Disciplinary Proceedings Against Employee For Messages In Company's WhatsApp Group Expressing Safety Concerns Violates Right To Free Speech: Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has declared that an employee's messages in a private WhatsApp group regarding the safety of the company do not give rise to the charge of harming the reputation of the company. Justice Satish Ninan said that a charge to such effect infringes on the employee's right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.The petitioner is an employee...
The Kerala High Court has declared that an employee's messages in a private WhatsApp group regarding the safety of the company do not give rise to the charge of harming the reputation of the company. Justice Satish Ninan said that a charge to such effect infringes on the employee's right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
The petitioner is an employee of Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT). It was submitted that he sent messages to a private WhatsApp group of the technicians of the company regarding the safety concerns related to ammonia handling.
It was stated that the petitioner in a company enquiry was charged with causing harm to the Company's reputation by spreading false information and libellous statements. The charge said that these messages were of such a nature as to create an impression that the company has an unsafe environment and can instigate the workers to fight against the company.
The Court declared that a mere expression of concern for safety cannot attract such a charge. His right to freedom of speech is infringed and the Court declared that the charge cannot stand.
The petitioner pleaded that there was no formal inquiry before taking a disciplinary action against him. He was given the punishment of 'WARNING'. Petitioner urged that this punishment, though in the lowest category, would reflect in his service book and would affect his future career.
The Court said that the petitioner admitting to sending these chats does not mean he admitted that those posts were objectionable. The fact that he tendered an apology does not mean that he admitted to the charge. None of this can be considered as an admission of the charge. Therefore, there was no waiver of the necessity of an inquiry, the Court held.
The petitioner was also charged with unauthorized entry into the ammonia handling section of a division. The Court noted that the petitioner had already unambiguously admitted to that charge and observed that such an entry would attract contravention of safety rules.
The Court further held that the company need not mandatorily have a hearing on the punishment and noted that since the petitioner is guilty of one charge and the punishment imposed is of the lowest category, there is no need to interfere with the same.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Varun C. Vijay, Thulasi K. Raj, Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde
Counsel for Respondents: M. Gopalakrishna Nambiar, K. John Mathai, Jonson Manavalan, Kuryan Thomas, Paulose C. Abraham, Raja Kannan
Case Number: WP (C) 13438/ 2021
Case Title: Sujith T. V. v Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. And Others
Case Citation; 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 370