Industrial Court Overstepped Jurisdiction by Reappreciating Evidence, Says High Court
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has quashed the Industrial Court's decision to compensate an employee, Nitin Jaywant Mhatre, who was terminated by Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society Ltd. for using derogatory language towards women associated with the society. The High Court, presided over by Justice Sandeep V. Marne, emphasized that the Industrial Court exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating evidence, a step beyond its revisional powers under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.
The case revolved around allegations that Mhatre, employed as a driver, made vulgar remarks about women of the Koli community during an incident on October 14, 2006. The Labour Court had initially upheld his termination, but the Industrial Court overturned this decision, awarding Mhatre Rs. 5 lakhs in compensation instead of reinstatement.
Justice Marne reinstated the Labour Court's decision, citing the seriousness of the misconduct. He stressed that the Industrial Court erred in dismissing the evidence of key witnesses and misjudged the absence of a police complaint as indicative of the incident's non-occurrence. The High Court underscored the sufficiency of evidence in domestic inquiries, stating that minor discrepancies should not invalidate witness testimonies.
The judgment further clarified that being a union office-bearer does not shield an employee from disciplinary actions if evidence of misconduct is substantial. The High Court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining workplace discipline and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction, reinforcing that industrial courts cannot act as appellate bodies in such matters.
Bottom line:-
Industrial Court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate body in revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act. Misconduct involving use of derogatory language towards women constitutes grave misconduct, justifying termination of service.
Statutory provision(s): Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, Section 44
