Non-payment of dues to employee for seeking another job against principles of natural justice: Calcutta HC

Kolkata: 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 ground by a company was against the principles of natural justice.

Setting aside the order and punishment of the disciplinary authority of the company, which claims to be the sole manufacturer of a particular type of insulator film in India, Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) directed it to pay his gratuity dues of Rs 1.37 lakh along with simple interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum.

"Looking for another job, even if with a rival company (though, not proved in this case) 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," Justice Dutt observed in the judgment passed on Thursday.

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 was 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.

Dismissing the company's petition, the high court held that the order of the Appellate Authority is well-reasoned and within jurisdiction to the extent of the provisions of the payment of gratuity and is clearly in accordance with law.

The court noted that the petitioner company could neither produce any witness nor show any call records to substantiate their charge that the respondent was in touch with a rival company.

The witnesses produced only stated that they saw the private respondent talk to some personnel of the rival company, Justice Dutt noted.

Holding Samanta guilty of the charges against him, the enquiry officer of the company recommended his termination, while the said employee had also claimed to have tendered his resignation.

It was alleged that Samanta was in regular touch with the officials of a rival company who were trying to set up a similar unit to manufacture the same product, and that he was passing confidential information to them relating to the process, receipt and technology for the purpose.

The petitioner had claimed that as Samanta was terminated from service due to misconduct which amounted to moral turpitude and therefore due to loss sustained by the petitioner, his gratuity was forfeited.

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.