[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajesh Dnyanoba Bhujbal vs Gkn Sinter Metal Pvt Ltd on 16 April, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:17843
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3933 OF 2026
Ganesh Bhaurao Mail ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.6809 OF 2026
Bharat Nanasaheb Suryawanshi ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.6902 OF 2026
Avinash Hanmant Gharge ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.6903 OF 2026
Rahul Hariprakash Pal ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4841 OF 2026
Vilas Raghu Shedge ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.6905 OF 2026
Gulabchand Mohan Sakunde ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
1
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:47:17 :::
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.6908 OF 2026
Sanjay Mohan Bhosale ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4847 OF 2026
Bapusaheb Doulatrao Tambe ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4849 OF 2026
Vinod Balan Nair ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.6915 OF 2026
Kishor Kamlakar Patil ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4839 OF 2026
Nilesh Ramakant Mate ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4843 OF 2026
Ramchandra Mohan Gharge ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
2
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:47:17 :::
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7072 OF 2026
Atish Sambhaji Mohite ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7073 OF 2026
Virendra Sharad Arekar ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7074 OF 2026
Sanjay Vasant Kadam ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7075 OF 2026
Deepak Ramchandra Jadhav ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4848 OF 2026
Nilesh Chandrakant Gaikwad ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4851 OF 2026
Dipak Dagadu Bhagwat ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4844 OF 2026
3
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:47:17 :::
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
Rajesh Dnyanoba Bhujbal ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7227 OF 2026
Ajinath Dajirang Ethape ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7228 OF 2026
Pankaj Ashokji Jumle ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7229 OF 2026
Lalchand Popat Kudale ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7230 OF 2026
Nitin Shankar Palande ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7231 OF 2026
Ramdas Gopala Gangarde ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4845 OF 2026
Yogesh Shamrao Surve ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
4
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 16/04/2026 20:47:17 :::
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.7404 OF 2026
Sandesh Sampatrao Bhosale ... Petitioner
V/s.
GKN Sinter Metal Private Limited ... Respondent
Mr. Sameer Chavan i/by Mr. Sumit V. Sonare for the
petitioner in all WPs.
Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gaurav S.
Gawande for the respondent-company.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : APRIL 16, 2026
P.C.:
1. Since the present writ petitions involve common questions of
law as well as arise from substantially similar facts, all the
petitions are being decided and disposed of by this common
judgment and order.
2. By way of the present writ petitions, the petitioner in each
matter has assailed the Judgment and Order dated 10 December
2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Pune, in respective
Approval Application.
3. The facts giving rise to the filing of the present writ petitions,
in brief, are that the respondent is a private limited company
having its factory situated at 146, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri,
Pune-411018. The petitioner-workman is stated to be employed
with the respondent-company. It is the case that by a letter of
demand dated 13 November 2020, the Union raised certain
demands on behalf of the workmen, which came to be referred for
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
adjudication by the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Pune, and
the said dispute is presently pending before Industrial Tribunal No.
1, Pune, in Reference (IT) No. 09 of 2022. It further appears that
another industrial dispute under Section 9A of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 has also been referred to Industrial Tribunal
No. 1, Pune, and is pending as Reference (IT) No. 11 of 2022. A
separate dispute relating to bonus is likewise pending before the
same Tribunal in Reference (IT) No. 55 of 2022. In addition
thereto, another dispute pertaining to the Union's demands
concerning bonus has been referred to Industrial Tribunal No. 2,
Pune, and is pending adjudication in Reference (IT) No. 29 of
2023. According to the respondent-company, since the petitioner-
workman is concerned with the disputes involved in the aforesaid
references, the respondent has sought approval of the action of
dismissal taken against him.
4. According to the respondent-company, the order of dismissal
has been passed simultaneously with the presentation of the
approval application before the Tribunal, in respect of misconduct
alleged against the petitioner, which according to the respondent is
wholly unconnected with the industrial disputes pending
adjudication. It is the respondent's case that the petitioner was
served with a charge-sheet dated 7 September 2023 alleging
serious misconduct, particulars whereof were set out therein.
