SHAHAJI MADHUKAR JADHAVversusALICON CASTALLOY LTD.

                                                               wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


                   AGK
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                   WRIT PETITION NO.2174 OF 2025

                   Ashok Chimaji Navsupe,
                   Age 41 years, r/at Gat No.2178/2,
                   Baif Road, Wagholi, Pune 412 207              … Petitioner

                                        Vs.

                   Alicon Castalloy Limited,
                   having its plant at Gat No.1426,
                   Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur,
                   District Pune 412 208                         … Respondent

                                               WITH
ATUL                               WRIT PETITION NO.2175 OF 2025
GANESH
KULKARNI
                   Shahaji Madhukar Jadhav,
Digitally signed
by ATUL
GANESH             Age 42 years, r/at Sainagar, Perne Phata,
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.04.30
11:50:27 +0530
                   Taluka Haveli, Pune 412 216                   … Petitioner

                                        Vs.

                   Alicon Castalloy Limited,
                   having its plant at Gat No.1426,
                   Shikrapur, Taluka Shirur,
                   District Pune 412 208                         … Respondent

                                               WITH
                                   WRIT PETITION NO.8698 OF 2023

                   Alicon Castalloy Limited,
                   a company duly incorporated under the
                   Companies Act, 1956, having its
                   plant at Gat No.1426, Shikrapur,
                   Taluka Shirur, District Pune 412 208
                   through its authorized representative



                                                      1
                                              wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


Omprakash Agnihotri, Age 61 years,
Occupation – Service, R/at: Gat No.1426,
Shikrapur, Tal., Shirur, Dist. Pune 412 208     … Petitioner

                      Vs.

Shahaji Madhukar Jadhav,
Age Adult, Occupation Nil,
R/at Sainagar, Perne Phata,
Taluka Haveli, Pune 412 216                     … Respondent

                            WITH
                WRIT PETITION NO.8697 OF 2023

Alicon Castalloy Limited,
a company duly incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956, having its
plant at Gat No.1426, Shikrapur,
Taluka Shirur, District Pune 412 208
through its authorized representative
Omprakash Agnihotri, Age 61 years,
Occupation – Service, R/at: Gat No.1426,
Shikrapur, Tal., Shirur, Dist. Pune 412 208     … Petitioner

                      Vs.

Ashok Chimaji Navsupe,
Age Adult, Occupation Nil,
R/at Gat No.2178/2, Baif Road,
Wagholi, Pune 412 207                           … Respondent


Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate with Mr. T.R. Yadav
i/by Mr. Gaurav Gawande for the petitioner in
WP/2174/2025 & 2175/2025 & for the respondent in
WP/8697/2023 & 8697/2023.
Mr. Varun Joshi with Mr. Chetan A. Alai for the
petitioner in WP/8697/2023 & 8697/2023 and for the
respondent WP/2174/2025 & 2175/2025.



                                 2
                                                wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


                     CORAM                  : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                     RESERVED ON            : APRIL 23, 2026.

                     PRONOUNCED ON          : APRIL 30, 2026

JUDGMENT:

1.       Since all the aforesaid writ petitions arise out of a common
set of facts and involve identical questions of law, it is considered
appropriate to dispose of the same by this common judgment and
order.

2.       By Writ Petition Nos. 2174 of 2025 and 2175 of 2025, filed
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the
respective petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment and order on
preliminary issues dated 14 October 2021, as well as the final
judgment and award dated 20 October 2022 passed by the 3rd
Labour Court at Pune in the concerned references, whereby the
references were partly allowed and the relief of back wages was
declined. By Writ Petition Nos. 8697 of 2023 and 8697 of 2023,
the petitioner-company has assailed the said judgment and award
dated 20 October 2022.

3.       The brief facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are
that the petitioner was employed with the respondent-company.
He initially joined as a Trainee and was thereafter confirmed to the
post of Machine Operator by issuance of a confirmation letter. At
the time of termination, the petitioner was working in the capacity
of Staff II and was drawing total emoluments of Rs. 34,642.08 per
month. The respondent-company is engaged in the business of
manufacturing aluminium auto components.



                                    3
                                               wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


4.    The respondent-company issued a charge-sheet dated 31
May 2015 to the petitioner alleging that he had submitted a forged
mark-sheet and passing certificate of the B.A. examination at the
time of employment, which was treated as an act of serious
misconduct. The petitioner submitted his reply to the said charge-
sheet and denied all the allegations levelled against him.

