Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 5003 OF 2021

Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari

Society Ltd. and Anr. ...Petitioners

V/s.

Nitin Jaywant Mhatre ...Respondent

______________

Mr. Prashant Mohite with Mr. Kishor G. Pashte for the Petitioner.

Mr. Rajendra Jain with Mr. Pranil Lahigade i/b Mr. Prashant Goyal for

Respondent.

______________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

RESERVED ON: 11 JUNE 2026.

PRONOUNCED ON: 17 JUNE 2026

JUDGMENT:

1) The issue involved in the Petition is whether an act of the

employee in making vulgar and disparaging utterances towards women

of the community for whose benefit he is employed would constitute a

grave misconduct entailing punishment of dismissal from service. Also

involved is the issue as to whether finding of guilt recorded by the

Labour Court after assessing the evidence before it can be set aside in

revision by the Industrial Court by laying emphasis on a discrepancy in

the depositions and by considering the relationship of a witness with the

office bearer of the management.

Page No. 1 of 20

17 JUNE 2026 2026:BHC-AS:24292

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

2) The issues arise in the light of challenge raised by the

Petitioner-employer to the judgment and order dated 7 January 2021

passed by the Member, Industrial Court, Thane, partly allowing Revision

Application (ULP) No. 75 of 2015 and setting aside the judgment and

order dated 3 August 2015 passed by Labour Court, Thane in Complaint

(ULP) No. 25 of 2007. The Labour Court had dismissed Complaint (ULP)

No. 25 of 2007, in which the Respondent had challenged the order of his

termination. Reversing the decision of Labour Court, the Industrial Court

has partly allowed Complaint (ULP) No. 25 of 2007 by declaring the order

of termination dated 11 January 2007 as illegal. However, instead of

directing reinstatement or backwages, the Industrial Court has awarded

compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the Respondent. Petitioner-employer is

aggrieved by award of compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs by the Industrial

Court to the Respondent and has accordingly filed the present Petition.

3) Petitioner is a cooperative society engaged in the activity

inter alia of providing transportation of fish and other services for the

benefit of fishermen. Respondent was engaged as Driver by the

Petitioner-society since January 2001. According to the Respondent, he

took part in organizing a union in the Petitioner-society and became

office bearer of the union. On 1 April 2003, memorandum of settlement

was executed with the Union by the Petitioner, under which it

recommended the name of Respondent for appointment as Staff Director

on managing committee of the Petitioner-society. According to the

Respondent, Petitioner-society was not willing to accept him on the

managing committee of the society and accordingly, he was embroiled in

Page No. 2 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

disciplinary inquiries. Memo dated 13 September 2006 was issued to the

Respondent alleging absence from duties on 13 September 2006 and

advising him not to report for duties. Another memo dated 16 October

2006 was issued in respect of incident of 14 October 2006 once again

directing him not to report for duties. It appears that on 16 October

2006, Vice Chairman of Petitioner-society Mr. Malcam Kasughar made a

complaint against the Petitioner for use of unparliamentary language.

Respondent was kept under suspension by letter dated 29 November

2006.

4) A chargesheet dated 29 November 2006 was issued to the

Respondent in respect of acts of refusal to perform duty on 13 September

2006 and 14 October 2006 as well as for misbehavior with Vice Chairman

on 16 October 2006. It is the case of the Petitioner-society that on

account of threats issued by Respondent to the Enquiry Officer, enquiry

could not be conducted. A police complaint was lodged against the

Respondent on 27 December 2006 regarding the act of threatening the

Enquiry Officer. Petitioner-society thereafter proceeded to terminate the

services of the Respondent on 11 January 2007.

5) Respondent approached Labour Court, Thane by filing

Complaint (ULP) No. 25 of 2007 challenging termination order dated 11

January 2007. The complaint was resisted by the Petitioner by filing

written statement. Since enquiry could not be conducted, Petitioner-

society led evidence to prove misconduct of the Respondent before the

Labour Court by examining Mr. Malcam Bhandari-Chairman, Mr. Anthoni

Juran Dinis, Mr. Bernardt David Hendricks, Mr. Malcam Edward Kasughar,

Page No. 3 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

Mr. Bernet Francis Bhandari and Ms. Ranjana Francis Bhandari.

