Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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