Thereafter, the respondent conducted a full-fledged domestic
enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitioner. During the
enquiry proceedings, the petitioner was afforded full opportunity
to defend himself and, according to the respondent, the principles
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
of natural justice were duly complied with. Upon conclusion of the
enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings. It is further
stated that before taking disciplinary action, the respondent-
company considered the petitioner's past service record and found
no mitigating circumstances warranting a lenient approach,
particularly having regard to the seriousness of the misconduct
alleged. According to the respondent, considering the gravity of
the misconduct, the petitioner's length of service, the nature of
duties performed by the petitioner, and the nature of the
respondent-company's establishment, it had become impossible to
continue the petitioner in employment. Accordingly, the petitioner
was dismissed from service with effect from 5 December 2023 by
order of even date. It is further stated that one month's wages
were paid to the petitioner by deposit in his bank account in
accordance with the normal practice of the establishment and in
purported compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947.
5. The respondent contends that the domestic enquiry
conducted against the petitioner was legal, fair, and proper, and
that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are duly
supported by the evidence adduced during the enquiry
proceedings. The respondent, therefore, seeks a declaration that
the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of
natural justice and that the order of dismissal is founded upon
legal and admissible evidence placed before the Enquiry Officer.
The respondent-company further contends that the punishment of
dismissal imposed upon the petitioner is proportionate to the
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
misconduct proved and that the entire action has been undertaken
in due compliance with Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947. On these grounds, the respondent has prayed for
allowing the approval application.
6. The petitioner resisted the said approval application by filing
a reply below Exhibit U-5. According to the petitioner, he has
rendered service with the respondent-company for more than
seven years and has maintained a clean and unblemished service
record throughout his tenure. It is further the petitioner's case that
the respondent-company is an engineering establishment engaged
in the manufacture of parts, electric spare parts, various types of
gear pistons, and bushes required for two-wheelers and four-
wheelers for the last 55 years, and that there exists substantial and
increasing market demand for the products manufactured by the
company. The petitioner states that more than 400 persons,
including permanent employees, contract labourers, trainees, and
staff members, are employed in the respondent-company. It is
further alleged that the respondent-company had earlier sought
permission for lay-off of 125 workers, which application came to
be rejected, and thereafter the company created an unjustified and
artificial situation by subjecting workmen to harassment and
initiating steps to remove them from employment.
7. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondent-
company had issued a notice of change dated 12 November 2020,
which according to the petitioner was unjustified and was
accordingly opposed by the Union. The dispute arising therefrom is
stated to be pending adjudication before the competent Court.
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
Despite pendency of the dispute, the petitioner alleges that the
respondent-company illegally implemented the said notice of
change. It is further alleged that although the company re-
employed certain other workers, the petitioner was not reinstated.
The petitioner further states that the respondent-company had
again applied for approval of lay-off on 18 April 2022, which
application was rejected. It is alleged that the company thereafter
introduced a Voluntary Retirement Scheme, which did not evoke
adequate response. According to the petitioner, the respondent
then resorted to issuing fabricated and concocted charge-sheets,
conducted sham enquiries, and proceeded to terminate workmen.
It is also alleged that the company attempted closure of the
establishment by making an application to the Government on 9
November 2022, but the same came to be rejected. The petitioner
contends that while in the year 2019-2020 there were 318
permanent workers, the respondent has deliberately reduced the
workforce and presently retained only 87 workmen with the
intention of bringing the number below 100. It is further alleged
that though permanent work continues to be available, the same is
being executed through contract labour after terminating
permanent employees. According to the petitioner, conciliation
proceedings failed due to non-cooperation on the part of the
respondent-company, and consequently the Union issued a strike
notice on 26 June 2023 proposing to commence strike from 13
July 2023. However, prior thereto, the petitioner was suspended
on 5 July 2023. It is further alleged that the respondent-company
filed Complaint (ULP) No. 76 of 2023 before the Industrial Court
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
seeking a declaration that the strike was illegal on the basis of false
documents. According to the petitioner, even before any
adjudication on the said complaint, the respondent issued charge-
sheets to 30 workers out of 191 workers who had participated in
the strike and terminated them by orders dated 5 December 2023
after concluding the enquiry in undue haste. The petitioner further
states that the Union has challenged the said action by filing a writ
petition, which remains pending.
8. According to the petitioner, the approval application filed by
the respondent-company under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 is false, fabricated, and liable to be rejected. It
is contended that the termination of the petitioner is in fact
directly connected with the disputes pending adjudication and that
the respondent-company is determined to terminate 32 workers
and ultimately close down the establishment.