Respondent examined himself before the Labour Court. After considering

the evidence on record, the Labour Court proceeded to dismiss the

Complaint of the Respondent by judgment and order dated 3 August

2015. Respondent filed Revision Application (ULP) No. 75 of 2015 before

the Industrial Court, Thane challenging the decision of the Labour Court

under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and

Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (MRTU and PULP Act).

By judgment and order dated 7 January 2021, the Industrial Court has set

aside the order of the Labour Court and has declared the order of

termination of Respondent dated 11 January 2007 as illegal. However,

instead of ordering reinstatement or granting backwages, the Industrial

Court has awarded lump sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to the

Respondent. Petitioner-society is aggrieved by the decision of the

Industrial Court and has accordingly filed the present Petition.

6) Mr. Mohite, the learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner has submitted that the Industrial Court has erred in reversing

the well-considered decision of the Labour Court. That the Respondent

has committed serious misconduct of using unparliamentary and

derogatory language in front of Vice Chairman of society towards ladies

of fishermen community. That he also refused to perform duties on

several occasions. That he threatened the Enquiry Officer and prevented

him from conducting enquiry. That the Respondent had become an

incalcitrant employee who was repeatedly engaging in misbehavior and

misconduct. That the language used by the Respondent during the

Page No. 4 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

course of incident of 14 October 2006 is shocking. That despite

production of direct evidence of several witnesses, the Industrial Court

has erroneously held that the Respondent did not commit any

misconduct. That the finding of the Industrial Court that the punishment

is disproportionate is clearly erroneous. That awarding compensation to

the Respondent despite committing such grave misconduct would

tantamount to rewarding him. That the Industrial Court has exceeded its

jurisdiction by acting like an Appellate Court by reappreciating the

evidence. That revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU and

PULP Act is exercised by Industrial Court with material irregularity. He

would accordingly pray for setting aside the judgment and order passed

by the Industrial Court.

7) Per contra, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for

Respondent submits that the Industrial Court has correctly appreciated

the fact that Petitioner-society was unable to prove the charges levelled

against the Respondent. That the Respondent is deliberately embroiled

in false allegations since he was associated with the union activities.

That he was removed from service with a view to prevent him from being

appointed as Staff Director on the managing committee of the

Petitioner-society. That all the three incidents in the chargesheet relate

to a very short period of time, clearly indicating a deliberate design by

Petitioner-society to somehow throw the Respondent out of service. He

submits that witnesses produced by Petitioner-society sang different

songs during the course of their deposition. That there are serious

discrepancies in their depositions. Industrial Court has correctly held

Page No. 5 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

that there is absence of any corroborative material. He submits that in

exercise of limited jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, this Court cannot enter into the realm of reappreciation of

evidence, especially while the decision of the Industrial Court is well-

supported by the evidence on record. That Industrial Court has not

awarded reinstatement or backwages to the Respondent who is

victimized but has granted a meagre amount of compensation of Rs. 5

lakhs. He would therefore submit that no interference is warranted in the

judgment of the Industrial Court. He accordingly prays for dismissal of

the Petition.

8) Rival contentions urged on behalf of the parties now fall for

my consideration.

9) While working as a Driver with the Petitioner-society,

Respondent was deputed to drive the vehicles/tempo owned by the

Petitioner-society for transportation of fish by members of the society. In

chargesheet dated 29 November 2006, three allegations were levelled

against the Respondent.

10) In the first charge, it was alleged that on 8 October 2006,

fish was being transported by two tempos, one of which was driven by

the Respondent. Since the Chairman Mr. Malcam Bhandari felt unwell

and fainted during the journey, the driver of the other tempo

Chandrakant Thakur drove his tempo to the market to ensure the quality

of the fish. He took Mr. Bhandari to the hospital, instructing the

Respondent to unload the fish from Mr. Thakur's tempo. However, after

Page No. 6 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

Mr. Thakur returned to the market, he found that Respondent had

disappeared from the scene by handing over the keys of Mr. Thakur's

tempo to a third person and failed to unload the fish. It was therefore

alleged that the Respondent endangered the safety of fish and put the

same at the risk of being wasted.

11) In the second charge, it was alleged that one of the

members Mr. Anthoni Dinis, who owns a fishing boat, had brought fish

on the Jetty on 13 September 2006 and had requested transportation of

fish to the office of society. Upon being instructed by the Manager Mr.

Bernardt Hendricks, Respondent failed to take tempo to the port for

transportation of fish and the fish remained in the boat. It was alleged

that the member Mr. Anthoni Dinis suffered loss of Rs. 51,622/- and

society suffered loss of commission of Rs. 1600/- on account of

degradation of quality of fish due to delay in transportation.

