WA/370/2024 of S.PURUSHOTHAMAN Vs THE MANAGEMENT on 7 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr.G.Jayachandran J.) The appellant herein, working in Cutfast Department of the respondent company, was terminated from service on 05.07.2008, on being satisfied that he had misbehaved with a woman staff and sexually harassed her. The termination order was challenged by the appellant before Labour Court in I.D.No.27 of 2009. The termination, without usual inquiry proceedings, was challenged, on the ground that the order of termination was illegal, defamatory and grave in nature and also that the allegation of sexual harassment was imaginary and a concocted story of the Management to victimize him for his union activities. The Labour Court framed the following points for consideration :

(1) Whether the charge of misconduct alleged against the petitioner is proved ?

(2) Whether the termination of the petitioner is in accordance with law ?

(3) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits, as claimed in the petition ?

(4) To what relief, if any, the petitioner is entitled ?

2. Taking note of the fact that the victim of sexual harassment was not examined and those, who were examined on behalf of the Management, were not witnesses to the occurrence, since the workman was terminated from service without following the procedure contemplated under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, and on failure to prove the charge of sexual misconduct alleged in the petition, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.

3. Being aggrieved, the Management filed W.P.No.20924 of 2016, stating that the misconduct of sexual harassment cannot be proved through direct evidence, since it had happened in cooking area of the canteen, and, the victim, being a woman, need not be harassed again by forcing her to give evidence, recollecting the trauma.

4. According to the Management, the Labour Court, without proper appreciation of the statement of the victim and one Michael Raj, through whom the victim had identified the delinquent, as well as the complaint of HR Manager, had erroneously ordered reinstatement of the delinquent, who had committed a grave misconduct of sexual harassment in a workplace.

5. The learned single Judge, after considering the contentions, though found that the complaint given by the victim did not mention the name of the appellant and no explanation was sought from the appellant before proceeding with the action of removal from service, at the same time, taking note of the grave nature of the allegation made against the workman, to give a quietus to the issue, modified the award passed by the Labour Court, fixing a compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs, instead of reinstatement into service.

6. The said order of the learned single Judge is challenged by the workman in this Writ Appeal, on the ground that denial of relief of reinstatement into service with back wages and ordering compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs in lieu of a larger relief is against the settled principles of law; while the workman was left with more than seven years of service and the salary paid by the Management was substantially high compared to other establishments, the removal from service, imputing grave misconduct of sexual harassment, without basic proof, was contrary to the established principles of law and natural justice; and, without any rhyme or reason, the learned single Judge had denied reinstatement, by awarding a pittance of Rs.5.00 lakhs as compensation in lieu of service.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent - Management submitted the statement of the victim, which was marked as Ex.M-19; the statement of Michael Raj -Ex.M-20; and the statement of Kanchanamala – Ex.M-17, read together, would clearly indicate the misconduct of sexual harassment committed by the appellant. Victims of sexual harassment cannot be subjected to trauma of examination unnecessarily. In this case, the Canteen Manager – Torak Das had been examined, who had deposed about the complaint of the victim. The cross- examination had not disproved the allegations. The explanation of the workman was only a bald denial. He had not even denied his presence in the canteen area at odd time while his work spot was elsewhere. The learned counsel for the Management further submitted that the learned single Judge ordered

Rs.5.00 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement taking into consideration the payment made to the workman pending writ petition under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947, which worked out to around Rs.12.00 lakhs. Though compensation of Rs.5.00 lakhs itself not justifiable considering the misconduct of the workman, to give a quietus to the matter, the Management has not challenged the order of the learned single Judge.

8. We have gone through the complaint of the victim and the statement of Michael Raj, to whom the victim had reported the incident immediately after the occurrence. The appellant was an unknown person so far as the victim concerned. Hence, the appellant’s name was not found in the complaint. However, the person, who knew the appellant, on he being shown by the victim had stated the name of the appellant to the HR Manager. No doubt, none of these three persons was examined before the Labour Court. If the charges are other than sexual harassment in a work place this omission may be fatal, but being a case of sexual harassment, we are of the view the other evidence like the complaint of the victim if satisfactory it is sufficient to impose penalty. Therefore, certain concessions need to be given for not examining the woman staff – victim of sexual harassment, particularly in a proceeding before the Labour Court.

9. From the claim statement filed by the appellant before the Labour Court, we find a general denial of the allegation, area of incident and date of incident either on 03.07.2008 or any other day previously at any point of time.

In the claim petition, there was no denial of his presence in the canteen area on that particular day at 03.15 p.m., when the incident had allegedly taken place. Therefore, the gravity of the allegation had created a scenario that the presence of the appellant in the industry might cause disturbance in the minds of the female staff.. In such circumstances, reinstatement of the tainted workman not possible. At the same time, termination must be adequately compensated. It is an admitted fact that about Rs.12.00 lakhs has been paid, under Section 17B of the Industrial Dispute Act to the appellant towards last drawn wages, pending writ proceedings. In the writ petition Rs.5.00 lakhs, ordered to be paid as compensation. This amount though tendered by the Management, it is stated that the workman has refused to receive it. About three years have elapsed ever since the order passed by the learned single Judge on 13.07.2023 to pay Rs.5.00 lakhs as compensation. Therefore, taking into consideration the consumer price index and inflation, we enhance the compensation from Rs.5 lakhs to Rs.10.00 lakhs, which the respondent – Management is directed to pay to the appellant within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

10. With the above observation and modification, this Writ Appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected C.M.P.No.2434 of 2024 is closed. (G.J.,J.) (E.M.,J.) 07-09-2026 Neutral Citation: Yes DIXIT

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J. AND E.MANOHARAN, J. DIXIT WA No. 370 of 2024 07-09-2026