Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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