Mumbai, April 14, 2026: In a significant ruling on workplace disciplinary processes, the Bombay High Court has clarified that non-constitution of a Complaints Committee strictly in line with the Vishakha guidelines will not, by itself, render a domestic inquiry into sexual misconduct invalid. The court stressed that the key consideration is whether the inquiry was fair and caused any real prejudice to the employee.
Petition challenges Industrial Court award
Justice Amit Borkar passed the order on April 9 while deciding a petition by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited challenging a Part I Award passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik on December 9, 2025.
The tribunal had held that the inquiry conducted against a male employee accused of sexual misconduct was illegal and not in compliance with the Vishakha guidelines, and had also termed the findings of the Enquiry Officer as perverse.
Background of the case
The case arose from a complaint lodged in February 2011 by a woman employee alleging sexual harassment and physical assault by the respondent employee. Following this, the company initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Model Standing Orders, conducted an inquiry, and eventually terminated the employee’s services on December 7, 2012.
Employee challenges inquiry process
Before the High Court, the employee argued that the inquiry stood vitiated due to non-compliance with the Vishakha guidelines, particularly the absence of a properly constituted Complaints Committee.
Court examines legal framework
Examining the legal position prior to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the court noted that the Vishakha guidelines were binding law at the time. However, it also underlined that certified Standing Orders carry statutory force and provide a valid framework for disciplinary proceedings.
Tribunal faulted for technical approach
The court found fault with the tribunal’s approach, observing that it had invalidated the inquiry solely on technical grounds without examining the actual procedure followed.
“If the Tribunal has not undertaken this exercise and has instead proceeded on an assumption that non-constitution of a Complaints Committee is itself sufficient to vitiate the enquiry, then such reasoning cannot be sustained,” the court said.
Due process and fairness emphasised
It noted that the employer had issued a charge sheet, recorded evidence, and granted the employee an opportunity to defend himself. These, the court said, “form the backbone of a disciplinary proceeding” and required careful scrutiny rather than summary rejection.
Emphasising the need to assess real prejudice, the court said the tribunal was expected to analyse whether the process met the requirements of fairness and natural justice.
Also Watch:
Matter remanded for fresh consideration
Holding the tribunal’s reasoning to be legally unsustainable, the High Court quashed the award to the extent it declared the inquiry illegal and the findings perverse, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
It directed the tribunal to re-examine the validity of the inquiry, specifically on fairness, opportunity, and evidentiary support, and to decide the case expeditiously, preferably within six months.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