9. The petitioner thereafter filed a paragraph-wise reply
denying the averments made in the application. It is reiterated that
the respondent-company had introduced an illegal change, in
respect of which a dispute is pending before the Tribunal in
Reference (IT) No. 11 of 2022. It is further pointed out that bonus-
related disputes are pending in Reference (IT) No. 55 of 2022 and
that Reference (IT) No. 29 of 2023 concerning contract employees
and apprentice employees is also pending before the Industrial
Tribunal. According to the petitioner, all the aforesaid disputes
have a direct nexus with the issuance of the charge-sheet and the
disciplinary action taken against the petitioner-workman. It is
further contended that prior to imposing the punishment of
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
dismissal, the respondent failed to consider the petitioner's clean
and unblemished past record and that the petitioner had not
committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge-sheet. In
paragraph 6.7 of the reply, the petitioner has stated that though
the enquiry proceedings may be procedurally proper, the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer are one-sided, perverse, and
unsupported by evidence. According to the petitioner, the charges
levelled against him have not been proved and, therefore, the
consequent order of dismissal is illegal. On this basis, the
petitioner has prayed for rejection of the approval application and
for reinstatement in service with continuity and back wages. In
paragraph 7 of the reply, the petitioner has undertaken a detailed
analysis of the charge-sheet, the evidence adduced in the enquiry,
and the Enquiry Officer's report, and has contended that the
respondent has levelled false allegations with a view to victimise
the petitioner and exert pressure upon the Union. It is further
contended that the charge-sheet as well as the dismissal order
have both been issued by one Rajesh Mirani and, therefore, the
same individual has acted in dual capacities, which according to
the petitioner is impermissible in law. The petitioner further
alleges that the charge-sheet was deliberately issued one day prior
to commencement of the strike in order to frustrate the industrial
action. It is also contended that the charges, including the alleged
164 instances of misconduct, were not proved in the enquiry
proceedings.
10. The petitioner further contends that the witness examined
on behalf of the respondent failed to substantiate the charges
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
levelled against him. Upon detailed analysis of the material on
record, the petitioner submits that the enquiry conducted against
him was merely a sham and a device adopted to exploit and
victimise the workers. It is further contended that the respondent-
company selectively proceeded only against 30 workers out of 191
workmen who had participated in the strike and, therefore, the
action is discriminatory and mala fide. On these grounds, it is
contended that no approval under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 can lawfully be granted and the
application filed by the respondent-company deserves to be
rejected.
11. Mr. Chavan, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner, submitted that the charge-sheet came to be issued to the
petitioner in his individual capacity and not in his capacity as an
office bearer of the Union. It is submitted that although the
charge-sheet refers to the alleged strike, the allegations levelled
therein are wholly false, baseless, and unsupported by material
evidence. According to the petitioner, no witness has stated to have
personally seen the petitioner instigating any workman to
participate in the strike and, therefore, the charge of instigation
remains wholly unproved. It is further contended that though
approximately 190 workers had allegedly participated in the strike,
only 32 employees have been selectively proceeded against and
held responsible, thereby demonstrating arbitrariness and
discrimination in the action of the respondent. Inviting attention to
the judgment delivered by the learned predecessor in Complaint
(ULP) No. 76 of 2023, it is submitted that within 48 hours of the
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
strike being declared illegal, the same stood withdrawn and,
therefore, the alleged illegality attached to the strike did not
survive thereafter. According to the petitioner, the evidence
adduced in the enquiry proceedings bears no nexus to the charges
levelled and no preliminary enquiry was conducted before issuance
of the charge-sheet. It is further contended that though the
approval application states that the misconduct alleged is
unconnected with the pending industrial disputes, no material has
been placed on record to establish whether the petitioner is or is
not connected with such disputes. It is submitted that the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer disclose complete non-application
of mind and that the petitioner has been made a scapegoat for the
larger industrial unrest. Learned counsel submitted that only a
solitary witness was examined by the management in support of
the charges, who was himself unable to substantiate the
allegations levelled against the petitioner. On the aforesaid
grounds, it is submitted that no approval under Section 33(2)(b)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deserves to be granted.
