The dismissal of an underperformer and his non-cooperative attitude without enquiry is illegal

VMWARE Software India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Ashish Kumar Nath, 2022 LLR 866 (Karn. HC)

A petition was filed by the petitioner (Management) seeking quashing of the award set by IIIrd Additional Labour Court, Bengaluru. The Labour Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the respondent (Workman) with full wages and continuity of service. The petitioner hired the Respondent, followed by an induction that continued for 3 weeks. After the induction in the USA, the respondent returned and was given 4 weeks of training. After the probationary period, his post was confirmed in Bengaluru. The Respondent was asked to complete a Performance Improvement Programme (PIP) shortly after the job confirmation. The Respondent declined the PIP, and shortly after that, the employee was terminated for not undergoing PIP. The matter escalated, and both parties filed complaints against each other, raising offences of criminal intimidation and violence. The workman raised a dispute against the termination by the Respondent, to which the award set was in favor of the workman, and the management was directed to reinstate the Respondent with full wages and continuity of services. Hence, a writ petition was filed by the Petitioner challenging the award and direction.

The Petitioner argued that after sufficient training, the Respondent was underperforming, non-cooperative, belligerent and violent. The impugned order was passed without analyzing the evidence or providing sufficient reasons. There was a clear loss of confidence between the parties, and the direction of reinstatement is arbitrary by the Labour Court. The Respondent contended that the Management itself issued certificates that showed the successful completion of work by the Respondent, and the termination was contrary to the principles of natural justice. Further, he contented there was no loss of confidence since the Respondent was forced for PIP, and when the Respondent did not yield, the management illegally terminated the Respondent.

The court had a twofold decision on two issues

• Whether the Respondent is illegally terminated – It was held that the Respondent was terminated unlawfully without giving the opportunity of hearing and conducting a domestic enquiry. The said order was violative of principles of natural justice and industrial jurisprudence.
• Is there a loss of confidence, and is total reinstatement fair? – It was held that the conduct and behavior of the workman prior to and post-termination was threatening and bad towards the management, which caused the irretrievable break of trust. Therefore, reinstatement of the workman is not sustainable, and the Respondent is only eligible for compensation and not the reinstatement, full wages and continuity of service. A compensation of 10 lakhs was decided in favor of the Respondent.