Lack of Vishaka Committee Doesn't Inherently Vitiate Domestic Enquiry if Process is Fair: Bombay High Court - 2026-04-09

Law, Judgments & Legal Insights.

Beyond the Label: Bombay High Court Reframes Fairness in Domestic Enquiries

In a significant judgment delivered on April 9, 2026, the Bombay High Court has recalibrated the standards by which industrial courts assess the validity of domestic enquiries into allegations of sexual harassment. Justice Amit Borkar, presiding over a challenge filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceutics Limited, ruled that a domestic enquiry cannot be declared illegal solely on the ground of failing to constitute a Vishaka -style Complaints Committee, provided the employer can demonstrate that the process adhered to the principles of natural justice.

The Conflict: Procedure vs. Substance

The dispute originated from the termination of respondent Suhas Shankar Pagare, who had been accused of sexual harassment by a colleague in 2011. Following a domestic enquiry that resulted in his dismissal, the respondent challenged the action, eventually reaching the Industrial Tribunal at Nashik. The Tribunal set aside the enquiry, labeling it "perverse" and "illegal" because it had not followed the specific composition of the Complaints Committee mandated by the Supreme Court’s Vishaka judgment.

The petitioner, GlaxoSmithKline, argued that the enquiry was conducted in strict adherence to the Model Standing Orders—which carried statutory force—and afforded the respondent ample opportunity to defend himself. The central question before the High Court was whether the absence of a specific committee structure automatically vitiates an enquiry if the employee otherwise received a fair hearing.

The Legal Tightrope: Balancing Vishaka and Statutory Frameworks

The Court engaged in a deep dive into the legal evolution of workplace safety. It acknowledged that the Vishaka guidelines, intended as a placeholder until comprehensive legislation (the POSH Act, 2013) was enacted, did indeed carry the force of law under Article 141 of the Constitution.

However, Justice Borkar offered a crucial distinction: > "The law requires examination of substance. It is not the form of the authority that decides validity. The Tribunal should have considered whether the workman understood the charges, whether he was given documents, whether he could participate effectively, and whether he was denied any reasonable opportunity."

The Court clarified that the Vishaka mandate and subsequent rulings like Aureliano Fernandes v. State of Goa serve to protect the dignity of women and ensure fairness. These guidelines were not meant to create a "rigid, mechanical trap" for employers who are managing disciplinary proceedings through validly certified Standing Orders.

Defining Fairness in the Workplace

The judgment underscores that "perversity" in findings or an "illegal" enquiry process must be proved through evidence, not assumed by the lack of a specific structural label. The High Court criticized the Industrial Tribunal for stopping its analysis at the "procedural label," noting:

> "A disciplinary proceeding must be a fair process. If the workman knew the case against him, had access to the material and was given a fair chance to explain, then the enquiry cannot be rejected only on the ground that the format of a Committee was not followed."

By remanding the matter, the Court has signaled that Tribunals must act as courts of substance. They must investigate whether the accused was treated according to the principles of natural justice—specifically, whether they had notice of charges, access to documentary evidence, and the ability to cross-examine and defend their position.

Implications and The Path Forward

This ruling serves as a vital precedent for both employers and employees in industrial establishments. It confirms that while the compliance with sexual harassment legislation is non-negotiable, the primary yardstick for the validity of an enquiry remains the integrity of the process and the adequacy of the opportunity given to the accused.

For HR professionals and legal practitioners, this necessitates a focus on the quality of recording, disclosure of evidence, and transparency of proceedings. For the judiciary, it reinforces the need to conduct a granular review of case records rather than relying on abstract procedural checklists.

The High Court has instructed the Industrial Tribunal to decide the matter afresh within six months, focusing strictly on whether any "real prejudice" was caused to the workman, ensuring that the path to justice remains both fair and evidence-based.

---

Key Observations from the Judgment:

• "The Tribunal was required to look at the actual manner in which the enquiry was conducted and not merely at the form of the authority conducting it."
• "If the substance of fairness is present then minor variations in procedure cannot make the enquiry bad."
• "Perversity does not mean that another view is possible. It means that the conclusion is either based on no evidence at all or that it is so unreasonable that no reasonable person could have reached it."
• "The Court cannot apply present standards in a mechanical way. Therefore, the reliance on the POSH Act helps to understand the present legal position but for deciding the present dispute what is important is whether at the relevant time the employer followed a procedure within the model available to it."

Court Decision: The High Court set aside the February 2025 Award and remanded the case back to the Industrial Tribunal. The Tribunal is now directed to examine the merits of the enquiry specifically through the lens of natural justice and prejudice, rather than procedural form.