Derogatory Remarks Against Women of the Community Served by an Employee Constitute Grave Misconduct; Industrial Court Cannot Reassess Evidence in Revision: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has upheld the dismissal of a cooperative society driver who used vulgar and derogatory language against women of the Koli fishing community, holding that such conduct constituted grave and unpardonable misconduct. The Court also set aside the ₹5 lakh compensation awarded to the employee by the Industrial Court.
Background
The petitioner was a cooperative society providing transportation of fish and related services to members of the fishing community. The respondent had been working as a driver with the society since 2001.
The society initiated disciplinary action against him based on allegations that he:
- refused to perform assigned duties relating to the transportation of fish;
- disobeyed instructions, allegedly causing financial loss to a member of the society;
- misbehaved with the Vice-Chairman; and
- used vulgar and disparaging language against women and daughters belonging to the Koli community in the presence of other members.
The society also alleged that the employee threatened the Enquiry Officer, because of which the domestic enquiry could not be completed. His services were terminated on 11 January 2007.
Proceedings Before the Labour and Industrial Courts
Since the domestic enquiry had not been completed, the society produced witnesses and evidence before the Labour Court to independently prove the misconduct.
The Labour Court found that although some of the charges were either not proved or were not sufficiently serious, the allegation concerning the use of vulgar and derogatory language against women was established.
It held that this misconduct alone was serious enough to justify dismissal and therefore rejected the employee’s complaint challenging his termination.
The Industrial Court, however, reversed the Labour Court’s decision. It treated certain minor discrepancies in the witnesses’ statements as material, declared the termination illegal and awarded the employee lump-sum compensation of ₹5 lakh instead of reinstatement and back wages.
Bombay High Court’s Findings
Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that the Industrial Court had exceeded its limited revisional jurisdiction by virtually reassessing the entire evidence as though it were hearing an appeal.
The Court observed that disciplinary proceedings are decided on the standard of preponderance of probabilities and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt, which applies in criminal trials.
Therefore, minor discrepancies between the statements of witnesses could not justify completely discarding their evidence when they were consistent on the central allegation that the employee had used abusive and derogatory language.
Related Witness Cannot Be Disbelieved Merely Because of Relationship
The Industrial Court had disregarded the evidence of a fisherwoman because she was the sister of a former office-bearer of the society.
The High Court held that her relationship with the office-bearer was not sufficient to reject her testimony.
She was independently engaged in fishing activities and was present at the society’s office in her capacity as a fisherwoman when the incident occurred. Her evidence had to be examined based on her presence and knowledge of the incident, rather than merely on her relationship with the former Chairman.
Police Complaint Not Necessary to Prove Workplace Misconduct
The Industrial Court had also relied upon the absence of a police complaint concerning the abusive remarks.
The High Court held that lodging a criminal complaint is not a mandatory requirement for proving misconduct in disciplinary proceedings.
An employer may choose to deal with an employee’s conduct through internal disciplinary action without initiating criminal prosecution. Therefore, the absence of a police complaint was irrelevant to determining whether service-related misconduct had occurred.
Scope of Interference in Domestic Enquiries
The Court reiterated that findings in a domestic enquiry may be treated as perverse only where:
- there is no evidence supporting the finding;
- the conclusion is based entirely on conjecture or suspicion;
- the evidence is wholly unreliable; or
- no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion.
Where some credible evidence exists, courts and tribunals cannot interfere merely because another view of the evidence is possible.
The Industrial Court had wrongly examined the sufficiency, quantity and quality of the evidence instead of restricting itself to whether the Labour Court’s findings were unsupported by any evidence.
Union Office-Bearer Has No Immunity From Disciplinary Action
The employee argued that he had been victimised because of his trade union activities.
The High Court held that victimisation cannot be presumed merely because disciplinary action is taken against a union office-bearer.
The employee’s conduct must first be examined independently. When such conduct amounts to misconduct, the person cannot claim special protection merely because of his position or participation in union activities.
Derogatory Remarks Against Women Amounted to Grave Misconduct
The Court noted that the employee was employed to provide services to members of the fishing community, including fisherwomen whom he was required to transport regularly.
His derogatory statements reflected his attitude towards the very persons for whose benefit he was employed.
The remarks were made without provocation, in the presence of women, and were unrelated to any disciplinary action being taken against him at that moment.
The Court held that such conduct had to be dealt with strictly to maintain discipline within the organisation. An employee guilty of such serious misconduct could not be rewarded with monetary compensation.
Decision
The Bombay High Court:
- set aside the Industrial Court’s order declaring the termination illegal;
- cancelled the award of ₹5 lakh compensation to the employee;
- restored the Labour Court’s order upholding the termination; and
- allowed the cooperative society’s writ petition.
Case Details
Case: Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society Ltd. and Another v. Nitin Jaywant Mhatre
Court: Bombay High Court
Coram: Justice Sandeep V. Marne
Date of Judgment: 17 June 2026
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5003 of 2021