12) Lastly in charge No. 3, it was alleged that on 14 October

2006, Vice Chairman of the society Mr. Malcam Kasughar and other

members were present in the society office at 11.30 pm for procurement

of ice. At that time, Mr. Malcam Kasughar instructed the Driver Iqbal

Shaikh to transport ice meant for three boats and Mr. Shaikh expressed

that he would carry the ice after taking some rest. At that time,

Respondent suddenly intervened and used unparliamentary language.

When Mr. Kasughar inquired with the Respondent as to how he was

present in the society office if he was not an employee of the society,

Respondent again used extremely derogatory language about the women

Page No. 7 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

and daughters of the Koli community in presence of the other members,

including ladies.

13) This is how the three charges were levelled against the

Respondent by chargesheet dated 29 November 2006.

14) It is the case of the Petitioner-society that Respondent

prevented the enquiry from being conducted by threatening the Enquiry

Officer on 27 December 2006. A police complaint was lodged against the

Respondent on 27 December 2006. The society therefore issued

termination letter dated 11 January 2007 without holding enquiry.

15) Since enquiry was not held, the Petitioner-society led

evidence before the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 25 of 2007 by

examining several witnesses. The Labour Court appreciated the evidence

of the witnesses and held charge No.1 relating to incidence of 8 October

2006 to be disproved. Part of charge No. 2 relating to disobedience was

held to be proved but cause of loss to the member was not held to be

proved. Charge No. 3 was held to be proved by the Labour Court. The

Labour Court held that though the conduct of the Respondent in respect

of charge Nos. 1 and 2 may not be serious, the misconduct committed by

him on 14 October 2006 of using indecent language against Vice

Chairman in presence of several men and women members was sufficient

to dismiss him. Accordingly, the Complaint of Respondent was dismissed

by the Labour Court by order dated 03 August 2015. The Industrial Court

has, however, reversed the finding of the Labour Court.

Page No. 8 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

16) As observed above, the charge relating to incident dated 8

October 2006 was disproved by the Labour Court itself. So far as charge

No. 2 is concerned, the Labour Court had held that cause of loss was not

proved by evidence but the allegation of disobedience of order was

proved. So far as the third charge relating to the incident of 14 October

2006 is concerned, the same was the main allegation against the

Respondent. In relation to the said incident, the The Labour Court in its

judgment and order dated 3 August 2015 made the following

observations:

“As per the chargesheet Exh.U-25, the main allegation against the complainant

is in respect of incident dtd. 14.10.2006. To prove the charge the respondents

have examined Malkam Kasughar at Exh.C-6 and Burnat Bhandari at Exh.C-7A

and Ranjana Bhandari at Exh.C-9A. Malkam Kasughar has deposed that he was

present on 14.10.2006 in the office of the society at 11.30 p.m. He instructed

Iqqbal Shaikh to bring ice for the fishing boat to which Iqbal Shaikh replied

that he will go there after taking rest. At that time complainant immediately

came to him and in loud voice told to him ‘

मी सोसायटीचा नोकर नाही

,

मी सोसायटीच्या

पगारावरही नाही

, ’

मी सोसायटीच्या पगाराला लंडावर मारतो

. Then he enquired to the

complainant that whether he is not servant of the society and if not how he

was there in the society premises. To which he replied that ‘

मी गाडी चालवायला

’

आलो नाही तर कोळ्यांच्या बायांना व मुलींना झवायला आलो आहे

. The peoples were present

there got annoyed...”

17) Thus, it was alleged that on 14 October 2006, Respondent

used abusive language towards the Vice Chairman Mr. Malcam Kasughar

and also made vulgar and disparaging utterances towards wives and

daughters of Kolis (fishermen). The charge was held to be established by

the Labour Court after assessing the evidence on record. However, the

Industrial Court has reversed the finding of the Labour Court by

recording following findings:

18. According to the Ld. Labour Court, the main allegation against the revision

applicant is with respect of incident dated 14.10.2006. This allegation is with

respect to a misconduct of using abusive and indecent language by the revision

Page No. 9 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

applicant before Vice Chairman of the society Mr. Malcam Kasughar. It is

alleged that Mr. Kasughar directed another driver Mr. Iqbal Sheikh to bring all

the ice from three boats in one trip, that time, the revision applicant interfered

and used abusive and filthy language. It is further alleged therein that at that

time many ladies and gents were present. The Ld. Labour Court has considered

evidence before it from witness Malcalm Bhandari and Smt. Ranjana Bhandari

as well as the revision applicant and held that the said charge has been proved

by the respondents. For the purpose to see as to whether the said findings of

the Ld. Labour Court do not suffer from any apparent error, I have perused the

evidence on record before the Ld. Labour Court because without scrutinizing

the evidence legality of judgement of the Ld. Labour Court cannot be assessed.

