The Petitioner, employed as a clerk at a Trust running the Kalidas Natyagruha Auditorium in Mulund, Mumbai, faced allegations of demanding an illegal gratification from one Smt. Sukhbir Kaur. Kaur had booked the auditorium for an event, but the Petitioner allegedly misled her about availability, claiming that weekends throughout the year were fully booked, and he demanded a sum of Rs. 45,000 for various fees and expenses. Kaur, upon realizing the misinformation and unsubstantiated demands, complained to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), and later reiterated her complaint during a meeting with other drama organizers.

The decision of the Labour Court was subsequently appealed by the Respondents, and the Industrial Court exercised its revisionary jurisdiction to set aside the Labour Court’s ruling. The Industrial Court found the Labour Court's findings to be erroneous, particularly criticizing its reliance on hearsay evidence and lack of sufficient corroborative proof. The Court emphasized that in domestic enquiries, a standard of proof based on "preponderance of probabilities" is sufficient, and not beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Petitioner’s arguments hinged on the claim that the charge against him, involving a mere demand for money, was neither substantiated by evidence nor was there any actual payment or acceptance of the bribe. Furthermore, it was pointed out that the initial complaint by Smt. Kaur had been withdrawn, adding weight to the Petitioner’s claim that the disciplinary proceedings were unwarranted.

The Court carefully examined the evidence, including the testimony of witnesses who corroborated Kaur’s version of events. The witnesses, including officials from the Trust, testified that Kaur had made the same allegations publicly during a meeting of drama organizers. Despite the withdrawal of her complaint, the Court found that the petitioner’s misconduct was sufficiently supported by the available evidence.

The withdrawal of the complaint by Kaur was seen as orchestrated by the Petitioner himself, as he had written to her expressing gratitude for retracting her complaint, while also admitting his mistake. The Court noted that this letter was a critical factor in denying the Petitioner the benefit of the withdrawal.

The Industrial Court’s intervention was crucial in setting aside the Labour Court’s findings, which were viewed as flawed. It was noted that in a domestic enquiry, evidence such as hearsay testimony is permissible and does not necessarily invalidate the proceedings. The Court referred to the Supreme Court ruling in State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Singh (1977), which clarified that domestic enquiries are not bound by the rigid rules of evidence applicable in regular court proceedings.

The Petitioner’s second termination, which followed a similar misconduct from an earlier instance of misappropriation, further compounded the gravity of the charge against him. This history of misconduct added to the justification for the penalty of dismissal, which the Court found proportionate to the severity of the charge.

The Court ultimately ruled in favor of the Industrial Court’s order, emphasizing that the findings were reasonable and within the scope of its revisionary powers. The judgment underscored that in cases involving serious misconduct such as demanding illegal gratification, the penalty of dismissal was justified. Moreover, the Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner, stating that there was no substantial legal ground to interfere with the Industrial Court’s decision.

This case serves as a reminder of the important balance between protecting employees from unfair dismissal and ensuring that disciplinary proceedings in the workplace are conducted with fairness and integrity. It also highlights the essential role of the Industrial Court in reviewing the findings of Labour Courts, ensuring that decisions are made based on sound legal reasoning and evidence.

Ultimately, the case illustrates the need for meticulous handling of domestic enquiries, the limited scope for revising findings in such proceedings, and the consequences of repeated misconduct in the workplace.