TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LIMITED, CHENNAI Vs. J. CROSSLEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is directed against the order passed by the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishments Act, 1947, setting aside the order of termination.

(2.) The management is the petitioner. The first respondent was appointed by management on 16.12.1994 as Assistant System Analyst. Thereafter, his appointment was confirmed and he was deputed to Australia on 17.10.1995. Later, his services was extended for more than three years. He was promoted as Project Leader, Information Technology Analyst till June, 1999. On 10.06.1999, he came back India and worked as a project leader till 01.02.2001 at Sholinganallur and Tidel Park Offices. Thereafter, he was then deputed for a project to be executed in the United States for the petitioner's client called 'Qwest'. The post required high mental skills and constant interaction with the client. The project leader is supposed to supervise the work of the team members and give necessary guidance. However, the first respondent was not attending to the work allotted to him and his behaviour was also not proper. His performance was unsatisfactory and he became quarrel some. In the course of employment, all the employees are supposed to submit a weekly report about their performance of work and progress of the project. The first respondent submitted a weekly status report to the petitioner's client that he was doing only the work of cleaning the mail box, sending e-mails and browsing websites. This had caused serious embarrassment to the petitioner and when an explanation was sought, the first respondent stated that he had lots of weaknesses and he would like to go back to India. Then he was brought back to India and assigned work at Tidel Park, Chennai. He did not attend the work assigned to him and lot of complaints were received that he picked up quarrel with the staff and shows gross disrespect to his superiors. The first respondent's father was also appraised the threats and abuses hurled by him. On several instances, the first respondent's misbehaviour were brought to the petitioner's notice by the staff. As the atmosphere in Tidel Park had been vitiated by his misbehaviour, he was transferred to Ambattur Office. Even after the relocation, his behaviour did not improve. He continued to threaten his colleagues in person and through e-mail. He used to threaten the staff with dire consequences and in one of his letters he called himself a terrorist.

(3.) The first respondent on his own went on medical leave from 01.06.2001 to 30.06.2001 to check-up his medical condition. Considering his medical condition, he was referred to in house doctor. On 08.08.2001, the consultant physician of the petitioner's medical facility declared that Neuropsychological evaluation of the first respondent showed features of anxiety, depression and a schizoform illness requiring psychiatric treatment under close psychiatric supervision. The physician also declared that the first respondent was not in fit frame of mind to continue in his job and he was unfit to work. Again, the first respondent availed medical leave from 19.08.2001 to 09.09.2001 and a day's leave on 18.09.2001. On his return, he produced a medical certificate from Christian Medical College stating that he was being treated for emotional disturbance at that centre and he was advised to join duty a month later. Again, on 28.09.2001, the first respondent wrote to the petitioner stating that he regretted for the letters which had been purportedly written by him due to emotional disturbance. He submitted another certificate from the Christian Medical College dated 01.10.2001 stating that he was treated for emotional disturbance and he was fit to join duty.