Employer's Right To Punish Errant Employee Can't Be Circumscribed By Blanket Order: Bombay High Court Allows Indian Express' Plea

The Bombay High Court recently set aside interim relief granted to twelve Indian Express employees against termination and transfers observing that interim relief cannot be granted merely because the employees have filed an Unfair Labour Practices complaint.

Justice Sandeep V Marne allowed a writ petition by Indian Express against a September 2022 order by which the Industrial Court, Thane prevented termination of the respondents and imposed restrictions on transfers despite prima facie rejecting the employees' allegations.

“The manner in which the Industrial Court has exercised its jurisdiction is disquieting…The blanket order of Industrial Court seeks to circumscribe the right of the employer to punish an errant employee or from effecting transfers, that too in absence of any eminent threat or prima facie case being made out. The argument of non-cause of prejudice to employer cannot be accepted as the Order may provide license to employees to misbehave or indulge in misconduct”, the court observed.

The court pointed out the absence of formal notices or charges against the employees, rendering their claim for interim protection baseless.

The respondent employees work at the Indian Express press in Navi Mumbai. In 2022, they filed an unfair labour practice complaint against the company under various sections of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971.

The complainants, former office bearers of the Indian Express Newspapers' (Mumbai) Employees Union, alleged that the company exerted control over the union's decisions through Sajid Eqbal Sheikh, a retired company officer. They claimed coercive tactics preventing employee organization, but the Industrial Court, noting the existing union's presence and the fact that the union is not a party to the compliant, found no prima facie case of unfair labour practices inhibiting organization.

Additionally, the complainants asserted interference in the union's workings. The Industrial Court questioned this as they did not contest the General Manager's role in union elections. The court highlighted Sheikh's advisory position since 2008, with no previous objections from the complainants when they held office in the union.

The Industrial Court opined the complaint arose because the complainants could not become office bearers in the new union. It also noted that the complainants did not challenge the election process itself.

The complainants alleged that the transfers of certain employees were a colorable exercise of the employer's right. The Industrial Court observed that the complainants did not provide any records showing that the affected employees challenged the transfer orders or that they were illegal. The court found no evidence supporting the complainants' apprehensions of harassment or victimization by the company.

The complainants contended that the company favoured one employee group, aimed to dominate another, and sought to alter service conditions. However, the Industrial Court noted a lack of evidence supporting the claim of changes in service conditions.

Thus, the High Court noted, despite prima facie rejecting several allegations, the Industrial Court restrained Indian Express from terminating the services of the respondents without following due process of law and directed it to give the respondents seven days' time before giving effect to any transfer order to enable them to challenge it.

“merely because Respondents have initiated litigation by filing the compliant, the Industrial Court thought it prudent that they must be granted protection from termination and transfer. This would mean that every employee who files a compliant under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 must be granted interim relief of protection from termination and transfer”, the court remarked.

The court asserted that the employer has an inherent right to take disciplinary actions against employees for misconduct and to transfer them as per the terms and conditions of employment. While disciplinary actions and transfers can be legally challenged, the employer cannot be restrained from exercising these inherent rights, said the court.

The court rejected the argument that the order was merely interim and innocuous and doesn't cause prejudice to the employer. The court concluded that the respondents failed to establish a case for interim protection and set aside the Industrial Court's order, deeming it indefensible.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 10814 of 2023

Case Title – The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Dinesh Rane and Ors.