Even where an employee is suspected of document forgery to secure employment, a disciplinary inquiry marred by procedural defects cannot sustain termination. The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that the rule of law demands fair process over conclusive allegations, setting a critical precedent for labour adjudication in India.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Tukaram Vitthal Patil, was appointed as a Security Guard by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) in 1984 after submitting school leaving certificates. In 1989, an anonymous complaint alleged that these certificates were forged, with the Head Master of the school confirming that the signature did not match his and that the registration numbers were fabricated. Based on this, MCGM initiated a departmental inquiry, leading to the respondent’s removal in 1992.
Procedural History
The case progressed through multiple forums:
- 1992: Respondent filed a complaint under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, alleging unfair labour practices under Item 1(b), (d), (e), and (f).
- 2002: Labour Court held the inquiry was unfair due to denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and refusal of adjournment.
- 2005: Industrial Court remanded the matter after setting aside the Labour Court’s order permitting witness summons.
- 2006: Labour Court, despite no evidence from the respondent on unemployment or back wages, ordered reinstatement with full back wages from 1992 to 1999.
- 2010: Industrial Court upheld the Labour Court’s order.
- 2026: MCGM filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Relief Sought
MCGM sought to set aside the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, arguing that the respondent failed to prove unfair labour practice and that full back wages were unjustified in the absence of evidence of unemployment. The respondent sought confirmation of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether procedural infirmities in a departmental inquiry can nullify a dismissal even when there is prima facie evidence of misconduct, and whether back wages can be awarded in the absence of direct proof of unemployment.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
MCGM contended that the burden to prove unfair labour practice lay entirely on the respondent, who failed to adduce evidence of unemployment between 1992 and 1999. It argued that the Labour Court misapplied the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 framework, which imposes a burden on management to prove misconduct, to a case under the Unfair Labour Practices Act, where the complainant bears the burden. It further asserted that the Head Master’s statement and forged certificate numbers constituted conclusive proof of misconduct, rendering procedural lapses irrelevant.
For the Respondent
The respondent argued that the inquiry was fundamentally unfair due to denial of cross-examination, refusal of adjournment, and lack of legal assistance despite his limited education. She relied on the Industrial Court’s prior orders rejecting MCGM’s request for witness summons and remanding the matter, which left the record devoid of testimonial evidence to substantiate the charges. She contended that the principle of natural justice overrides even strong documentary allegations, and that reinstatement with back wages was a lawful remedy for wrongful termination.
The Court's Analysis
The Court emphasized that its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 is supervisory, not appellate. It cannot reappreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The Labour Court and Industrial Court had found that the inquiry violated natural justice by denying the respondent effective opportunity to defend himself, including the right to cross-examine witnesses and seek adjournment.
"Proof of misconduct must follow a fair and lawful procedure. The rule of law demands that the finding of misconduct rest on evidence admitted after compliance with principles of natural justice."
The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the forged certificate but held that prima facie evidence cannot cure procedural defects. The Corporation, as the disciplining authority, bore the burden to establish misconduct through a fair inquiry. Despite multiple opportunities - including the remand in 2005 and the initial allowance of witness summons - the Corporation failed to produce oral evidence to substantiate the forgery allegation.
The Industrial Court’s refusal to permit witness summons and its remand order effectively froze the evidentiary record. In that context, the Labour Court’s conclusion that the inquiry was unfair was legally sound. The Court further held that the award of back wages was not arbitrary. In the absence of evidence that the respondent was gainfully employed between 1992 and 1999, the Labour Court’s inference of loss of earnings was reasonable and fact-specific.
The Court rejected MCGM’s argument that the burden of proof shifted to the respondent under the Unfair Labour Practices Act, noting that the two strands - proving misconduct by management and proving unfair practice by the employee - operate independently. Here, the complaint was framed on procedural violations, not on the truth of the forgery. The inquiry’s invalidity rendered the dismissal unlawful, irrespective of the underlying allegation.
The Verdict
The respondent won. The Bombay High Court upheld the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court, holding that procedural fairness is non-negotiable in disciplinary proceedings and that back wages may be awarded even without direct proof of unemployment where the dismissal is found to be procedurally defective. The Corporation was directed to comply with the reinstatement and back wages order within six weeks.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must treat natural justice violations as fatal to disciplinary outcomes, even where misconduct appears evident.
- Employers cannot rely on documentary evidence alone to justify termination if the inquiry process was flawed.
- Any denial of cross-examination, adjournment, or legal aid must be documented and challenged as a standalone ground for relief.
Back Wages Are Presumed Where Dismissal Is Unlawful
- In the absence of evidence of alternate employment, courts may infer loss of earnings and award full back wages.
- Employers bear the burden to prove that the employee was gainfully employed during the period of forced unemployment.
- Back wages are not punitive but compensatory; their award is justified when the dismissal is procedurally invalid.
Burden of Proof Depends on the Nature of the Complaint
- Under the Unfair Labour Practices Act, the complainant must prove denial of fair procedure - not the truth of the underlying misconduct.
- Management’s burden to prove misconduct arises only in disciplinary proceedings, not in unfair labour practice complaints.
- Courts will not conflate the two; a flawed inquiry cannot be validated by subsequent allegations of fraud.
