The termination without a domestic enquiry was violative of natural justice and industrial jurisprudence. The lack of mutual confidence should be objective, and the court may grant compensation as appropriate relief.

JUDGMENT

K.S. Mudagal, J. - The above petition is filed by the Management seeking quashing of award annexure-a dated 26.02.2021 in Reference No.46/2018 passed by the III-additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. By the impugned award the Labour Court set aside the order of the petitioner terminating the respondent from service, directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent with full back wages and continuity of service.

2. For the purpose of convenience the petitioner and respondent will be referred to henceforth as Management and Workman respectively.

3. The Management is a company being part of VM Ware group of companies having its head quarters at California United States of america. Management is engaged in the business of providing software services. On 04.02.2015 the Management appointed the workman as NSX Senior quality engineering developer in its Bengaluru office on annual pay package of Rs,24,75,000/- on probation of six months. His primary work was that of network testing/testing engineer. admittedly, the workman represented to the Management before his recruitment that he has 11 years' work experience in the field.

4. On his induction in the service the Management provided him 3 weeks training in July-august 2015 in U.S.a. after his return from U.S.a he was given 4 weeks training during September-October 2015.Thereafter he was posted to work in Bengaluru. One Dharsak Patel was his mentor and his immediate higher officer.

5. In November 2015 he was paid bonus. Under the letter dated 09.12.2015 on completion of the probation his service was confirmed. The management directed the workman to undergo Performance Improvement Program (for short 'PIP') as per annexure-E2 claiming that his performance is not satisfactory. The workman declined the same. The workman claimed that PIP is a strategy to terminate his services.

6. Some difference arose between the parties on the issue of undergoing the PIP. Ultimately, the Management under annexure-J notice dated 28.12.2015 terminated the services of the workman on the ground that he declined to undergo PIP. The Management also offered him one month's pay etc.,

7. Thereafter the differences between the parties were aggravated. On 05.01.2016 the Management filed complaint before J.P Nagar police against the workman alleging that the workman employed violence against the Management's staff. On 13.06.2016 the workman also filed complaint before the very same police against the H.R managers of Management alleging that they criminally intimidated him at their office. In that regard First Information Report in Crime No.272/2016 as per annexure-K8 was registered. The management filed Crl.P.No.5594/2016 for quashing that First Information Report. This Court vide order annexure-M quashed the said First Information Report.

8. The workman raised dispute against his termination which was registered in Reference No.46/2018 before the Labour Court Bengaluru. The Management contested the said Reference and the parties adduced evidence. The Labour Court by the impugned award set aside the order of termination and directed for reinstatement and back wages etc., as aforesaid.

Submissions of Sri. Dhyan Chinnappa, learned Senior Counsel for advocate on record for the petitioner

9. There was sufficient material to show that despite sufficient training the workman was underperforming, non-cooperative, belligerent and violent. That was evident by his admitted E-Mails. The impugned award was passed without analyzing the evidence and assigning reasons on the same. There was clear evidence of loss of confidence between the parties. Under such circumstances the Labour Court committed grave error in ordering for reinstatement. The impugned award suffers perversity and contrary to the judicial precedents.

10. In support of his submissions, he relies upon the following judgments:

1. National Gandhi Museum v. Sudhir Sharma 2021 LLR 1040

2. The Divisional Controller, KSRTC vs. M.G.Vittal Rao (2012) 1 SCC 442

3. air-India Corp