Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Milind N. Jadhav, J.
Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Nirajkumar Prabhakarrao Kadu - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 13192 of 2023
Decided On : 12-12-2023
Facebook Posts - Employment Dispute - Model Standing Orders 24(d), 24(k), 24(l) - The court discussed the legality and propriety of the order passed by the 1st Labour Court, Pune on the preliminary issues in Reference (IDA) No. 106 of 2019. The court analyzed the two Facebook posts made by the respondent workman, the comments received, and the atmosphere at the company during the wage settlement negotiations. The court concluded that the act of the respondent workman fell within the provisions of clauses 24(d), 24(k), and 24(l) of the Model Standing Orders, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were upheld as proper. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent workman was terminated for posting defamatory Facebook posts intended to incite and instigate workmen during wage settlement negotiations. The 1st Labour Court, Pune concluded that the charge-sheet and the Enquiry conducted were illegal and not proper, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent workman's Facebook posts incited hatred and passion against the management, and the comments received in response to the posts indicated a potential for disorderly acts. The court held that the act of the respondent workman fell within the provisions of the Model Standing Orders, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were upheld as proper.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality and propriety of the order passed by the 1st Labour Court, Pune on the preliminary issues in Reference (IDA) No. 106 of 2019, fairness of the enquiry, and findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the two Facebook posts, the comments received, the atmosphere at the company during the wage settlement negotiations, and the provisions of the Model Standing Orders. The court concluded that the act of the respondent workman fell within the provisions of the Model Standing Orders, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were upheld as proper.
Final Decision: The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The 1st Labour Court, Pune was directed to complete hearing in Reference (IDA) No. 106 of 2019 on the remaining three issues within a period of 8 months from the date of the judgment.
JUDGMENT:
1. This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner – Company under the provisions of Article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India taking exception to the order dated 31.05.2023 passed on preliminary issues in Reference (IDA) No.106 of 2019 by the 1st Labour Court, Pune. Reference (IDA) No.106 of 2019 is pending adjudication on the remaining issues.
2. By consent of parties, Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing.
3. The facts necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition are outlined here under:-
3.1. Respondent - Workman was appointed to work in the assembly section by Petitioner – Company in the year 2003 and his services were terminated on 02.05.2018.
3.2. Respondent - Workman was one of the office bearers of the recognized Union in the Petitioner – Company. In 2017, there was a dispute over wage settlement and negotiations were not concluded and the atmosphere in the company became tensed. At that time, the office bearers of the recognized Union resorted to various agitations including hunger strike, etc. to pressurize the Petitioner – Company. Ultimately a settlement was arrived at between the parties regarding revision of wages and other service conditions after almost 20 months.
3.3. During the interregnum on 20.02.2017, the Respondent - Workman posted two posts on his Facebook account which according to the Petitioner – Company were defamatory, were intended to tarnish the image and reputation of the Petitioner – Company and its management in the eyes of the public at large and were made with an intention to instigate and incite the workmen during the pendency of the wage settlement. According to Petitioner – Company, several likes and comments were received in response to the said Facebook posts which had by that time become viral. One such comment posted in response to the first Facebook post read that, “the workmen should adopt a militant approach with weapons and assault the officials of the Company/Management and only then the settlement would be concluded”. It is stated that all Facebook posts and comments thereof were in Marathi language.
3.4. A charge-sheet dated 25.02.2017 was issued to the Respondent – Workman for posting the two Facebook posts alleging act of ‘misconduct’ against him under clauses 24(d), 24(k) and 24(l) the Model Standing Orders.
3.5. Respondent – workman participated in the domestic enquiry and was represented by Advocate Deepak Pillai as his defence representative and also adduced evidence of himself and one another workman in his support. The Enquiry Officer considered the evidence and submitted his Report dated 26.04.2018 holding the Respondent - workman guilty of misconduct by concluding that the misconduct alleged was proved to his satisfaction. The Enquiry Report was offered to the Respondent – workman for his comments. His say was considered and held to be not satisfactory resultantly leading to termination of his services by issuing dismissal order dated 02.05.2018.
3.6. Respondent – workman raised an industrial dispute to challenge his termination and dismissal which was referred to the 1st Labour Court, Pune as Reference (IDA) No. 106 of 2019. The 1 st Labour Court, Pune framed five (5) issues for adjudication of the Reference, out of which Issue No.1 regarding fairness of enquiry and Issue No.2 regarding findings of the Enquiry Officer were decided to be framed as preliminary issues.
3.7. The Labour Court after hearing the parties to the dispute on the two preliminary issues, by order dated 31.05.2023 concluded that the charge-sheet issued to the Respondent – workman and the Enquiry conducted was illegal and not proper and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were perverse.
3.8. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31.05.2023 passed by the 1st Labour Court on the aforementioned two preliminary issues, the Petitioner - Company challenged the same in the present Writ Petition.
4. Mr. Bapat, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner - Company would submit that, it
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the act of the respondent workman fell within the provisions of the Model Standing Orders, and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were upheld....
Factual findings of the Labour Court cannot be dislodged unless there is a jurisdictional error, violation of principles of natural justice, or error apparent on the face of the record.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the findings of the Enquiry Officer must be logical and not perverse, and the departmental enquiry must be conducted in a fair and proper mann....
An employee who posts derogatory or obscene remarks about their employer or management on social media breaches their duty of fidelity, constituting a valid ground for dismissal, as such actions dama....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