12. Per contra, Mr. Bapat, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the respondent-company, submitted that the petitioner
was duly served with a charge-sheet dated 7 September 2023 and
was afforded adequate opportunity to submit his explanation
thereto. According to the respondent, even the reply submitted by
the petitioner to the charge-sheet itself sufficiently demonstrates
and substantiates the charges levelled against him. It is submitted
that thereafter a domestic enquiry was conducted against the
petitioner in which full and fair opportunity was granted to him at
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
every stage, and therefore the enquiry proceedings satisfy the
requirements of fairness and propriety. Learned Senior Counsel
submitted that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are
based upon the evidence led during the course of enquiry and
upon the documentary material collectively produced at Exhibit 8
in the enquiry proceedings. It is submitted that ample oral as well
as documentary evidence was available before the Enquiry Officer
to establish the misconduct alleged against the petitioner and,
therefore, the findings recorded cannot be termed as either illegal
or perverse. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in John D'Souza v. Karnataka State Road Transport
Corporation Ltd. 2019 SCC Online SC 1347 to contend that while
considering an application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial
Disputes Act, the Tribunal is only required to examine prima facie
whether the enquiry is legal and proper and whether the findings
are perverse, and is not expected to undertake a detailed re-
appreciation of evidence. Mr. Bapat further invited attention to a
group of petitions filed by 29 similarly situated workmen and
submitted that this Court, by a reasoned judgment, has already
dismissed the petitions filed by such similarly placed employees,
wherein challenge had been raised to the finding on Part-I issue
regarding fairness and propriety of the domestic enquiry arising
from references under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It
is submitted that when such similarly situated employees have
failed in establishing before this Court that the Part-I enquiry
concerning the very same charges and the very same strike was
unfair or improper, then in proceedings under Section 33(2)(b),
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
where the scope of scrutiny is narrower and confined only to prima
facie satisfaction, the findings already recorded by this Court
deserve due weight and consideration.
REASONS AND CONSIDERATION:
13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and I
have gone through the material placed on recorde. The present
group of writ petitions arise out of one and same set of facts and
from the same approval application decided by the Industrial
Tribunal, Pune. The controversy is also common. The petitioners
are workmen of the respondent company. The respondent has
passed order of dismissal and has sought approval under Section
33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The petitioners
challenge the approval granted by the Tribunal. Therefore, all
these petitions are being dealt with by this common judgment.
14. The first question which falls for consideration before this
Court is regarding the true scope and extent of scrutiny
permissible in proceedings arising under Section 33(2)(b) of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is required to be kept in mind that
proceedings under the said provision stand on an altogether
different footing than a full-fledged industrial adjudication
undertaken upon a substantive reference. In such proceedings, the
Tribunal is not expected to enter into a complete trial of the
industrial dispute as if it is finally adjudicating all rights and
liabilities between employer and workman. The legislative object
behind Section 33(2)(b) is limited. At such stage, what is required
to be seen by the Tribunal is whether the employer has, while
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
passing the order of dismissal during pendency of industrial
dispute, complied with legal requirements, namely payment of one
month wages and filing of approval application, and further
whether the disciplinary action appears prima facie fair, bona fide,
and legally sustainable. The Tribunal at that stage is not expected
to re-appreciate every piece of evidence as if exercising appellate
powers over the findings of the domestic enquiry. The Tribunal is
also not expected to substitute its own opinion merely because
another view may be possible on the same material. The settled
legal position is that the Court has only to examine whether the
domestic enquiry appears to have been conducted in accordance
with principles of natural justice, whether reasonable opportunity
was afforded to the delinquent employee, and whether there exists
some legal evidence before the Enquiry Officer on the basis of
which the findings could reasonably have been arrived at. So long
as the findings are supported by some material and the procedure
adopted does not disclose patent unfairness or perversity of grave
nature, the Court is expected to exercise restraint and should not
lightly interfere. If such limited jurisdiction is converted into a full
appellate scrutiny, then the object of Section 33(2)(b) would stand
frustrated. Therefore, the controversy must be viewed keeping in
mind the limited nature of jurisdiction available to this Court and
the Tribunal in such proceedings.
15. In the present case, the respondent-management has pleaded
that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 7
September 2023 setting out allegations of misconduct against him.
