HOECHST MARION ROUSSEL LTD Vs. RHONA NORENHA MS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a classic case which demonstrates how sometimes the employees lose their good jobs by their irrational and whimsical behaviour during the course of their employment.

(2.) THE facts of the case are very simple. The Respondent-employee was employed by the Petitioner-employer as a Confidential Secretary with effect from January 1, 1978. The employer had also notified her name as Confidential Secretary under the provisions of the Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. By an order dated June 16, 1977 the Respondent-employee was appointed as a Confidential Secretary in the Petitioner's establishment. By an order dated January 2, 1978 her services were confirmed. Soon after the services came to be confirmed she requested the Petitioner-employer to transfer her from Worli establishment to Thane factory as it was convenient to her. It appears that for their internal administrative exigencies of work and reasons her request for transfer to Thane factory was not accepted. However, she was assured that as and when vacancy arises she would be considered as a candidate for transfer to the Thane factory. By a letter dated July 24, 1978 she protested to the Management about the work which was to be given to her as the work which was given to her should not have been assigned to her. From the contents of the said memo it appears that some typing work was to be done by her, but she protested on the ground that that was not her work.

(3.) BY a reply dated July 28, 1978 the management put it on record that she should not go on writing such memos for such trivial matters and that such things could be resolved across the table by discussion with her seniors. It was also clarified that in the special circumstances the work assignment will be given to her as per the exigencies of the work and that she would be called upon to type confidential matters. The management therefore advised her not to engage in unnecessary and uncalled for correspondence regarding the matters which could be sorted out through personal discussions to maintain a congenial atmosphere within the department. I have gone through the said letter and I do not find anything which the management has written as "bitter comments" but the Respondent employee once again gave her reply to the said reply from the management and indulged into further dialogue and she had further complained about the so called "bitter comments" in the said letter.