Employer Can Dismiss Employee for Proven Workplace Misconduct Even Without Filing a Police Complaint: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has ruled that an employer is not required to file a police complaint before taking disciplinary action against an employee for workplace misconduct. The Court clarified that departmental inquiries and criminal proceedings serve different purposes, and an employer may choose to maintain workplace discipline through internal disciplinary mechanisms rather than criminal prosecution.

Justice Sandeep V. Marne delivered the judgment while allowing a writ petition filed by a cooperative society that challenged an Industrial Court order granting ₹5 lakh compensation to a dismissed employee. The High Court restored the employee's termination, holding that the Industrial Court had wrongly interfered with findings supported by evidence.

The case involved a driver employed by a fishermen's cooperative society who was accused of misconduct, including disobedience, abusive behavior, and the use of derogatory language against office-bearers and women from the fishing community. Since the domestic inquiry could not be completed, the employer led evidence before the Labour Court, which found the serious misconduct charge proved and upheld the employee's dismissal.

However, the Industrial Court later reversed the decision, concluding that the evidence was insufficient and awarding compensation to the employee. Challenging this order, the cooperative society approached the High Court.

The High Court found that the Industrial Court had attached undue importance to minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies while ignoring the core allegations that were consistently supported by evidence. The Court emphasized that disciplinary proceedings are governed by the principle of "preponderance of probabilities" and not the stricter criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

Rejecting the Industrial Court's reasoning, the Court stated that the absence of a police complaint was an irrelevant factor in determining whether workplace misconduct had occurred. An employer, the Court observed, may decide that enforcing discipline through departmental action is more appropriate than initiating criminal proceedings.

The Court also reiterated that findings in disciplinary matters can be termed perverse only when there is a complete absence of evidence. Revisional authorities cannot re-evaluate the quality or sufficiency of evidence merely because they may have reached a different conclusion.

Considering the serious nature of the employee's conduct, particularly the abusive remarks directed at women, the Court held that the punishment of dismissal was justified and not disproportionate. It further observed that such behavior must be dealt with firmly to preserve discipline within organizations.

Accordingly, the Bombay High Court set aside the Industrial Court's order, restored the Labour Court's decision upholding the employee's dismissal, and held that compensation was not warranted in the circumstances of the case.

Case: Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society Ltd. v. Nitin Jaywant Mhatre

Court: Bombay High Court