The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that an employee’s use of vulgar, derogatory language directed at women of the community served by the employer constitutes grave misconduct warranting dismissal, even in the absence of a formal domestic enquiry. The judgment clarifies that judicial review of domestic inquiries must not morph into reappreciation of evidence, and compensation cannot be awarded to an employee whose conduct undermines the dignity of beneficiaries.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society Ltd., is a cooperative society engaged in transporting fish for the benefit of the Koli fishing community in Maharashtra. The respondent, Nitin Jaywant Mhatre, was employed as a driver since January 2001. He became an office bearer of the workers’ union and was recommended for appointment as Staff Director on the managing committee in a memorandum of settlement dated 1 April 2003. The society allegedly resisted his appointment, leading to escalating tensions.
Key Facts
- The respondent was actively involved in union activities and was nominated as a workers’ director by the Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh on 01.06.2009.
- On 13.09.2006, the society issued a memo restraining the respondent from reporting to duty, citing absence.
- On 14.10.2006, during a late-night visit to the society office for ice procurement, the respondent used abusive language in front of Vice Chairman Mr. Malcam Kasughar and other members, including women from the Koli community.
- The respondent allegedly said: "मी सोसायटीचा नोकर नाही, मी सोसायटीच्या पगारावरही नाही, मी सोसायटीच्या पगाराला लंडावर मारतो" and then added: "मी गाडी चालवायला आलो नाही तर कोळ्यांच्या बायांना व मुलींना झवायला आलो आहे".
- A memo dated 16.10.2006 was issued to the respondent, restraining him from duty, citing misconduct with the Vice Chairman, but did not specify the nature of the language used.
- On 27.12.2006, a police complaint was lodged against the respondent for threatening the enquiry officer.
- The society terminated his services on 11.01.2007 without holding a formal domestic enquiry.
Procedural History
- 11.01.2007: Termination order issued by the petitioner-society.
- 25.02.2007: Respondent filed Complaint (ULP) No. 25 of 2007 before the Labour Court, Thane.
- 03.08.2015: Labour Court dismissed the complaint, holding that the incident of 14.10.2006 constituted grave misconduct warranting dismissal.
- 2015: Respondent filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 75 of 2015 before the Industrial Court, Thane.
- 07.01.2021: Industrial Court set aside the Labour Court’s order, declared termination illegal, and awarded Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation, but denied reinstatement or backwages.
- 28.03.2021: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 5003 of 2021 before the Bombay High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.
- 17.06.2026: Judgment pronounced by the Bombay High Court.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the Industrial Court’s order dated 07.01.2021, restoration of the Labour Court’s order dated 03.08.2015, and dismissal of the respondent’s complaint. The respondent sought continuation of the compensation award and affirmation of his victimization claim.
The Legal Issue
The central questions were: (1) Whether the use of vulgar, gender-based abusive language toward women of the community served by the employer constitutes grave misconduct justifying dismissal, and (2) Whether the Industrial Court, in exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act, erred by reappreciating evidence and awarding compensation despite the absence of any legal basis for such relief.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondent’s language on 14.10.2006 was not merely offensive but deeply derogatory toward women of the Koli community - those for whom the society existed to serve. The conduct was intentional, unprovoked, and reflected a hostile mindset incompatible with employment. The Industrial Court erred in disregarding the testimony of three witnesses - Mr. Kasughar, Mr. Bhandari, and Smt. Ranjana Bhandari - whose accounts corroborated the incident. The absence of a police complaint or detailed memo was irrelevant to proving misconduct in a domestic context. The award of Rs. 5 lakhs rewarded misconduct and set a dangerous precedent.
For the Respondent
The respondent’s counsel contended that the charges were fabricated to prevent his appointment as Staff Director. He argued that discrepancies in witness testimony - particularly regarding the presence of committee members and the delayed memo - rendered the evidence unreliable. He emphasized that the Industrial Court correctly applied the principle that minor inconsistencies do not invalidate a finding if the core allegation is supported. He further argued that the compensation was a just remedy for victimization and that reinstatement was impractical.
The Court's Analysis
The Bombay High Court held that the Industrial Court had overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence and substituting its own view for that of the Labour Court. The Court emphasized that in domestic inquiries, the standard of proof is preponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt. Minor inconsistencies in witness accounts, such as whether the Chairman was present, do not negate the core testimony of multiple witnesses.
"Small discrepancies in depositions of witnesses cannot be a ground for disbelieving in deposition of witnesses. Such discrepancies do not make out a case of perversity."
The Court rejected the Industrial Court’s reliance on the absence of a police complaint, noting that such a step is not mandatory for disciplinary proceedings. The Court also dismissed the argument that Smt. Ranjana Bhandari’s evidence was tainted by her familial relationship, stating: "She was present at the spot in her capacity as a fisherwoman and not in capacity as sister of ex-chairman."
The Court further held that the Industrial Court erred in concluding that the punishment was disproportionate. The respondent’s language was not a momentary outburst but a deliberate, degrading attack on women who were the very beneficiaries of the society’s services. The Court cited State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh and Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police to affirm that judicial review cannot interfere unless the finding is based on no evidence or is perverse.
The Court observed that the respondent’s conduct was not merely insubordinate but reflected a systemic disrespect toward the community he was employed to serve. His threats to the enquiry officer further demonstrated a pattern of indiscipline.
The Verdict
The petitioner succeeded. The Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court’s order dated 07.01.2021 and upheld the Labour Court’s order dated 03.08.2015 dismissing the respondent’s complaint. The award of Rs. 5,00,000 compensation was vacated. The termination of the respondent’s services on 11.01.2007 was declared lawful. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Grave Misconduct Against Beneficiaries Justifies Dismissal
- Practitioners must argue that misconduct targeting the dignity of service beneficiaries - especially women, marginalized groups, or vulnerable communities - constitutes a fundamental breach of employment ethics.
- Even if the employee is a union representative, their conduct must be judged independently; union status does not confer immunity from dismissal for serious misconduct.
Compensation Cannot Substitute for Proper Disciplinary Action
- Awards of compensation in service cases are exceptional and must not be used to penalize employers for dismissing employees guilty of grave misconduct.
- Industrial Courts cannot act as appellate bodies to substitute their own view of punishment; their revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting legal errors, not reweighing facts.
Evidence in Domestic Enquiries: Corroboration Not Required
-
In domestic inquiries, corroboration among witnesses is not mandatory; the focus is on whether there is some credible evidence supporting the charge.
-
Relationship of a witness to management does not automatically discredit testimony if the witness had independent occasion to observe the incident.
-
Absence of a police complaint or detailed internal memo cannot be used to negate a charge if the core facts are established through witness testimony.
-
Practitioners should highlight the nature of the beneficiary-employee relationship when arguing severity of misconduct.
-
Always emphasize that judicial review under Article 227 is not an appeal; reappreciation of evidence is impermissible.
-
Document the chronology of events to show whether disciplinary action follows a pattern of retaliation or is genuinely based on conduct.
