Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi 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