5.    Upon issuance of the charge-sheet, the respondent-company
initiated a departmental enquiry into the allegations. Shri P. A.
Narona, Advocate, was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and Mr.
Prakash    Takte   (HR)   was   appointed    as    the    Management
Representative. On the first date of the enquiry, the petitioner was
asked whether he intended to be represented by a person of his
choice as his defence representative. The petitioner submitted an
application seeking permission to engage Ms. Anuja Terkar,
Advocate, as his defence representative, which was opposed by the
Management Representative. After hearing both sides, the Enquiry
Officer rejected the said application on the ground that the
Management Representative was neither legally trained nor a legal
practitioner, and therefore the petitioner’s request could not be
granted.

6.    It is the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer failed
to afford a full and fair opportunity to him to defend the charges,
particularly in view of the refusal to permit representation through
a legal practitioner of his choice. It is further contended that
although witnesses were examined during the enquiry, the Enquiry
Officer failed to properly appreciate the material on record and
rendered findings in a cursory manner, ultimately holding the



                                  4
                                                wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him.

7.    The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings and report dated
10 March 2017, which were forwarded to the petitioner on 12
March 2017. Relying upon the said enquiry report, the respondent-
company terminated the services of the petitioner by issuing an
order of termination dated 30 April 2017.

8.    Aggrieved by the said termination, the petitioner raised an
industrial dispute before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour at
Pune, which was thereafter referred for adjudication to the Labour
Court at Pune. The petitioner filed his statement of claim
contending that the charge-sheet was issued on an incorrect
factual basis and that the termination was effected without due
consideration of his defence. He accordingly sought reinstatement
in service with continuity and full back wages.

9.    Upon service of notice, the respondent-company filed its
written statement contending, inter alia, that the duties performed
by the petitioner were of a supervisory nature and, therefore, he
did not fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s)
of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It was further contended that
since the Management Representative was not legally trained, the
question of permitting an Advocate to represent the petitioner in
the departmental enquiry did not arise. In these circumstances, the
parties have approached this Court by way of the present writ
petitions.

10.   Mr. Kiran Bapat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner-workman, submitted that in the absence of examination



                                  5
                                              wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


of the handwriting expert during the enquiry proceedings, the
report attributed to such expert could not have been relied upon. It
is further contended that the Labour Court failed to consider the
specific defence of the petitioner that he had not submitted any
such documents at the time of securing employment, and that it
was not a requirement for the post held by him to possess a
graduation degree. According to him, it was incumbent upon the
management to establish that such educational qualification was a
mandatory requirement for the post in question.

11.   It is further submitted that the case sought to be built by the
management, namely that an audit report in the year 2011 had
revealed submission of forged documents by the petitioner and
other employees, remains unsubstantiated, as no such audit report
was produced on record. It is contended that no action was taken
by the management between 2011 and 2016, which raises serious
doubt about the existence of such audit report, and indicates that
the case of the management is based on conjectures and surmises.
It is also submitted that the alleged B.A. certificate was never
produced in accordance with law.

12.   Mr. Bapat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner-workman, further submitted that the finding of guilt
recorded against the petitioner is founded upon the conclusion of
the Enquiry Officer that, despite having passed the S.S.C.
examination at the time of entry into service, the petitioner had
subsequently submitted a false B.A. passing certificate purportedly
issued by Pune University. It is contended that such a finding is not
borne out by any substantive material on record, inasmuch as it is



                                  6
                                              wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


an admitted position that no document or certificate has been
produced to demonstrate that the petitioner had either appeared
for or failed in the B.A. examination. In the absence of such
foundational evidence, the conclusion reached by the Enquiry
Officer is, according to the learned Senior Advocate, wholly
perverse and unsustainable in law.

13.   Per contra, Mr. Joshi, learned Advocate appearing for the
respondent-employer, submitted that the Enquiry Officer has duly
considered the documents submitted by the petitioner both at the
time of his initial appointment and at the stage of confirmation of
his services. It is his submission that the documents furnished at
the time of confirmation clearly indicate that the petitioner had
failed in the H.S.C. examination. He further submitted that the
Courts below have rightly recorded a finding that the charges
levelled against the petitioner, particularly under clauses 24(h)
and 24(l), stand duly proved on the basis of the material placed
before the Enquiry Officer. According to him, the Enquiry Officer
has taken into account the entire material on record, including the
report of the handwriting expert. It is contended that the scope of
judicial review does not extend to re-examining the qualifications
or credibility of the expert once such material has been considered
in the enquiry. He submitted that the record indicates that the
handwriting expert possessed a diploma in handwriting analysis,
and therefore, the reliance placed upon such report cannot be
faulted. On that basis, it is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has
rightly concluded that the petitioner was guilty of misconduct
involving subversion of discipline and good behaviour within the



                                 7
                                             wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


establishment. He further submitted that in view of the
documentary material produced by the petitioner at the time of
confirmation, production of the audit report was not necessary.

