Vulgar utterances against women for whose benefit an employee is engaged constitute grave misconduct justifying dismissal.

The Respondent, a driver for the Petitioner-cooperative society, was issued a chargesheet on November 29, 2006, alleging refusal to perform duties and using vulgar, derogatory language against the Vice Chairman and women of the fisherman community on October 14, 2006.

Due to alleged threats issued by the Respondent to the Enquiry Officer, a formal domestic enquiry could not be concluded, and he was terminated on January 11, 2007.

The Respondent challenged this before the Labour Court. As no enquiry was held, the Petitioner led evidence before the Labour Court, which found the charge of grave verbal misconduct proved and dismissed the complaint.

In revision, the Industrial Court set aside the dismissal, citing minor discrepancies in witness depositions and lack of a police complaint for the specific incident, and awarded ₹5 lakhs compensation.

The Petitioner-employer remains aggrieved by the Industrial Court's reversal.

1. Whether the act of an employee in making vulgar and disparaging utterances towards women of the community for whose benefit he is employed constitutes grave misconduct warranting dismissal.

2. Whether the Industrial Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU and PULP Act by reappreciating evidence and setting aside the Labour Court's finding of guilt based on minor discrepancies.

The Court applied Section 44 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices (MRTU and PULP) Act, 1971, regarding the limited revisional jurisdiction of the Industrial Court.

It relied on the principle from State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, establishing that domestic enquiries follow the "preponderance of probability" and the "some evidence" rule rather than the strict Evidence Act.

It further cited Kuldeep Singh v. Commissioner of Police, holding that findings in domestic enquiries are only perverse if there is a total absence of evidence or if they are based on no legal evidence; adequacy or sufficiency of evidence is beyond judicial scrutiny.

The High Court found that the Industrial Court committed a material irregularity by acting as an appellate court and reappreciating evidence.

It held that the Industrial Court erred in disregarding the testimony of a woman witness simply because she was the sister of an ex-chairman, ignoring her presence at the site as a fisherwoman.

The High Court emphasized that in domestic enquiries, small inconsistencies regarding the presence of specific committee members do not vitiate the overall evidence of misconduct.

The Court noted that the Respondent’s utterances were unprovoked and targeted the very community the society served, indicating a mindset incompatible with his employment.

The Court further observed that the lack of a police complaint is irrelevant to proving service-related misconduct.

It ruled that rewarding such an employee with compensation, despite proved vulgarity and threats, undermines organizational discipline.

The High Court set aside the Industrial Court’s order dated January 7, 2021, and upheld the Labour Court’s judgment dated August 3, 2015, effectively confirming the Respondent's dismissal.

Rule made absolute.