19. I am aware of the fact that this Court cannot re-assess or re-examine the

evidence led before the Ld. Labour Court, but it can be definitely seen as to

whether any material witness has left by the Labour Court which amounts to

error. In this context, witness of the respondent Mr. Malcolm Kasughar stated

in the cross examination that on 14.10.2006 he was present in the office of the

society from 7.00 to 1.00 a.m in the night. He has further stated that on that

day, no members of the committee were present with him at 11:30 pm. He

admits that he himself or the society has not lodged any police complaint

about the incidence took place on 14.10.2006. Another witness Mr. Burnat

Bhandari who has been examined at Exh.C-7A has stated that on 14.10.2006 at

about 11.30 in the night, Chairman Mr. Malcam Bhandari and Deputy

Chairman Mr. Malcam Kasughar were present in the office of the society and

no police complaint was made. Third witness Smt. Ranjana Bhandari has

admitted that she is sister of Ex-Chairman Mr. Malcam Bhandari, but she

denied that her brother was present at the time of so called incidences taken

place on 14.10.2006. If all this evidence is considered, it will clear that there is

no corroboration of witnesses with each other.

20. Now coming to the most important aspect with respect to the allegation

dated 14.10.2006 that the society has issued a memo after two days i.e. on

16.10.2006, in which it is only mentioned that due to the misconduct

committed by the revision applicant with Vice Chairman Mr. Malcam Kasughar,

he is restrained from joining duty since 16.10.2006 on the instructions of the

Chairman. It is also material to note that in the said memo, nothing has been

mentioned about using offensive or filthy language by the revision applicant in

the presence of Chairman or the ladies. It is also required to be noted that in

the said memo, earlier it is mentioned as “संस्थेचे चेयरमन श्री माल्कम भंडारी यांचे

बरोबर के लेल्या गैरव

र्तणुकीमुळे”

. However, the words “vice” has been added before the

word Chairman and the word Malcalm Bhandari has been struck down and the

word Kasughar has been inserted. Therefore, it is surprising that such serious

misconduct using language has taken place, but the same has not been

mentioned in the memo which was issued after two days after so called

incidence. Secondly, the witness admitted that there is no police complaint

made in respect of the said incidence, nor any other independent lady has

Page No. 10 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

complained against the revision applicant or came forward to give evidence.

The lady who has been examined is admittedly sister of director Mr. Malcolm

Bhandari. This memo dated 16.10.2006 has not at all been considered by the

Ld. Labour Court which according to me a clear error apparent on the face of

the record and therefore the Ld. Labour Court committed error in holding that

charge with respect to incident dated 14.10.2006 has been proved against the

revision applicant. The Ld. Labour Court has only held that the complainant

has admitted his presence and presence of women at that time and therefore

the charge has been proved. However, the Learned Labour Court failed to

appreciate chronology of events i.e. issues of a letter by Maharashtra Rajaya

Rashtriya Kamghar Sangh to appoint the revision applicant on Director body of

the society as workers’ director as he is taking care interest of the workers on

01.09.2006. Thereafter, only the memo dated 13.09.2006 was issued restraining

the revision applicant from joining duties as he did not remain present in the

office. Second memo is dated 16.10.2006 regarding so called misconduct with

Malcam Kasughar. It is pertinent to note that prior to September 2006, the

record of the revision applicant appears to be clean and only after insurance of

letter by the union for appointing him as workers’ director, allegations against

him where started.

21. The Ld. Labour Court in the judgement has stated that a vague statement

about taking part in the union activities has been made by the revision

applicant without there being any cogent evidence. At the same time, the Ld.