It is further not in dispute that the petitioner was granted
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
opportunity to submit his explanation and reply to the said charge-
sheet. Subsequent thereto, the respondent initiated domestic
enquiry proceedings. The record further reflects that the petitioner
did in fact participate in the enquiry proceedings and contested the
matter. It is not even the case of the petitioners that they were
denied service of charge-sheet or that they were excluded from
participation in the enquiry proceedings altogether. The principal
argument advanced is not regarding denial of opportunity, but
rather that the allegations themselves were false and the enquiry
was motivated by ulterior considerations. However a mere
allegation that the employer acted with motive cannot invalidate
disciplinary proceedings unless such allegation is supported by
material. Mere assertion of mala fides, without proof, is not
sufficient. It must be demonstrated that either the procedure
adopted was unfair, or that the enquiry stood vitiated by violation
of natural justice, or that the conclusions reached by the Enquiry
Officer were unsupported by any evidence whatsoever. In absence
of such infirmities being established, the Court cannot invalidate
the enquiry merely because the employee disputes the allegations.
Upon examination of the record and consideration of rival
submissions, this Court does not find any such defect or
procedural failure as would justify holding that the enquiry process
stood vitiated in law. The petitioners have failed to point out any
prejudice caused in conduct of enquiry which may render the same
illegal.
16. The petitioners have made submission that the charge-sheet
came to be issued to the petitioner in his personal capacity and not
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
in his status as an office bearer of the Union. However such
circumstance does not advance the case of the petitioners. Merely
because a workman happens to hold office in a trade union does
not create immunity against disciplinary proceedings if allegations
of misconduct are levelled against him. If according to
management the misconduct committed is attributable to the
concerned employee, the employer is legally entitled to initiate
action against such person in his individual capacity. The mere fact
that the employee also happens to be associated with union
activities cannot invalidate the charge-sheet unless it is established
that the disciplinary action is solely because of union office and
not because of misconduct. What remains relevant for the Court is
not the designation in which the employee is proceeded against,
but whether the allegations levelled against him have some
evidentiary basis and whether the enquiry into those allegations
was fairly conducted. In the present case, the respondent's case is
that the petitioner was involved in misconduct arising in context of
the strike. The Tribunal has examined the enquiry record and
accepted the management's case while granting approval. At this
stage, unless it is shown that the findings are so irrational, so
unreasonable, or so unsupported by evidence that no prudent
person could have arrived at such conclusion, this Court cannot
interfere merely because the petitioner seeks a different
appreciation of facts. The jurisdiction under writ is not to
substitute this Court's opinion for that of the fact-finding authority
where the conclusion drawn is reasonably possible from the
available material.
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
17. Much argument was advanced on behalf of the petitioners
that though around 190 workers allegedly participated in the
strike, disciplinary action was initiated only against 32 employees,
including the petitioners and therefore the action is selective and
discriminatory. However, this submission also is not sufficient to
invalidate the action of the employer. It is true that selective
targeting, if established without basis, may in certain cases
indicate arbitrariness. However merely because not every
employee participating in an incident is proceeded against does
not make the disciplinary action illegal. To sustain such contention,
the petitioners were required to show that the selection of persons
proceeded against was arbitrary, capricious, or without any basis
whatsoever. No such material has been brought on record. The
respondent's stand is that only those employees against whom
material existed were charge-sheeted. In industrial disturbances,
every workman may not necessarily stand on identical footing.
Different employees may have different degree of participation,
different role, different level of involvement, and different
evidence available against them. It is therefore not necessary in
law that all persons present in a common incident must invariably
be proceeded against identically. If management has material
against some persons showing greater involvement, it may proceed
against them without proceeding against every other workman.
The petitioners have not shown that there existed no basis
whatsoever for proceeding against themy. In absence of such proof,
the argument of discrimination cannot be accepted merely on
comparison.
