Dear well-wishers,
I was dismissed by my company for a computer software error that was escalated as a loss caused to the company because the tax amount was left out of the monthly returns filed for June 2017. I was forced to resign, and I tendered it and withdrew it the next day. The company, left with no alternative, placed me under illegal suspension and then ordered a domestic enquiry based on the SCN issued. The enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry as per the principles of natural justice but hurriedly closed it, holding me responsible for the loss. In fact, the company should have preferred a claim before the tax department for the amount missed out in the returns due to a software error but chose to terminate me after the enquiry officer submitted a perverse report. Out of the four acts of misconduct (none of them fall in the list of misconduct as listed out by the Hon'ble SC), not even one act of misconduct was proved. Thereafter, the company issued a second SCN, and I gave the same explanation and was dismissed. I took it forward by filing a complaint at the jurisdictional labour office, who summoned a conciliatory meeting for three months and finally proposed to the company to either reinstate or pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The company did not agree to either, and based on the endorsement, I filed an ID in the labour court. The party never appeared in court nor filed a counter statement for more than 120 days. When the court moved the matter to party evidence, the party filed IAs as an objection. The IAs were dismissed one after the other, and now the party has filed an IA claiming that I am only a manager and not a workman as I am drawing a gross salary of 1.05 lacs and also given a PoA to represent before the tax department. Also, now the party claims that I was in charge of their entire manufacturing unit, including filing tax declarations. At this advanced stage, the party now plans to get this case dismissed at the ID court level so that their illegal dismissal does not come on record. I have got the party's advocates out of court for not following Sec. 36(4).
Could anyone please advise the next stage of action from my end? I was only doing the work of a clerk like entering tax data in software, filing these tax documents in files in chronological order as per data entry, generating month-end reports, and filing monthly reports. All this was as directed by my higher-ups and under their close supervision.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1I was dismissed by my company for a computer software error that was escalated as a loss caused to the company because the tax amount was left out of the monthly returns filed for June 2017. I was forced to resign, and I tendered it and withdrew it the next day. The company, left with no alternative, placed me under illegal suspension and then ordered a domestic enquiry based on the SCN issued. The enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry as per the principles of natural justice but hurriedly closed it, holding me responsible for the loss. In fact, the company should have preferred a claim before the tax department for the amount missed out in the returns due to a software error but chose to terminate me after the enquiry officer submitted a perverse report. Out of the four acts of misconduct (none of them fall in the list of misconduct as listed out by the Hon'ble SC), not even one act of misconduct was proved. Thereafter, the company issued a second SCN, and I gave the same explanation and was dismissed. I took it forward by filing a complaint at the jurisdictional labour office, who summoned a conciliatory meeting for three months and finally proposed to the company to either reinstate or pay compensation in lieu of reinstatement. The company did not agree to either, and based on the endorsement, I filed an ID in the labour court. The party never appeared in court nor filed a counter statement for more than 120 days. When the court moved the matter to party evidence, the party filed IAs as an objection. The IAs were dismissed one after the other, and now the party has filed an IA claiming that I am only a manager and not a workman as I am drawing a gross salary of 1.05 lacs and also given a PoA to represent before the tax department. Also, now the party claims that I was in charge of their entire manufacturing unit, including filing tax declarations. At this advanced stage, the party now plans to get this case dismissed at the ID court level so that their illegal dismissal does not come on record. I have got the party's advocates out of court for not following Sec. 36(4).
Could anyone please advise the next stage of action from my end? I was only doing the work of a clerk like entering tax data in software, filing these tax documents in files in chronological order as per data entry, generating month-end reports, and filing monthly reports. All this was as directed by my higher-ups and under their close supervision.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Natraj,
The question of whether a dismissed employee was a 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 to seek relief under the same is also an industrial dispute to be adjudicated by the Labor Court constituted under the Act. It's the employer's legal right to raise such a question of law that has to be decided based on facts like the nature of predominant aspects of duties attached to the job of the employee, powers to control and supervise the subordinates under him, entering into contracts with the world at large on behalf of the employer, and the like. It's not the salary or the designation that is the determinant.
Therefore, don't be disheartened. Try to prove the fact that basically and predominantly you were only a workman under the ID Act with the active assistance of your advocate. Your advocate has to effectively cross-examine the Management witnesses in this regard and advance arguments on your side citing case laws which are abundant on the internet.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The question of whether a dismissed employee was a 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the ID Act, 1947 to seek relief under the same is also an industrial dispute to be adjudicated by the Labor Court constituted under the Act. It's the employer's legal right to raise such a question of law that has to be decided based on facts like the nature of predominant aspects of duties attached to the job of the employee, powers to control and supervise the subordinates under him, entering into contracts with the world at large on behalf of the employer, and the like. It's not the salary or the designation that is the determinant.
Therefore, don't be disheartened. Try to prove the fact that basically and predominantly you were only a workman under the ID Act with the active assistance of your advocate. Your advocate has to effectively cross-examine the Management witnesses in this regard and advance arguments on your side citing case laws which are abundant on the internet.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.