Bringing Police To Workplace Over 'Routine Transfer', Complaining To External Authorities Amount To Misconduct: Bombay High Court

An employee after facing a 'routine' transfer, if complaints to the Police and brings policemen in the office premises to harass the employer is a misconduct, held the Bombay High Court recently.Further, the act of an employee making serious allegations about the employer to various authorities, both related and unrelated, on being transferred, too would amount to a misconduct, it added.Single-judge Justice Sandeep Marne in his June 18 order, passed an order in favour of the Abhyudaya Co-operative Bank Ltd. which questioned the September 1, 2023 order of a Labour Court in Thane. The said court had passed an order holding that the Bank's enquiry against its employee Smita Patil was fair and proper, however, the findings of the enquiry were 'perverse.'Justice Marne noted that Patil was initially posted in Pune Branch but was later transferred to Mumbai branch on June 8, 2011 and further by an order was passed on May 17, 2012, she was transferred to Vashi (in Navi Mumbai) branch. She was asked to report to the Vashi branch on May 18, 2012. She however, on being relieved from the Mumbai branch, brought two policemen into the Mumbai office and alleged that she was being harassed by passing arbitrary transfer orders. The police then questioned the HR Manager about the transfer and then left from the bank premises. "When a bank official is interrogated by the police, the officer is bound to feel intimidated. The very act of Patil approaching the police and complaining about her transfer to Vashi Branch constitutes misconduct. If she was aggrieved by her transfer to Vashi Branch, she ought to have adopted the known channels or remedies by making representations to Bank officials. She should not have approached police complaining about her transfer. In the present case, she did not stop at approaching police, but she brought two policemen to the Branch alleging that she was being harassed. The policemen were brought for interrogating the bank officer about the exact reason for her transfer. Such a conduct on her part undoubtedly constitutes misconduct," Justice Marne held. The court observed that the Labour Court completely misread this charge against Patil, to mean as if the charge was with regard to failure to obey the transfer order.The bench refused to accept the finding of the Labour Court that Patil reported to the Vashi branch as mandated in her transfer order, on May 18 itself. "Merely because she reported to duty at Vashi Branch on May 18 at 7.45 AM, it did not mean that she did not commit the misconduct of bringing policemen to branch's office and subjecting the manager to interrogation. The charge-sheet never levelled the allegation of refusal to obey transfer order. Therefore, findings recorded by the Labour Court in the judgment are actually perverse," Justice Marne held. As regards the findings of the Labour Court that since the manager in question was not subjected to any violence, or abusive language by the police or Patil, did not make her act to be a misconduct. "These findings are again perverse to the core. The Bank never alleged misconduct of violence, hot discussion or abusive language. The allegation against her was plain and simple. Her act of bringing policemen to Bank's office to question her transfer is viewed as misconduct by the Bank and therefore the simple issue before the Labour Court was whether approaching police with grievance of transfer and bringing policemen to Bank's office and subjecting officer to interrogation amounted to misconduct or not. Instead of concentrating on this aspect, the Labour Court completely misdirected itself and has erroneously given clean chit to her only on account of absence of violence and abusive language," Justice Marne opined. Further, the judge held that the Industrial Court, which too confirmed the Labour Court's findings, had exercised its revisional jurisdiction with 'material irregularity' as it completely ignored the element of perversity in the findings of the Labour Court qua this charge. The second charge against Patil was that she made several and severe allegations about the working of the bank to the Reserve Bank of India, Union Government, Chief Minister, Deputy Chief Minister and other unrelated authorities including the Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission. She essentially sought to raise various grievances in respect of the reimbursements, non-grant of housing loan, rectification entries, deductions made towards union fees, use of unfair words by seniors towards her, non-furnishing of documents relating to guarantee, receipt of salary less than a driver, etc. The judge noted that after addressing complaints to various authorities, these authorities called for explanation from the Bank."Airing service-related grievances within the organisation is a right of an employee. However, what is done in the present case by Patil is crossing the line by levelling allegations with regard to functioning of the Bank with various authorities, ...

Bringing Police To Workplace Over 'Routine Transfer', Complaining To External Authorities Amount To Misconduct: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

Bringing Police To Workplace Over 'Routine Transfer', Complaining To External Authorities Amount To Misconduct: Bombay High Court

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Narsi Benwal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers