SRI G v. S. GANESH The Court made the following

Petition under Article 226 oI lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ or direction particularly one in the nature of *RIT oF cERTroRARr, quash the impugned award dated 31to312021 passed in l.D. No. 4 of 2016 granting compensation instead of granting the relief of reinstatement into service along with all consequential benefits and order dated 30 12.2020 in holding the lnternal Complaint Committee as valid as arbitrary' unlust, and in violation of principles of natural iustice and as well as in vrolation of Art. 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently the petitioner pray this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondenl 16 rsi65{2te the petitioner into service along with all consequential benefits in the interest of iustice and fair PlaY' lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 15'1 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service or else at least pay Sec. 17.8 of l.D. Act wages for his survival pending disposal the above writ petition in the interesls of justrce and fair play Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. V. NARASIMHA GOUD Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G. V. S. GANESH The Court made the following: ORDER -l HON,BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITIoN No. 36804 0F 202L OR DER: Challenging the Award dated 31'03'2O21 in t D'No' 4 of 2016 on the file of Labour Court-II' Hyderabad' this Writ Pe[ition is filed' 2 AS Operator The case of petitioner is that while he was worktng 1n Production Department of respondenl Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages Private Limited (for short' 'the Company), he was removed from service on the allegation that he misbehaved with one Ms A Bodi and outraged her modesty His grievance is that in order to remove him from service' the said Bodi and other colluded and gave a false complaint; when the complaint was referred to Internal Complaint Committee' an enquiry was conducted u'ithout giving opportunity to petitroner and the Commit'tee gave hndings which were biased and basing on the false report, he was terminated from service with effect from 20.1 1.2015, without considering his objections opposing the hnding of the Commlttee' t t i )

2.1 pel_itioner therefore, raised the mentloned I.D. before the Lab,tur Court II, Hyderabacl on [he ground that the Internal Complaint Committec report is not based on any tangible evidencc and Committee also did not give a reasonable opportunitv and that it is one sided, hence, is liable to be dismissed. However, the Labour Court considering the judgment in 2O13 (11 SCC 292 which was rendered prior ro pOSH Act, 2013 which is not a binding precedent, passed the impugned Award. According to petitioner, the Court below failed to appreciate that a duty is cast on the management to follow the rule and regulations framed by it which dealt with the disciplinary acLions. This principle was reiterated by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2O2O LLR SC 4Ol as well as in Visakha Case rendered tn 1992. Therefore. the Award impugned is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri V. Narasimha Goud submits that the Court below ought to have held that Internal Compla:nt Committee cannot be equated with that of domestic enquiry. According to rearned counsel, the court below having come to thc conclu sion thaL petitioner had put in 23 years of unblemished service and that the alleged incident did i t t -/ --l not shatter the confidence of other women workers' ought to have imPosed some lesser punishment and ought to have granted reinstatement with al1 consequential benefits 4 The resPondent filed counter stating that for the purposes ol inquiry under Section 11 of POSH Act' the questlon the charge sheet and of giving any opportunity of issuing not arise. The three conducting departmental enquiry does judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medha Kotual Lele a. tlnion of India' held that the report of the Compiaints Committee shall be deemed to be an inquiry report in a disciplinary action under the Civil Services Conduct Rules and the disciplinary authority shall act on such report accordingiy' It has also been held that the findings of the report of the Committee shall not be treated as mere preliminary investigation of enquiry leading to disciplinary action but shall betreatedaslrnding/reportinanenquiryintothemisconduct of the delinquent- It is stated, the defence set up by petitioner is a mere alibi Lo escape the consequences of his acts of sexuai work Place. This woman emPloYee at harassme nt of a the ICC are self- that the hndings of respondent denied ' (20 13) I scc 297 .l I contradictory and that ICC members have committee error. The contention of petitioner that there sha[ be tangible evidence beyond reasonable doubt in proof of the allegations of sexual harassment is contrary to law and shall not be c.untenancecr, because it is'ery well-settled that allegations of this nature are proved based on preponderance of probabilify but does not require proof treyond reasonable doubt like a criminal trial.

4.1 It is stated, the impugned Award was lully fortified by the latest Division Bench judgment of this Court in GAIL (India) Ltd., New Delhi o. Dr. Duraisamg Bcrskaraln2 whereas petitioner relied on the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Dr. Duraisanng Baskaran u. GAIL (Ind.ia).Itd.3 which was reversed by the Division Bench. The Labour Court erred in granting compensa[ion, hence, the respondent assailed the Award in Writ Petition No. 19755 of 2O2 .

