Absence Of Vishaka-Style Formal Complaint Committee Not Enough To Vitiate Sexual Misconduct Inquiry If Procedure Was Fair: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that mere absence of a Complaints Committee in the exact form contemplated under the Vishaka guidelines does not by itself vitiate a domestic inquiry into allegations of sexual misconduct. The Court observed that the validity of such an inquiry depends on whether a fair procedure was followed and whether any real prejudice was caused to the employee.

Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a writ petition filed by GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited, challenging the Part I Award dated 09.12.2025 passed by the Industrial Court, Nashik, which had held that the domestic inquiry against the respondent employee was not legal, fair, or in compliance with the Vishaka guidelines and had further held the findings of the Enquiry Officer to be perverse. The case arose from allegations of sexual misconduct made by a lady employee against the respondent, following which the employer initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Model Standing Orders, conducted an inquiry, and ultimately terminated the employee. The respondent contended that the inquiry was vitiated for non-compliance with the Vishaka guidelines, particularly due to the absence of a Complaints Committee.

The Court examined the legal position governing workplace sexual misconduct prior to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, and noted that the Vishaka guidelines operated as binding law in the absence of legislation. However, it also observed that Standing Orders, once certified, have statutory force and provide a legally recognised framework for regulating misconduct and conducting disciplinary proceedings.

The Court held that the Industrial Tribunal had erred in treating the absence of a Complaints Committee in the precise format contemplated under Vishaka as sufficient to invalidate the inquiry without examining how the inquiry was actually conducted. It observed that the focus ought to have been on whether the employee was informed of the charges, supplied relevant material, given an opportunity to participate, and allowed to defend himself.

The Court noted that the purpose of the Vishaka guidelines was to ensure fairness and protection against arbitrary action, and that such purpose may be achieved through a fair disciplinary process even if conducted under Standing Orders.

“The Tribunal had to consider whether the conclusions reached by the Enquiry Officer were supported by evidence on record… If the Tribunal has not undertaken this exercise and has instead proceeded on an assumption that non-constitution of a Complaints Committee is itself sufficient to vitiate the enquiry, then such reasoning cannot be sustained,” the Court observed.

The Court noted that the employer had issued a charge sheet, conducted inquiry proceedings, allowed representation to the employee, and provided an opportunity to lead evidence and defend himself.

Holding that the Tribunal's approach was legally unsustainable, the Court quashed the Part I Award to the extent it declared the inquiry illegal and the findings perverse, and remanded the matter to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration of the validity of the inquiry in accordance with law.

Case Title: GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited vs. Suhas Shankar Pagare & Anr. [Writ Petition No. 2297 of 2026]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 185

Click Here To Read/Download Order