Labour Court appears to have ignored the letter dated 01.06.2009 issued by the

union for joining him on director body as earlier director. The said letter is self

speaking, in which the union has stated that the revision applicant is taking

care of workers’ right and interest. This itself shows that the revision applicant

was active member of the union. Thereafter by issuing memo, the society tried

to keep him away from the duty and when he challenged the same action by

filing complaint in the Industrial Court, the society started enquiry against

him. Other charges does not appear to be serious, but the only serious charge is

about the incident dated 14.10.2006. However, for the first charge it is alleged

in the chargesheet that the revision applicant committed misconduct of using

indecent and abusive language before gents and ladies and lastly by making

farce of enquiry he appears to have been terminated on the ground of loss of

confidence. With respect to incident dated 14.10.2006, there was no memo

issued through the revision applicant and no explanation was called from him

by mentioning that he had used indecent language and hence, I hold that the

evidence of the respondent ought to have been careful examined by the Ld.

Labour Court. After taking into consideration material peace of evidence and

chronology of events, I find that the Ld. Labour Court has committed error

which is apparent on the fact of the record. Hence, I hold that the respondent

society has failed to prove the misconduct alleged against the revision

applicant with respect to so called incident dated 14.10.2006.

Page No. 11 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

18) The Industrial Court has considered the evidence of Mr.

Malcam Kasughar, Mr. Bernet Bhandari and Smt. Ranjana Bhandari for

arriving at a conclusion that there is no corroboration of witnesses with

each other. However, evidence of Mr. Malcam Kasughar clearly indicates

use of indecent and unparliamentary language by the Respondent. The

Industrial Court has misread the admission given by Mr. Malcam

Kasughar that “दि. 14/10/2006 रोजी रात्री 11.30 वाजता माझ्यासोबत का

र्यकारिणीतील कोणीच

स

दस्य हजर नव्हता

...”. This statement is read by the Industrial Court to mean

deposition by Mr. Malcam Kasughar that no managing committee

member was present when the incident occurred. This does not mean

that the persons named in his examination in chief were not present

when the incident occurred. May be that the witness Mr. Bernet Francis

Bhandari deposed that society Chairman Mr. Malcam Bhandari was also

present when incident occurred, which appears to be inconsistent with

deposition of Mr. Malcam Kasughar. However, this discrepancy is not

sufficient to completely disregard the depositions of both the witnesses.

More importantly, the occurrence of incident is also deposed by one

more witness, Smt. Ranjana Francis Bhandari. The Industrial Court

however disregarded her evidence merely because she is sister of Ex-

Chairman of the society.

19) It must be borne in mind that this is a domestic enquiry and

the test to prove the charges in a domestic enquiry is preponderance of

probability. Charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Small

discrepancies in depositions of witnesses cannot be a ground for

disbelieving in deposition of witnesses. Such discrepancies do not make

Page No. 12 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

out a case of perversity. It is not necessary in a domestic enquiry that

there must be corroboration in evidence led by all the witness. The

Industrial Court has committed a grave error in giving important to one

small inconsistency between depositions of the two witnesses (about

presence of managing committee member) What ought to have been

appreciated by the Industrial Court is the fact that both the witnesses Mr.

Malcom Kasughar and Mr. Bernet Francis Bhandari have deposed about

use of abusive and derogatory language by the Respondent and that

there is no inconsistency in the same. In such circumstances, the

discrepancy about presence of Society’s Chairman ought to have been

ignored by the Industrial Court.

20) The industrial Court has also erred in completely

disregarding the deposition of Smt. Ranjana Bhandari merely because

she happens to be the sister of ex-chairman. There is no dispute that

Smt. Ranjana Bhandari herself is engaged in fishing activities and was in

the Society’s Office for collection of ice on 14 October 2006. Thus the

case does not involve setting up a related witness, who had no occasion

to be present at the time of the incident. Therefore mere relationship of

the witness with the ex-office bearer of the Society cannot be a reason

for completely discarding her evidence. What needs to be emphasized is

the capacity of the witness as a fisherwoman and not her relationship as

sister of the ex-office bearer. She was present at the spot in her capacity

as a fisherwoman and not in capacity as sister of ex-chairman.

21) Yet another factor considered by the Industrial Court for

disbelieving the incident of 14 October 2006 is the manner in which

Page No. 13 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

Memo dated 16 October 2006 was couched. The Industrial Court has held

that the Memo did not include the allegation of using filthy language by

the Respondent. The Memo dated 16 October 2006 was issued to the

Respondent essentially to ensure that the Respondent did not attend

duties. It was not for conducting disciplinary inquiry against him.