5. Heard Sri G.V.S.Gancsh, learned counsel for respondent Company and perused the record. .1 6 At the outset, it may be noted that the Hon,ble Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Duraisamg BaskoLran I ' 202:l(-5) ALD (TSXDB) 204. '202 r(i) ALD 46 t n I ) (supra), at paragraph 26(C), held that it is only when the Disciplinary authority disagrees with the report of the enquiry officer,forreasonstoberecordedinwriting,itshallremitthe case [o the cnquiry officcr for fresh enquiry' Further, the Hon'ble Qivision Bench ol this Court 7 has referred [o the decision of lhe Larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Medhd Kotual Lele's case (supro/ wherein it was clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the disciplinary authority shall treat the report/ Iindings etc'' of the ICCasthefindingsinadisciplinaryenquiryagainstthe delinquent employee and shall act on such report; and therefore there cannot be any artihcial distinction drawn to contend that the enquiry/ Iindlngs of the ICC do not constitute a regular disciplinary/ dcpartmental enquiry' In the instant case, the Internal Complaints 8. Committee, which is a cluly constituted committee under the POSH Act, conducted the enquiry into the sexual harassment charges against the workman and submitted a report holding that the charges are "proved"; and the enquiry report was accepted by the disciplinary authority; and a copy of the enquiry the workman for his report was provided to i I I I 6 comments/ex planation, and the workman submittedhis explanation and having found the explanation not satisfactory, the workman was terminaLed from service. The enquiry conducted by the ICC cannot therefore be said to bc invalid, and the discrplinary authorir5r need not order another round of enquiry.

9. At this juncture, it is to be noted that the Labour Court, under Section I 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, has the power to re-appreciate the evidence as an appellate authority and can arrive at its own findings and may even reverse thc hndings arrived at by disciplinary authority. 10. In the instant case, the Labour Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 1l of the ID Act, reapprecrated the evidence on record, and held that the punishment of termination from service was too harsh. In this connectron, it is relevant to refer to the findings of the Labour Court. at paragraph 29 of the impugned Order, which reads as follows: "33. ... Under Rule 2 j.5 it ls sard that white imposing the punishment the preuous record oJ the emplogee lms to be considere-d Qnd background of the tuorkers must ..rso be looked tnto. 34 I '7 35- tn uieu oJ the discussion macle aboue' the remouol of the petttioner from the seruice tuith stigma is lrursh lnste'ad of remouing him from seruice the respondent compang should hauet(2kenste2lsthat:totrorLsferfromthqtparticulorsectionto another section uhere he maA not haue contact uith rttoman emptoyees or he shouLd haue been gLuett sor,le puftishmetat to sit in the office room totook into the accounts uherebA he connot haue ang access to the emplogees lf nrore puntslu|rertt is to be giuetl, the respondent shoukl haue reduced the pqA of the petittoner and his increments shoulcl haue beert stopped lDfth atmulatrue effecf ' When sone alternatiue punishments are avoilable; more particularlA when the petitioner has rendered unblemishedsermceof23aeorslllthecolipanaremouinqhjm uith the stigma that he hos harassed a uomon empLogee cerlaintg is harsh and disproporTionate to the ctnrges lerrclled agoinst him. Hauing oppreciated the oueroll circum'stance of the co,se,thisCourtisoftheopinionthatinsteodofremouiftgthe petitioner Jrom seruice some lesser punishment should haue been giuen to him' 36- This Court hcLs carefullg considered the citatiotls submitted bg the learned' counsel for the respondent' The petitioner uas rernoued from serrtice in tle gear 2015' For the lo.st 6 Aears he is out of emplogment' At the time of alleged incident, the petittoner utas aged' 48 Aears and bg nou he has r toined the oge of 54 Aeors' Thfs Qourt ueiJied the phgsical i t t { 8 condition of the petitioner. In the opinion of the Court pltgstcaLttl LLe ts not prepqred to work nor mentallA. Because of this inctdent L,'e undentent mental shock. Due to unenlplollment for the lrrsl .; or 6 gears he sulfered financtaltg. His fanilg is compLetehl scattered. It is obserued bA the Court that f<tr a few dates of heaing his uiJe uas assisling him to cone to the Court. He hcLs become uery feeble phgsicattg. Euen thouqll the responden.t s dtrected to reinstate the petitioner he utill not be. useful. He carutot discharge hts functtons os expected of. A,lore so, uthen he hc.s been remoued with such stigma it uill be dffialt fo, him to work in the same factory among the some tuorkers. flawng appreciated. the colse, tn all angles, this CoLol is of the opin[on thot it is a fit case uthere he cart be qwarclet] some compcnsation in lieu of reinstalement.

