Bombay High Court upholds sacking of driver for vulgar, misogynistic remarks against Koli women

The Bombay High Court has upheld the a fishermen's cooperative society's to dismiss a driver accused of making vulgar and disparaging remarks against women of the Koli fishing community [Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society Ltd. and Anr. v. Nitin Jaywant Mhatre].

Justice Sandeep V Marne held that the driver's conduct amounted to grave misconduct and that his dismissal did not merit any monetary compensation.

The order came in a plea filed by the Uttan Machimar and Vahatuk Sahakari Society challenging a 2021 order of the Industrial Court at Thane, which had set aside the dismissal of driver Nitin Jaywant Mhatre as illegal and awarded him ₹5 lakh as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. 

The Court observed that the society was justified in terminating his service to ensure discipline in its organisation.

“An employee who had become incalcitrant and who has indulged in misbehaving with the Vice Chairman by use of unparliamentary and indecent language cannot be rewarded with compensation,” the judge recorded. 

Justice Marne described the driver’s utterances as unpardonable and derogatory to women of the very community for whose benefit the society functioned. 

“Such tendency on behalf of employees needs to be dealt with iron hands so as to maintain discipline in the organization. Respondent had apparently become an element of terror and even prevented the enquiry officer from conducting enquiry by threatening him,” the judge noted.

Mhatre was terminated in January 2007 after a domestic enquiry could not proceed, allegedly because he threatened the enquiry officer. 

The chargesheet mentioned three incidents from 2006, the most serious being a late‑night incident of October 14, when Mhatre allegedly stepped in while the vice‑chairman was instructing another driver and shouted abuses. 

During this incident, he allegedly made sexually explicit remarks about the wives and daughters of Koli fishermen in the society’s office in front of women members.

A Labour Court initially found the October 14 incident fully established on the testimony of the vice‑chairman and other witnesses. 

On revision, however, the Industrial Court found neither a specific reference to filthy language in an October 16 memo nor a police complaint about the incident. It, therefore, ruled in the driver's favour and went on to award him compensation.

Justice Marne held that the Industrial Court had overstepped its revisional jurisdiction by re‑appreciating evidence. 

“The utterances made by him indicated his mindset towards the persons for whose benefit he was employed with the organization. Such a person cannot be rewarded with compensation,” the Court added. 

The Industrial Court’s order was, therefore, set aside by the High Court and the Labour Court’s dismissal of the driver was restored.

Advocates Prashant Mohite and Kishor G Pashte appeared for the society.

Advocates Rajendra Jain, Pranil Lahigade and Prashant Goyal appeared for the accused driver. 

[Read order]