Pre-POSH Act, domestic enquiry into workplace sexual harassment under Model Standing Orders valid if natural justice principles followed, despite no Vishaka Complaints Committee; Tribunal must examine fairness, prejudice, evidence before vitiating as perverse.

JUDGMENT :

AMIT BORKAR, J.

1. By the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the Part I Award dated 9 December 2025 passed by the Industrial Court at Nashik in Reference (IT) No. 3 of 2013, whereby it has been held that the departmental enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the mandate of the judgment in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan , , and further that the enquiry was neither legal nor fair, and that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition, as set out by the petitioner, are that respondent No. 1 was employed with the petitioner since 14 May 1990 in the production department at its Nashik establishment. It is stated that respondent No. 1 had a checkered service record, having been issued warnings on eight occasions, suspended on seventeen occasions, and subjected to stoppage of increments thrice, on account of alleged misconduct including unsatisfactory performance, indiscipline, misbehaviour with the management, and habitual absenteeism. It is further stated that in the year 2010, respondent No. 1 was elected as Vice President of respondent No. 2 Union. It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2011, a lady employee working in the ointment department had proceeded on medical leave due to certain ailments, and upon resuming duties on 7 February 2011, she was informed that her department had been changed at the instance of the respondents. In order to discuss the said change, the concerned employee approached respondent No. 1 at the office of respondent No. 2. It is alleged that instead of addressing her grievance, respondent No. 1 subjected her to sexual harassment by demanding sexual favours and further assaulted her physically. The said employee lodged a complaint dated 19 February 2011 with the petitioner in that regard.

3. Upon receipt of the said complaint, the petitioner took cognizance of the allegations and conducted a preliminary inquiry, following which a Show Cause Notice dated 1 April 2011 came to be issued to respondent No. 1 under the provisions of the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. Respondent No. 1 submitted a reply on the same date seeking a period of ten days to respond to the allegations contained in the Show Cause Notice. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 addressed a further communication dated 8 April 2011 requesting for a copy of the complaint made by the lady employee. Upon consideration of the reply dated 28 April 2011, which was found to be unsatisfactory, the petitioner issued a Charge Sheet dated 8 June 2011 alleging misconduct and informing respondent No. 1 of the initiation of a domestic enquiry in accordance with the applicable Model Standing Orders. Respondent No. 1 submitted his reply dated 14 June 2011 to the Charge Sheet, calling upon the petitioner to take action against the complainant.

4. The pe