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
18. The petitioners have further argued that the strike in
question was withdrawn within 48 hours after declaration of
illegality in Complaint (ULP) No. 76 of 2023 and therefore the
strike no longer remained illegal, and consequently the charge-
sheet founded thereupon loses its basis. However, this submission
also does not persuade the Court. The legality or otherwise of the
strike, and the duration for which such declaration remained
operative, does not conclude the present controversy. The charge-
sheet issued to the petitioners is not confined to a technical
allegation that they participated in an illegal strike. Rather, the
allegations concern conduct attributed to the petitioners in relation
to the industrial agitation and surrounding circumstances. The
disciplinary action appears to be based not merely upon character
of the strike but upon the conduct alleged to have been committed
during that period. Therefore even assuming that the strike was
later withdrawn or that its status changed after subsequent
developments, that does not nullify the allegations already levelled
regarding misconduct. What is material for present purposes is
whether there existed some evidence before the Enquiry Officer in
support of the charges and whether fair opportunity was granted
during enquiry. The withdrawal of strike cannot wipe out the
disciplinary allegations if misconduct is otherwise alleged. Hence,
the petitioners cannot derive benefit merely from the fact that the
strike was withdrawn within short time.
19. Another important plank of the petitioners' challenge is that
no preliminary enquiry was conducted before issuance of the
charge-sheet and therefore the disciplinary proceedings stand
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
vitiated. This submission also cannot be accepted in law. It is well
settled that conducting of preliminary enquiry is not mandatory in
every disciplinary matter unless specifically required under service
rules or standing orders. A preliminary enquiry is merely a fact-
finding exercise undertaken by employer in some cases to ascertain
whether prima facie material exists before issuing charge-sheet.
However, absence of such preliminary exercise does not invalidate
the disciplinary proceedings. What is required is that once the
employer decides to proceed departmentally, a domestic enquiry
should be conducted in which the delinquent employee is
informed of the charges, supplied with particulars, and granted
reasonable opportunity to defend. If such enquiry is held in fair
manner, the absence of preliminary enquiry loses significance and
does not become fatal defect. In the present matter, the respondent
has demonstrated that after issuance of charge-sheet, a full
domestic enquiry was held wherein the petitioner participated.
The petitioner had opportunity to submit reply, participate in
proceedings, cross-examine management witness, and contest the
allegations. Therefore, merely because no preliminary enquiry
preceded the charge-sheet cannot be treated as a ground sufficient
to invalidate the disciplinary proceedings. The petitioners have not
shown how prejudice of serious nature has been caused solely
because no preliminary enquiry was held. In absence of prejudice,
the Court cannot interfere on such plea. Accordingly, the challenge
raised on this count also deserves rejection.
20. The petitioners have contended that the charge-sheet issued
against them as also the findings recorded in the enquiry report
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
are founded merely on surmises and conjectures and that the
evidence relied upon by the management had no connection with
the allegations levelled. However this Court is unable to accept
such submission. It is required to be kept in mind that a domestic
enquiry is not expected to be conducted with the same strictness as
a regular civil or criminal trial. Likewise, the Enquiry Officer is not
required to write an elaborate judicial judgment in the manner
expected from a civil court after full-fledged trial. The function of
an Enquiry Officer is comparatively limited. He is required to
examine the material placed before him and determine whether
the misconduct alleged appears to be established. The standard of
proof applicable in domestic enquiries is not proof beyond all
possible doubt as required in criminal law. Rather the conclusion is
to be drawn on the principle of preponderance of probabilities,
namely whether the version of the employer appears more
probable and believable on available material. Therefore unless the
findings are shown to be unsupported by evidence or irrational,
they cannot be discarded merely because another person may
arrive at different conclusion. In the present case, the respondent
has specifically relied upon documentary material exhibited during
enquiry proceedings and has also examined a witness in support of
the charges. The petitioners have argued that examination of only
one witness is insufficient. However there exists no rule of law that
a finding cannot rest upon testimony of a single witness. Even one
witness, if his testimony is found credible and supported by
documentary or surrounding circumstances, may constitute basis
for disciplinary finding. What matters is not the quantity of
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
evidence but its quality, reliability, and probative value. The
petitioners have not demonstrated before this Court that the
evidence considered by the Enquiry Officer was non-existent,
impossible, or of such nature that no prudent person could have
acted upon it. Therefore, the submission that the entire enquiry is
based only on conjectures does not merit acceptance.
