Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme Court Inquiry Commission Report Cannot Be Used For Disciplinary Action If Statutory Right To Cross-Examine Denied: Gauhati High Court Use Of Trademark On Website Accessible In India Constitutes Domestic Use, Geo-Blocking Mandatory For Territorial Restrictions: Delhi High Court Civil Court Jurisdiction To Interfere With DRT Proceedings Is Absolutely Barred Even For Third Parties: Madras High Court Adding a Prefix Can’t Erase Deceptive Similarity – Delhi High Court Orders Removal of ‘ARUN’ from Trademark ‘AiC ARUN’ Cannot Resile From Mediated Settlement After Taking Benefits: Supreme Court Quashes Wife's DV Case, Grants Divorce Absolute Indemnity Obligation Triggers Immediately Upon Court-Directed Deposit, Not On Final Appeal: Supreme Court Magistrate Directing Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC Only Requires Prima Facie Satisfaction Of Cognizable Offence: Supreme Court Cancellation Of Sale Deed Under Specific Relief Act Not A Pre-Condition To Initiate Criminal Case For Forgery: Supreme Court Amalgamated Company Cannot Claim Set-Off Of Predecessor's Losses Under Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act Without Specific Statutory Provision: Supreme Court Overlapping Split Chargesheets May Raise Double Jeopardy Concerns, Supreme Court Notes While Granting Bail To Former Jharkhand Minister Supreme Court Grants Bail To Convicted Ex-Jharkhand Minister Facing Overlapping Prosecutions From Split Chargesheets Electricity Act Appellate Authority Is A Quasi-Judicial Body Subject To High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Discrepancy In Date Of Birth Across Certificates Doesn't Amount To Fraud If No Undue Advantage Is Derived: Allahabad High Court Interest Earned On Funds Temporarily Parked Pending Project Deployment Cannot Be Taxed As 'Income From Other Sources': Delhi High Court Reference Court Cannot Set Aside Collector's Award Or Remand Matter For Fresh Determination: Allahabad High Court Administrative Transfer Causing Revenue Loss Defies Court Process: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Ferry Ghat Handover Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court

Upholds Employer's Right to Termination Without Prior Inquiry in Sexual Harassment : Bombay High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a groundbreaking judgment delivered by Justice N. J. JAMADAR, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has upheld the employer's right to justify the termination of an employee even in the absence of a prior disciplinary inquiry, especially in cases of alleged misconduct and sexual harassment. The judgment, which was rendered on 29th September 2023, sets a significant precedent in the realm of employment law.

The case, which was brought before the court, involved a challenge to the termination of an employee by the Palghar Taluka Industrial Federation. The termination was based on allegations of misconduct and sexual harassment towards a female co-employee. The employer had conducted an internal inquiry before terminating the employee.

The judgment delves into the legal validity of such terminations and whether they violate the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court had previously found the termination to be in violation of this section, but the Industrial Court had remitted the issue of back wages for further consideration.

Justice JAMADAR, in the judgment, emphasized the employer's right to adduce evidence before the Tribunal to justify the termination, even in the absence of a proper disciplinary inquiry. This right, as clarified by the Supreme Court in various judgments, allows employers to present their case and evidence before the Labor Court.

Regarding the evidence in cases of sexual harassment, the judgment underscores the importance of evaluating evidence carefully. In this case, the Court observed that the evidence of the female co-employee, although lacking specific details of the alleged harassment, should not have been disregarded solely for that reason. It highlighted the need for a nuanced assessment of such cases.

As a result of this landmark judgment, the earlier orders declaring the termination as illegal were quashed, and the matter has been remitted to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. This judgment not only reaffirms the rights of employers to justify terminations but also underscores the significance of a fair and thorough evaluation of evidence in cases involving serious allegations.

Representing the petitioners were Mr. A.K. Jalisatgi, Mr. Triveninath Yadav, and Mr. Narendra Dube, while Mr. S.D. Paithane represented the respondent. This decision will likely have a significant impact on future cases involving employee terminations based on allegations of misconduct.

Date of Decision: 29 SEPTEMBER  2023

Palghar Taluka Industrial Federation and Others  vs Sadanand Dadu Bhoir

 

Latest Legal News