37. To work out the compertsation pagable to the petitioner this Court has considered the last pag drawtl bg the petitioner uthich is Rs.26,339/ - p.m. So, the onnual income ttould be around Rs.3,12,0O0/-. TLLe petitioner uoulcl haue continued ltis seruice for another four gears hence he is entttted for Rs. 12,48,OOO/ - ctpprox. I 1. At t_his juncture, it is equally relevant to note that though the Labour Court can re_appreciate the evidence under Section 1 1 , and arrive at a finding which could even be I t I 7,, I reversing of the judgment of the departmental authority' however, such evidence should be borne out by the record' In the instant case' the Labour Court held that the 12. impugned termination is too harsh and suggested some lesser punishments like reduction of pay' transfer to another section etc., (as extracted in paragraph No 35)' which the Labour Court is, of course, empowered to do under Section 11 of the Act' However' the Labour Court has gone beyond its 13. jurisdiction under Section 11 of the Act' while recording that ,,thetuorkmanisundermentalshock,thattheworkmanis phgsicallg and mentallY not PrePared to uork, and the uorkman utilt not be useful euen if reinstated' and that tle tlorkman cannot d'ischarge his functions as exPected' and that uthen he h.,s been remoued. ,.titrt such stigma, it win be difficult for him to ulork in the same Jactory among the same uorkers,,. The recording of these findings / opinions has no evidentiary basis' Further, the Labour Court heavily relied on these opinions' and embarked upon the task of computing monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement with the assumption "that the tt-nrkman seruice for another four gears and u.nuld haue continued In therefore entitled to four gears of salory as compensation" ' t t i 10 fact, au.arding of such monetary compensation in lieu of re instatement, n ould amount to advance salary for future sen,icc on the shecr assumption that the workman would havc continued i.r service, discarding all the uncertainties of life , and thcrefore thc same is unsustainable in law. 14. H:rving considered the respective contentrons and perused the record, this Court is of the considered vien, that u'hile the Labour Court had appreciatecl the lacts of the case and set-asidc the punishment of termination, ou,ght to havc either relcgated the matter to the disciplinary authoritl, for imposing a lesser punishment, rather than stepping into the shoes of the disciprinary authority. The dismissar .f workman u.as in 20 15, and the impugned order of Labour Court was passcd in 2021 . We are now in 2025. Almost a decade has passed lrom the date of dismissal of the workman. This Court is therefore, inclined to modify the punishment appropriatelv in the interest of jr_rstice .

15. Accordingly, the alternative punishment of monetary compr:nsation in lieu of reinstatement ol rrvorkman is set aside. The re spondent-Management is directed to reinstate the u'orkman forthwith with continuity of service, and u,ith I 't wages from the date of impugned ordcr of Laflour Court I'c' 05.05.2021 to the date of reinstatement' payable at the rate of 50% of the Last Pay drawn as of November 2o15 The back- wages shall be paid within four months from the date of receipI of a coPY of this order'

17. closed The Writ Petition is accordingiy' allowed No costs' Misceiianeous petitions' pending if any' shall stand SD/. P PON NA KRISHNA ANT REGISTRAR SI "tl ,/TRUE COPY/' ECTION OFFICER "' Ii,?i:t1lli:3:&[:"Jil"',?t1A,I;i,i#0i[?l3l'T:3;?Sli""'"""J3fl UlE tgf :*?';' $;&uuE6,? ?Y.? "li"' Two CD CoPies BM PVt, i3a'3 t? " " r To, 1 2 3 4 W HIGH COURT DATED:17t0912025 ORDER WP.No.36804 of 2021 1 ,.1, ,r ..\ t .\ -i\ cI2 I 2WP \i\ ,.!.r' ..- t. ,,/ ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS (, t 1