21. The petitioners have further sought to contend that no
witness has specifically stated to have personally seen the
petitioner instigating the strike and therefore the allegation against
him remains unproved. If the charge against the petitioner was
confined to a single allegation of direct oral instigation and if no
supporting material whatsoever existed, then perhaps the
argument could have assumed significance. The case of the
management is not merely that the petitioner uttered words of
instigation, but that his conduct formed part of misconduct in the
course of industrial unrest and strike-related events. Therefore the
findings are not to be judged only on the basis of direct evidence
of one act. Conduct may often be inferred from surrounding acts,
circumstances and cumulative evidence. The Tribunal has not
accepted the petitioners' submission that the evidence was
insufficient. Once the competent fact-finding authority has
examined the evidence, appreciated the material, and recorded
reasons for accepting one version over another, this Court
exercising writ jurisdiction cannot substitute its factual assessment
merely because another possible view may arise.
22. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the respondent has
rightly placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
John D'Souza, wherein the principles governing proceedings under
Section 33(2)(b) have been clearly explained. The ratio flowing
from the said judgment is that while considering approval under
Section 33(2)(b), the Court is required only to examine prima
facie whether the domestic enquiry appears fair and whether the
findings recorded are so perverse as to shock judicial conscience.
The Court is not expected to undertake re-evaluation of evidence
in the same manner as in an appellate proceeding. The limited
supervisory jurisdiction under Article 226 does not permit this
Court to function as appellate authority over domestic enquiries or
over findings of the Industrial Tribunal in approval matters. So
long as the Tribunal has acted within jurisdiction and the
conclusions are plausible on material before it, this Court ought
not to interfere merely because another view is conceivable.
23. The respondent has also placed considerable reliance upon
earlier judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 117 Of
2026 in relation to similarly situated workmen arising from the
same industrial incident and factual matrix. The observations
relied upon by learned Senior Advocate disclose that in those
proceedings also this Court had occasion to consider challenge to
fairness of the domestic enquiry and had concluded that the
workmen therein failed to establish any breach of natural justice of
such serious and grave nature as would warrant interference. This
Court had specifically noted therein that charge-sheets had been
duly served, replies were filed by workmen, adequate opportunity
of cross-examination was granted, and the Enquiry Officer had
considered the material available on record before recording
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
findings. It was further observed that although termination orders
followed the enquiry report within a short duration, that
circumstance alone could not vitiate the enquiry in absence of
demonstrated prejudice. In the opinion of this Court, the said
earlier observations carry persuasive and significant value in
present proceedings for the reason that the factual foundation
remains substantially same, the industrial incident is common, the
allegations arise from the same strike-related episode, and the
procedure followed appears similar. Judicial consistency requires
that where facts are materially identical, the Court ought not take
contradictory views unless distinguishing features are shown. If on
same set of facts one group of workmen has failed to establish
infirmity in the enquiry, another group similarly situated cannot
seek contrary conclusion unless fresh, separate, or distinguishing
circumstances are shown. No such fresh or distinguishing material
has been brought before this Court by the petitioners so as to
justify departure from earlier view already taken.
24. Lastly, the petitioners have sought to contend that the
respondent-company has employed contract labour, reduced
workforce, and has attempted to diminish number of workmen in
the establishment, and therefore the present disciplinary action
must be viewed in that background. It may be that such grievances
may have relevance in industrial adjudications concerning labour
practices, permanency, staffing patterns, or union demands.
However, such industrial background cannot invalidate the present
dismissal or the approval granted under Section 33(2)(b). The
existence of industrial dispute in establishment does not establish
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
that every disciplinary action mala fide. Each proceeding must be
examined within its ownmboundaries. The present proceedings
concern only disciplinary action taken against employees and the
employer's prayer for approval thereof under Section 33(2)(b).
The Tribunal in such proceedings is not expected to adjudicate the
entire labour-management conflict or pronounce upon all
grievances between the parties. It is confined to examining legality
and fairness of the disciplinary action impugned before it.
Therefore while the broader allegations regarding employment
practices may form part of background circumstances, they do not
establish that the charges levelled against the petitioners are
fabricated or that the dismissal stands vitiated in law. Hence, such
submission also cannot assist the petitioners in the present
proceedings.
25. After careful perusal of the material available on record, this
Court is satisfied that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate
existence of any patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional
infirmity in the domestic enquiry so as to warrant interference in
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India.
26. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds no justifiable
ground to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order dated
10 December 2025 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Pune in
respective Approval Application.
27. In view thereof, all the writ petitions, being devoid of merit,
fail and deserve dismissal.
11-wp3933-2026 & connected.doc
28. Hence, all the writ petitions stand dismissed. Rule stands
discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