Therefore, it was not necessary for the Society to give all the details of

the Respondent’s misconduct in the said Memo. Therefore, mere absence

of allegation of use of indecent or unparliamentary language in the

Memo dated 16 October 2006 cannot be a ground for concluding that the

incident may not have occurred. Referring to the conduct of misbehavior

of the Respondent with Mr. Malcam Kasughar in the Memo dated 16

October 2006 was sufficient and it was not necessary to reproduce the

entire details of misconduct.

22) The third factor considered by the Industrial Court for

disciplinary incident of 14 October 2006 is non-lodging of police

complaint in respect of that incident. The Industrial Court has however

failed to appreciate that lodging of police compliant is not a sine qua non

for holding of disciplinary inquiry. The employer in a given case may

think it appropriate not to lodge criminal prosecution and give

importance to enforcing discipline amongst the staff members by

conducting domestic inquiry. In my view therefore, non-lodging of police

complaint is an altogether irrelevant factor for deciding the issue of

commission of service-related misconduct by the Respondent.

Page No. 14 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

23) Thus, the parameters applied by the Industrial Court while

deciding the Revision of the Respondent are entirely incorrect leading to

erroneous conclusion.

24) In a domestic inquiry, the findings can be treated as

perverse only if there is total absence of evidence. The present case does

not involve perversity in the light of availability of some evidence on

record for proving the charge relating to incident of 14 October 2006. It

is well-settled position that courts and tribunals cannot go into the issue

of adequacy of evidence for a domestic enquiry. It is only in a case where

there is absolutely no evidence that courts or tribunal are justified in

interfering in the finding of the guilt. Reference in this regard can be

made to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Haryana and Anr.

Vs Rattan Singh

1

in which it is held as under:

4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated

rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All

materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are

permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has

reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities

and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material

and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant

under the Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to cite

decisions nor text books, although we have been taken through case-law and

other authorities by counsel on both sides. The essence of a judicial approach

is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and

observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis and if

perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment

vitiate the conclusions reached, such finding, even though of a domestic

tribunal, cannot be held good. However, the courts below misdirected

themselves, perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone

out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a valid finding

could be recorded. The ‘residuum’ rule to which counsel for the respondent

referred, based upon certain passages from American Jurisprudence does not

1

(1977) 2 SCC 491

Page No. 15 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

go to that extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid

requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or was there

no evidence — not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular

court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of

understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way,

sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is

beyond scrutiny. Absence of any evidence in support of a finding is

certainly available for the court to look into because it amounts to an

error of law apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence

of Chamanlal, Inspector of the Flying Squad, is some evidence which has

relevance to the charge levelled against the respondent. Therefore, we are

unable to hold that the order is invalid on that ground.

(emphasis added)

25) Again, in Kuldeep Singh vs. Commissioner of Police and

Ors.

2

, the Apex Court has held as under:

6. It is no doubt true that the High Court under Article 226 or this Court under

Article 32 would not interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental

enquiry by the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer as a matter of

course. The Court cannot sit in appeal over those findings and assume the role

of the appellate authority. But this does not mean that in no circumstance can

the Court interfere. The power of judicial review available to the High Court as

also to this Court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic

enquiry as well and it can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if

there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were

such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the

findings were perverse or made at the dictates of the superior authority.

7. In Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar [(1978) 3 SCC 366] it was held that

the disciplinary proceedings before a domestic tribunal are of quasi-judicial

character and, therefore, it is necessary that the Tribunal should arrive at its

conclusions on the basis of some evidence, that is to say, such evidence which

and that too, with some degree of definiteness, points to the guilt of the

delinquent and does not leave the matter in a suspicious state as mere

suspicion cannot take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. If,

therefore, there is no evidence to sustain the charges framed against the

delinquent, he cannot be held to be guilty as in that event, the findings

recorded by the enquiry officer would be perverse.

2

(1992) 2 SCC 10

Page No. 16 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

8. The findings recorded in a domestic enquiry can be characterised as perverse

if it is shown that such findings are not supported by any evidence on record or

are not based on the evidence adduced by the parties or no reasonable person

could have come to those findings on the basis of that evidence. This principle

was laid down by this Court in State of A.P. v. Rama Rao [(1964) 2 LLJ 150] in

which the question was whether the High Court under Article 226 could

interfere with the findings recorded at the departmental enquiry. This decision

was followed in Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chand Jain [(1969) 2 LLJ

377] and Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel [(1976) 1 SCC 518] . In

Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Admn. [(1984) 4 SCC 635] it was laid down that

where the findings of misconduct are based on no legal evidence and the

conclusion is one to which no reasonable man could come, the findings can be

rejected as perverse. It was also laid down that where a quasi-judicial tribunal

records findings based on no legal evidence and the findings are its mere ipse

dixit or based on conjectures and surmises, the enquiry suffers from the

additional infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated.

