The Gauhati High Court reaffirms that an employer bears the burden to prove misconduct when there is no domestic enquiry; subjective claims of “loss of confidence” must be objectively pleaded and proved for denying reinstatement. This judgment sets binding authority for labour dispute matters, clarifying the procedural and evidentiary standards applicable to “loss of confidence” as grounds for refusal of reinstatement, with strong precedential value within Assam and persuasive utility for courts addressing illegal termination disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/5922/2023 of JOYANTA KUMAR DUTTA Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR |
| CNR | GAHC010216072023 |
| Date of Registration | 05-10-2023 |
| Decision Date | 16-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Of |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Assam; persuasive for other jurisdictions |
| Type of Law | Labour Law / Industrial Dispute |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The court relied on Supreme Court authority holding that loss of confidence cannot be subjective; all three parameters (position of trust, abuse of trust, and embarrassment or detriment to employer) must be established objectively for denying reinstatement. The onus is on the employer to lead cogent evidence; failure to do so warrants reinstatement. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, an employee since 2009, was terminated in 2021 after being accused of unauthorized fuel lifting based on a third-party letter. Subsequent letters exonerated him, but the employer did not conduct a domestic enquiry. Labour Court upheld the dismissal, finding criminal breach of trust, but the High Court noted the lack of evidence and internal inconsistencies. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and tribunals in Assam under territorial jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, industrial tribunals, and potentially the Supreme Court in analogous situations |
| Follows | Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya; Kanhaiyalal Agrawal v. Factory Manager |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the strict burden of proof on employers: mere internal investigation without substantiation is insufficient to justify termination for misconduct in industrial disputes.
- Clarifies that the doctrine of “loss of confidence” must be based on objective facts and not subjective satisfaction of the employer.
- Highlights the impermissibility of selective reliance on third-party documents not proved by evidence; failure to call material witnesses can vitiate employer’s case.
- Outlines the scope of back wages: if gainful employment is not specifically denied in pleadings but mentioned in evidence, back wages may be awarded for a limited period.
- This judgment provides binding precedent in Assam and has significant persuasive value in labour reinstatement disputes nationally.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court underscored that, in the absence of a domestic enquiry, the onus is squarely on the employer to prove actual misconduct before the Tribunal/Labour Court.
- Examined evidence and found that subsequent exculpatory letters from the third-party fuel supplier, coupled with the employer’s own admission, negated the original allegation against the petitioner.
- The Labour Court erred by accepting an unproven initial complaint while dismissing exculpatory letters on technical grounds, leading to a perverse finding.
- Relied on Supreme Court authority (Kanhaiyalal Agrawal) to underline that for “loss of confidence” to be a ground to deny reinstatement, three conditions must be pleaded and proved: (i) employee’s position was one of trust and confidence; (ii) employee abused that trust; and (iii) reinstatement would objectively embarrass employer or damage the establishment.
- In the absence of such objective proof, mere assertion of “loss of confidence” is insufficient.
- Court distinguished between back wages for period prior and post-award, denying full back wages given lack of clear pleading on non-employment after award.
- Ultimately directed reinstatement and partial back wages, setting aside the award and clarifying procedural and substantive requirements for legal dismissal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Termination was effected without holding a domestic enquiry, violating principles of natural justice and settled law.
- No substantive investigation or proof of petitioner’s alleged involvement in misconduct; later letters from the complainant exonerated the petitioner.
- Labour Court improperly relied on unproven documents; employer itself had material showing petitioner’s innocence.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents to claim entitlement to reinstatement with full back wages.
- Loss of confidence as a ground must be objectively pleaded and proved by employer, in line with settled law.
Respondent No. 2 (Employer)
- Alleged that independent communication implicated the petitioner and subsequent internal investigation confirmed misconduct.
- Argued that, even if domestic enquiry was not held, employer’s non-profit public service nature and petitioner’s position of trust justified action taken.
- Positioned “loss of confidence” as an adequate ground for refusal of reinstatement, citing Supreme Court authority.
- Questioned entitlement to back wages, arguing that no pleading as to lack of gainful employment was made by the petitioner.
Factual Background
The petitioner, employed by Respondent No. 2 since 2009, was accused in 2021 of misuse of company name to acquire fuel for ambulance services, based on a letter from a fuel supplier. Subsequent communications from the same supplier clarified that the petitioner was not involved in any wrongdoing. Despite this, and without conducting a domestic enquiry, the employer terminated the petitioner’s services. The government referred an industrial dispute to the Labour Court, which decided in favour of the employer, leading to the present writ petition challenging this award.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment interprets Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as to the tribunal’s role when adjudicating terminations without a domestic enquiry. The Court reiterates established interpretations: Where no domestic enquiry is held, employer must adduce cogent evidence before the tribunal to justify dismissal for misconduct. The principle of “loss of confidence” is restricted by requiring objective proof, aligning with Supreme Court guidelines.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were introduced; the Court applied settled legal principles regarding burden of proof, evidence evaluation, and the doctrine of “loss of confidence”.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court law on reinstatement and “loss of confidence” affirmed and clarified.