14.   Without prejudice to the aforesaid submissions, learned
counsel for the respondent-employer further submitted that even
assuming that the charge framed under Part I of the enquiry is not
held to be proved, the matter ought to be remanded to the Labour
Court so as to afford an opportunity to the employer to
substantiate the charges by leading appropriate evidence before
the Labour Court. On this premise, it is submitted that the present
writ petitions do not merit interference and are liable to be
dismissed.

REASONS AND ANALYSIS:

15.   I have considered the rival submissions with care and also
examined the manner in which the enquiry was conducted, and
the findings have been returned by the Labour Court. The whole
controversy turns around one central allegation, namely that the
petitioner, though initially entered in service on one footing, had
later produced a false B.A. passing certificate and thereby
committed misconduct of a grave character. The matter is not a
simple one of bare denial. It requires the Court to see whether the
conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer and later accepted by the
Labour Court is supported by acceptable material, and whether the
process by which such conclusion was reached can be said to be
fair, just, and proper in law.




                                 8
                                               wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


16.   The learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner has urged
that the finding of guilt proceeds more on assumption than on
proved fact, and this Court finds that such submission carries
substance. The case as projected against the petitioner is that
though he entered service on the basis of passing S.S.C., he
projected himself as a graduate by submitting a B.A. passing
certificate of Pune University which is alleged to be false. Now,
when such allegation goes to the root of integrity of an employee,
there must be some material showing first that such a certificate
was in fact submitted, and second that the same was not genuine.
In the present matter, what appears from record is that there is no
document produced to demonstrate that the petitioner had either
appeared for B.A. examination or had failed in it. In absence of
such material, the conclusion that the certificate must be false
becomes unsupported. A disciplinary finding can indeed be based
on probability, but even such probability must arise from
surrounding evidence. Therefore, the argument that the finding
suffers from lack of foundational basis does carry weight.

17.   The petitioner has made grievance regarding reliance on the
handwriting expert’s report without examination of such expert.
This Court finds that this aspect assumes importance because the
report of handwriting expert has been treated as one of the key
materials against the petitioner. In ordinary course, when an
expert opinion is used, its reliability comes not merely from its
existence but from the manner in which it is proved and tested. If
the expert is not examined, then the petitioner is deprived of
opportunity to question the basis of opinion. This affects fairness of



                                  9
                                              wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


enquiry. It is correct that strict rules of evidence do not apply to
domestic enquiries, but even then minimum fairness is required.
The document on which the expert gives opinion must itself be
proved in some manner, and the opinion must have some
assurance of correctness. This Court is conscious that it cannot re-
appreciate evidence like an appellate forum, but where the
material itself is not shown to be established, scrutiny becomes
necessary. Therefore, the contention that the expert report was
relied upon without proof cannot be ignored and raises a doubt on
the finding recorded.

18.   Another limb of submission on behalf of the petitioner is
regarding non-production of the audit report which is stated to be
the starting point of the entire disciplinary action. The
management has taken a stand that in the year 2011 an audit
revealed that certain employees, including the petitioner, had
submitted forged documents. However, such audit report has not
been placed on record. If the entire action is initiated on the basis
of such audit discovery, then the report assumes significance as a
primary document. Further, the time gap between the alleged
audit year and the issuance of charge sheet is also not explained. If
a irregularity was detected in 2011, then a reasonable expectation
would be that action follows within a reasonable time. Delay by
itself may not vitiate proceedings, but when coupled with absence
of primary document, it creates a situation where the story of
management appears less convincing. It is not that the case of the
employer fails due to non-production of audit report, but the
strength of its case reduces.



