The Calcutta High Court has held that an employee seeking another job, even with a rival company offering better perks and facilities, is exercising a basic right and such conduct does not amount to moral turpitude. Accordingly, the Court ruled that withholding the employee’s dues on this ground violated the principles of natural justice.
The case arose after the company’s Controlling Authority and Appellate Authority directed payment of gratuity dues to Samanta, a technician who had joined the company in 2012 and resigned following the disciplinary proceedings. The company’s petition challenging these orders was dismissed by the High Court.
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 noted that the company could not demonstrate that Samanta caused any damage, loss, or destruction of its property through riotous or immoral conduct. “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. No reasoning nor the principles of natural justice was followed,” the judgment stated.
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. Based on the enquiry officer’s report, he was recommended for termination and was subsequently terminated 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.
Picture Source : https://imageio.forbes.com/specials-images/imageserve/60818db936c3e94e8b1c1409/Nervousness-while-waiting-for-job-interview-/960x0.jpg?height=473&width=711&fit=bounds
