DILIP M. BOBADE Vs. LLOYDS REGISTER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Petition, Petitioner has challenged the Award dtd. 18/9/2023 passed by the Labour Court, Mumbai answering Reference (IDA) No. 51 of 2015 in the negative. The Reference was made for adjudication of dispute relating to demand of the Petitioner for reinstatement in service with continuity and backwages.

(2.) Respondent is a provider of classification and compliance services to the marine and offshore industries by helping them to design, construct, operate, extend and decommission their assets safely and in line with environmental expectations. The Respondent-Company has its operations in various countries and also has offices in India. Petitioner was appointed as 'Secretarial Assistant' in the Respondent-Company on 1/7/1997. By letter dtd. 21/7/2006, Petitioner was promoted on the post of 'IT Support Analyst' by the Respondent-Company. On 24/4/2009, he was further promoted to the post of 'IT Delivery Analyst'. While so working, Petitioner received letter dtd. 17/2/2012 communicating to him that he would not be entitled to salary increment due to gap in his performance. Petitioner protested against the decision and pressed his demand for salary increment. It is Petitioner's case that the HR Manager however shunned his request for salary increment and forced him to tender his resignation under a threat of implication in false cases for termination. Petitioner sought annual leave from 12/3/2012 to 22/3/2012 on account of hypertension and shooting up of his blood pressure. He could not report to work on 23 and 24/3/2012 owing to his weekly off. Upon reporting for duties on 25/3/2012, Petitioner was served with Suspension cum Show-Cause Notice dtd. 26/3/2012, alleging that Respondent had observed problems pertaining to IT networks and services in India and other countries including Japan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia and the United Kingdom. It was further alleged that Petitioner remotely logged in to the LR IT system through the company-provided laptop and initiated actions damaging the IT services at the above-mentioned locations, requiring the Company to undertake repair works for over 4-5 days. The Petitioner responded to the Show-Cause Notice on the same day. He was served with termination letter dtd. 27/3/2012, leveling allegations against him of he remotely logging into LR IT system through company laptop on 16/3/2012 and by using 'protected access rights', removed critical system files and shut down the servers. Petitioner protested against the termination vide letter dtd. 5/10/2012 and sought pending dues such as gratuity, superannuation pension, provident fund, annual leaves etc. The request of the Petitioner was turned down by letter dtd. 25/10/2012. Thereafter, Petitioner served demand notice dtd. 15/2/2013 seeking reinstatement with full backwages. Respondent did not accept the request. At the instance of the Petitioner, the appropriate Government made a Reference to Labour Court, Mumbai, which was registered as Reference (IDA) No. 51 of 2015. Petitioner filed his Statement of Claim which was resisted by the Respondent by filing Written Statement. The Labour Court framed issues. The first issue was framed about status of the Petitioner as workman under Sec. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act). The second issue was with regard to validity of termination order and the third issue was with regard to the relief of reinstatement with backwages and continuity of service.

(3.) Petitioner examined himself as a witness. Respondent examined Mr. Ashish Gharat and Mr. Neerav Deherkar as its witnesses. After considering the pleadings, documentary and oral evidence, the Labour Court has answered the preliminary issue relating to status of the Petitioner as workman in the negative. In that view of the matter, the Labour Court has not conducted enquiry into the second and third issues. The Reference is accordingly answered in the negative by judgment and Award dtd. 18/9/2023.