                                 10
                                              wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


19.   On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the respondent
has drawn attention to the documents submitted by the petitioner
at the time of appointment and later at the time of confirmation. It
is urged that these documents themselves disclose inconsistency in
the educational qualification of the petitioner and indicate that he
had failed in H.S.C. This submission has some merit to the extent
that documentary record maintained in ordinary course can be
relied upon in disciplinary proceedings. It is not necessary for the
employer to prove matters with precision as in criminal trial.
However, the Court must still examine whether such documents
establish the charge framed. The charge is of submitting a false
B.A. certificate. Therefore, the documents must lead to a clear
inference that such false certificate existed and was used by the
petitioner. If the documents only show some inconsistency or
doubt regarding earlier qualification, that may create suspicion,
but suspicion cannot take the place of proof of a misconduct. The
connection between the documents and the charge must be
reasonably clear. Hence, while the documents relied upon by the
employer cannot be discarded, they do not fully establish the
allegation made.

20.   The respondent has also submitted that the handwriting
expert was qualified, having a diploma, and therefore the Court
should not question the adequacy of his expertise. This argument
is partly acceptable, because domestic enquiry is not expected to
follow rigours of trial. Yet, the issue here is not of qualification.
The issue is whether the report of such expert was brought on
record and whether it is sufficient to sustain the finding. Even a



                                 11
                                              wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


qualified expert’s opinion must be tested in some reasonable
manner. If the document is not proved, and if the expert is not
examined, then the opinion remains untested. In such situation,
the Court is not questioning the qualification of the expert, but the
evidentiary value of the report. Therefore, the submission of the
management is accepted to the extent that the Court will not enter
into evaluation of qualification, but the Court cannot refrain from
examining whether the report was properly proved. On that count,
the material appears insufficient.

21.   There is also the submission of the respondent that even if
the charge under Part I of the enquiry is held not proved, the
matter should be remanded to the Labour Court so that the
employer may get an opportunity to prove the charge by leading
evidence. This alternative plea deserves serious consideration. It is
well settled that where a domestic enquiry is found defective or
where the findings are not sufficient to sustain the order, the
employer may seek an opportunity before the Labour Court to lead
evidence in support of the charge.

22.   Having said so, the Court must also keep in mind that
remand is not to be ordered as a matter of routine. The Court has
to see whether the material already shows a basis to sustain the
award or whether the award has been built upon a conclusion
which cannot stand. Here, the balance tilts in favour of
interference because the finding of false B.A. certificate does not
appear to rest on material. At the same time, the management’s
case cannot be ignored because it has pointed to certain
documents and to the conduct of the petitioner at the stage of



                                 12
                                              wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


service confirmation. It is a case where the materials are
incomplete, the proof is not satisfactory, and yet the dispute
requires a examination before a conclusion is drawn.

23.   On an overall assessment, therefore, the finding of guilt
cannot be sustained. The enquiry report and the award do not
inspire full confidence on the aspect of proof of false certificate.
However, having regard to the plea of the respondent-employer
and the nature of the dispute, fairness also demands that an
opportunity be given to the employer to establish the charge
before the Labour Court. The ends of justice would be met by
setting aside the impugned award to the extent challenged and
remitting the matter for fresh consideration on the limited
question of proof of misconduct, with liberty to both sides to lead
such evidence as is permissible.

24.   In view of the foregoing discussion and on an overall
assessment of the material placed on record, the following order is
passed:

      (i)    The Writ Petition Nos. 2174 of 2025 and 2175 of 2025
      filed by the petitioner-workman are partly allowed;

      (ii)   The Writ Petition Nos. 8697 of 2023 filed by the
      respondent-employer stand partly allowed to the limited
      extent indicated herein;

      (iii) The judgment and award dated 20 October 2022
      passed by the 3rd Labour Court, Pune, as well as the findings
      recorded on preliminary issues dated 14 October 2021, are
      hereby quashed and set aside;



                                   13
                                         wp2174-2025 & connected-J..doc


(iv) The Reference is remanded back to the Labour Court,
Pune for fresh adjudication on merits, limited to the issue of
proof of misconduct alleged against the petitioner;

(v)   The respondent-employer is granted liberty to adduce
evidence before the Labour Court to substantiate the charges
levelled against the petitioner, in accordance with law;

(vi) The petitioner-workman shall also be entitled to lead
evidence in rebuttal and to raise all permissible contentions
before the Labour Court;

(vii) The Labour Court shall decide the Reference afresh,
uninfluenced by any observations made in the present
judgment, and shall endeavor to dispose of the same
expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from
the date of receipt of this order;

(viii) All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open;

(ix) Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms. No
order as to costs.

                                       (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                            14