NIRANJAN SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition, has prayed for modification of the judgement and award dated 31.12.2016 in I.D. Case No.32 of 2015 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar, where the Opposite Party No.2 has been directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service and pay 50% of his back wages. The modification sought for is only to the extent of the back wages. The petitioner seeks 100% back wages and a suitable direction to that effect.

(2.) The factual conspectus of the present petition hovers around the order of termination of the petitioner w.e.f. 18.02.2014 which is alleged to have been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind and thereby illegal and the domestic enquiry, neither fair nor proper. The petitioner was posted as the District Manager of Maxxim Division by the management of M/s. Ranbaxi Laboratories Ltd. (hereinafter 1st party management no.1 ). Moreover, he is also a bonafide member of Odisha Sales Executives Association which has been affiliated to All India Federation of Sales Executive Associations, both of which are registered Trade Unions. While attending the meeting dated 27.07.2012 in Mumbai relating to review of sales, the petitioner was asked to sign on the letter consisting the minutes of the meeting. The petitioner refused to sign on the same after realising that the contents were not in consonance with the discussion in the meeting. On 29.05.2013, the petitioner received a show cause notice from the Zonal Manager, HR of the 1st party management no.1. The petitioner has emphasised that during this period, he had received letters of commendation from his superiors in the month of August, September, October 2012 and June 2013. In addition to that he was invited for promotion to the next level vide e-mail dated 15.02.2013.

(3.) The show cause reply submitted by the petitioner was not accepted by the 1st party management no.1 and charge was framed against him and he was put under suspension vide charge sheet dated 19.07.2013. The petitioner in his reply to 1st party management no.1 informed that the allegations made in the charge sheet are not specific but vague and general in nature. An advocate was engaged to conduct domestic enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner in his submission prayed before the 1st party management no.1 to be allowed to be represented by anyone of the office bearer of his Trade Union against the domestic enquiry. However, his plea was ignored by the 1st party management no.1. The petitioner has alleged that the domestic enquiry was conducted on 03.08.2013 and 31.08.2013 violating the principles of natural justice and was only an eyewash. The list of witnesses and documents relied on by the 1st party management no.1 during the domestic enquiry were not provided to the petitioner. Further, no minutes of enquiry was supplied to him. Thereafter the termination letter dated 18.02.2014 was issued to the petitioner.