‘Incompatibility cannot be ground for termination of employee’

Justice S M Subramaniam, before whom the plea moved by the company challenging the order of the appellate authority under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act and have quashed the order stating that they are willing to pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement, said, “Misconduct, undoubtedly, is a stigma against an employee and in the event of attaching any such stigma, then a proper enquiry is mandatory and, in the event of not conducting such an enquiry, the entire actions are in violation of the principles of natural justice.”

Also noting that the said manager’s performance in the company was not disputed and she was awarded with performance bonus, appraisal certificates and other incentive increments for her better performances, Justice Subramaniam said, “Regarding the incompatibility or otherwise or behaviour of the employees, it may depend upon the likes and dislikes of the person concerned. However, mere statement in this regard is insufficient to terminate an employee.”

“However, such complaints if at all have got some substance, then acharge sheet must be issued and a domestic enquiry must be conducted, and the matter would have to be promptly dealt with the procedures contemplated. Contrarily, the employer, at their whims and fancies, cannot terminate an employee in such a manner and the management always should not think that they cannot act as per their own way without following the rule of law,” Justice Subramaniam added.

Also, noting that certain behavioural attitude of an employee on some occasion cannot be construed as a grave misconduct and that there is a possibility of further discussion or correcting such behaviour by way of dialogue, the judge in his order held, “If the employer is permitted to terminate an employee on these grounds without even conducting an enquiry, this court is of the opinion that the entire purpose to protect the services of the employee is defeated.”

Further setting aside the company’s plea seeking to remand the case back to the labour court, the judge in his order held, “In the event of remanding the matter back, it may take long years for re-adjudication and this apart, the amended provision may not have much application, as far as the present facts and circumstances are concerned.”