GLAXOSMITHKLINE PHAMACEUTICALS LTD v. SUHAS SHANKAR PAGARE AND ANR
Validity of Sexual Harassment Enquiries Prior to POSH Act - Substantial Compliance with Natural Justice Prevails Over Structural Non-compliance with Vishaka Guidelines.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:16848
Decision Date: 09-04-2026
List of Laws
The Constitution of India, Articles 141, 226, and 227; Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946; Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959; Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act); Principles of Natural Justice; Vishaka Guidelines
- Facts: Respondent No. 1, an employee and Union Vice President at GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceutics Limited, was accused of sexually harassing and physically assaulting a female colleague in February 2011. Following a preliminary inquiry, the petitioner issued a charge sheet under the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959. A domestic enquiry was conducted between June and November 2011, where the Enquiry Officer found the respondent guilty. Consequently, the petitioner terminated his services on 7 December 2012. The respondent challenged this termination, and the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal at Nashik. The Tribunal passed a Part I Award vitiating the enquiry primarily because it was not conducted by a "Complaints Committee" as mandated by the Supreme Court in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan.
- Procedural Posture: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the Industrial Tribunal's Part I Award dated 9 December 2025, which had declared the domestic enquiry illegal and the Enquiry Officer's findings perverse.
- Issue: Whether a domestic enquiry into sexual harassment, conducted under statutory Model Standing Orders before the implementation of the POSH Act 2013, is automatically void if not conducted by a specifically constituted "Complaints Committee" as per the Vishaka guidelines.
- Holding: No, the absence of a formally named "Complaints Committee" does not automatically invalidate an enquiry if the process otherwise adheres to the principles of natural justice and ensures substantial fairness.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that while the Vishaka guidelines had the force of law under Article 141, they were intended to fill a legislative vacuum. In the context of industrial law, Standing Orders have statutory force and constitute delegated legislation. For the period prior to the POSH Act 2013, if an employer followed the established procedure under the Model Standing Orders that included provisions for misconduct, the Tribunal was required to examine the "substance of fairness" rather than just the "form of the authority". The Court held that the Tribunal erred by vitiating the enquiry on a purely structural ground without checking if the workman was given a fair opportunity to defend himself, received the relevant materials, and suffered any actual prejudice. A finding of "perversity" cannot be reached in a routine manner without a detailed analysis of whether the evidence on record supported the Enquiry Officer's conclusions.
🔒 For Members Only