal/termination is based on the domestic enquiry and without first prima facie deciding it’s validity the tribunal could not have decided the termination to be bad as it is the domestic enquiry, which is the foundation of the case."

Applicability of Review under Rule 27

The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the review order was an overreach. It held that the original tribunal's failure to address the domestic enquiry—a core aspect of the dispute—was a procedural defect that fell squarely within the scope of Rule 27(ii), which permits review on the ground of a "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record."

Procedural Errors and Jurisdictional Limits

Referencing precedents such as Cooper Engineering Limited vs. Shri P. P. Munde, the Court reiterated that while a tribunal has the discretion to determine the order of issues, it cannot dispense with the examination of the domestic enquiry altogether. The High Court affirmed that the review order passed by the 5th Industrial Tribunal was a well-reasoned document that correctly identified the jurisdictional error committed by the original tribunal.

Finding no infirmity in the review order, the Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the requirement that the validity of the domestic enquiry must be adjudicated as a foundational step in the dispute. The matter was thus left for the tribunal to proceed in accordance with this clarification, ensuring that the foundational legality of the termination is addressed before reaching a verdict on the merits of the back wages and reinstatement.

Date of Decision: 08 October 2026