ORDER

The workman who was working in the capacity of “Senior Executive-Operations” was terminated from the services of the petitioner company by letter of termination with effect from 20.06.2017.

2. Dispute was raised by the workman seeking reinstatement with full backwages, after receiving his full and final settlement of his claim towards termination. 3. Counter statement was filed by the corporation, inter alia, denying all the averments made in the claim statement. The Labour Court by the impugned award allowed the claim statement directing the petitioner- company to reinstate the workman into service. The aggrieved company is before this Court.

4. Heard Sri Prashanth B.K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-company and Sri N.R. Naik, learned counsel for the respondent-workman and perused the material on record.

5. The undisputed fact is that, the workman was working as a “Senior Executive-Operations” by offer of appointment letter dated 26.03.2010. The termination letter was issued to the workman stating the following grounds:

i. That the petitioner-company has lost its key customer Intel India where the workman was deputed to serve on-site.

ii. In place of laying off the employees working directly and exclusively for the customer, the company decided to observe the workman in the Bangalore Branch.

iii. That the company is unlikely to acquire such customers in future and believing that the Bangalore Branch is getting over staffed due to the decision of accommodating such employees, evaluating the situation the petitioner-company took the decision of terminating the workman.

6. The workman accepted termination notice by confirming that he has handed over the documents/files/insurance card, which were in his possession to the designated person and also sought for release of the amounts towards his full and final payment. The reply of the workman states that he has withdrawn the complaint made by him against the branch manager. Dispute was raised by the workman in the year 2018 stating that, due to the internal hatred towards the workman, the Branch Manager has influenced to terminate the workman wrongfully, that the company has illegally terminated the workman, who was working for the company for nearly seven and a half years and at the age of 47, he would be unable to get job elsewhere and the termination letter issued by the company was accepted on protest and he has suffered mental agony due to the action on part of the company without holding enquiry.

7. The Labour Court arrived at an opinion that the company terminated the workman without proper enquiry and without following the provision of ID Act and also by violating principles of natural justice. The counter statement by the company would indicate that the termination was not simpliciter, but due to the act on the part of the workman and the company unable to manage the unlawful acts of the workman though he was given adequate chance to mend his ways and in order to preserve peace and harmony in the functioning of the company, the order of termination was issued.

8. The fact remains that, workman is a permanent employee, he has worked in the company for 7 to 8 years. The order of termination cannot be termed as an order simpliciter and the termination could not have been passed without holding due enquiry and without affording an opportunity to the workman. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that during the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has indulged in activities by making defamatory comments/statements against the petitioner-company and its officers in social media platforms and elsewhere and the petitioner-company had filed suit seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the workman from posting defamatory statements against the petitioner and its officers in O.S. No.7268/2019 and on contest, the suit has been decreed by imposing the damages of Rs.5,00,000/- to be paid to the petitioner-

company.

9. The said contention of the