9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings

of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of “guilt” is based on

no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial

scrutiny.

10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions

which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no

evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person

would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence

on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever

compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse

and the findings would not be interfered with.

(emphasis added)

26) In my view therefore, the Industrial Court has exercised

revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act with

material irregularity. It has virtually reappreciated the evidence and has

gone into the issue of quality and quantity of evidence, which was

beyond its jurisdiction. Findings are recorded by the Industrial Court that

punishment imposed on the Respondent is shockingly disproportionate

and that the Respondent is victimized. I am unable to agree with those

Page No. 17 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

findings. Looking at the utterances made by the Respondent on 14

October 2006 towards women of Koli community, it cannot be concluded

that the misconduct is not serious.

27) So far as finding of the Industrial Court about victimization

is concerned, in every case, presumption of victimization cannot be

drawn merely because action is taken against an office-bearer of the

Union. Courts and Tribunals need to first assess the conduct of the

delinquent employee independent of his/her status as office-bearer and

find out whether the conduct amounts to misconduct. If the conduct of

even an office-bearer of the union constitutes misconduct, no special

protection can be extended to such office-bearer and inference of

victimization cannot be readily drawn.

28) This Court is aware of the position that the Industrial Court

has not awarded the relief of reinstatement or backwages to the

Respondent. It has, however, awarded lumpsum amount of Rs. 5 lakhs.

Ordinarily, this Court would not have interfered in award of

compensation in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227

of the Constitution of India. However, the misconduct committed by the

Respondent is grave. Petitioner-society is justified in terminating his

service with a view to ensure discipline in its organization. An employee

who had become incalcitrant and who has indulged in misbehaving with

the Vice Chairman by use of unparliamentary and indecent language

cannot be rewarded with compensation. It has come on record that, the

Respondent has used derogatory language towards Koli women in the

Page No. 18 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

incident of 14 October 2006. There was no provocation for Petitioner to

utter the words which he has uttered towards the Vice Chairman and

women. On 14 October 2006, Mr. Malcam Kasughar had instructed the

other Driver Iqbal Shaikh and there was no occasion to intervene in such

conversation by the Respondent. Thus, the utterances made by

Respondent were not a reaction to any action taken against him. This

indicates the mindset of the Respondent who has indulged in the act of

hurling abuses and making utterances in unparliamentary language

which are derogatory to women in presence of other women. Such

tendency on behalf of employees needs to be dealt with iron hands so as

to maintain discipline in the organization. Respondent had apparently

become an element of terror and even prevented the enquiry officer from

conducting enquiry by threatening him. While the Industrial Court laid

emphasize on non-filing of police complaint with regard to incident of

14 October 2006, it conveniently ignored the complaint lodged in respect

of threats given to the Enquiry Officer on 27 December 2006.

29) Respondent made derogatory utterances against women

belonging to mainly Koli community. Many fisherwomen were present

when the utterances were made. Thus, derogatory statements were not

confined only in relation to Respondent’s employment and the same

were made towards someone for whose benefit the Respondent was

employed. He was employed to drive inter alia the fisherwomen on daily

basis. The utterances made by him on 14 October 2006 indicated his

mindset towards the persons for whose benefit he was employed with the

organization. Such a person cannot be rewarded with compensation. The

Page No. 19 of 20

17 JUNE 2026

Renuka WP 5003 of 2021

Industrial Court has not appreciated this position and has erroneously

proceeded to set aside the order of the Labour Court by rewarding the

Respondent for his unpardonable conduct.

30) In my view therefore, the order of the Industrial Court is

indefensible and liable to be set aside. The Petition accordingly succeeds,

and I proceed to pass the following order:

(i)Judgment and order dated 7 January 2021 passed by Member,

Industrial Court, Thane in Revision Application (ULP) No. 75 of

2015 is set aside.

(ii)Judgment and order of Labour Court dated 3 August 2015

dismissing Complaint (ULP) No. 25 of 2007 is upheld.

31) Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. Rule is made

absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 20 of 20

17 JUNE 2026