Holding that looking for another job, even if with a rival company with better perks and facilities, is a basic right and does not constitute moral turpitude, the Calcutta High Court has held that non-payment of an employee’s dues on such grounds by a company was against the principles of natural justice.
The matter came before Justice Shampa Dutt, who set aside the disciplinary authority’s order of termination and directed the company, which claims to be the sole manufacturer of a particular insulator film in India, to pay the employee, Sudip Samanta, gratuity dues of ₹1.37 lakh along with simple interest at 8% per annum.
Justice Shampa Dutt Observed, “Looking for another job, even if with a rival company with better perks and facilities is a basic right and does not constitute moral turpitude as it is not contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals.”
The court held that the petitioner company could not prove that any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer was due to any act of the respondent which was riotous, disorderly or involved moral turpitude.
“The conduct of the enquiry authority is clearly an abuse of power and totally against the principles of natural justice, there being no independent, specific findings of the disciplinary authority against the petitioner,” Justice Dutt said, observing, “No reasoning nor the principles of natural justice were followed.”
The petition before the high court was moved against orders passed by the Controlling Authority and the Appellate Authority, which had directed payment of the gratuity dues to Sudip Samanta, who worked as a technician in the company.
The enquiry had alleged that Samanta was in regular contact with officials of a rival company attempting to set up a similar manufacturing unit, and that he shared confidential information regarding processes, receipts, and technology. On the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, the technician, who had joined the company in 2012, was terminated from service on October 11, 2022.
However, the Court noted that the company failed to produce witnesses or call records substantiating the charges. Witnesses could only testify that Samanta had spoken with personnel from the rival company, which was insufficient to prove moral turpitude. Holding that the disciplinary proceedings were arbitrary and without proper reasoning, the Court upheld the Appellate Authority’s order directing payment of gratuity.
The company’s adherence to procedural norms and the validity of the grounds for termination, as per the enquiry report, will be crucial in determining the legitimacy of the termination.
