Grievance Redressal Committees Of Startups & IT Companies Can't Decide Disputes Qua Termination: Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Against WIPRO

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that the Grievance Redressal Committees established by various Startups and IT companies, in compliance with State government's notification issued in 2014, cannot decide disputes relating to termination of employment.A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the said notification relates to grievances of an "existing employee" and thus, an ex-employee cannot challenge his termination on the ground that the enquiry against him was not conducted by the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC).It observed,"Though there may be grievance as regards the dismissal of the petitioner, the same, in my considered opinion, would not come within the ambit of para-II of the notification inasmuch as the same relates to any particular grievance of an existing employee. The termination of the employment and otherwise would not come within the purview of the words "complaints" or "grievance" under the notification dated 25.01.2014."The Court thus refused to order deletion of the word 'dishonest' from the termination order issued by Indian multinational corporation WIPRO to its former Senior Project Manager. The petitioner was served a charge sheet alleging misconduct, dishonesty and violation of the code of ethics and after an enquiry, he was terminated him from the service. Through the present petition, he sought to ensure that WIPRO forms a GRC and places before it the matter of his termination for fresh disposal. He relied on a government notification dated 25.01.2014, which states that an employer in IT/ ITES/ Startups/ Animation/ Gaming/ Computer Graphics/ Telecom/ BPO/ KPO and other knowledge based industries ought to have constituted a Grievance Redressal Committee consisting of an equal number of persons representing the employer and employees. It was contended that not having done so, the order of his termination is bad in law. WIPRO's counsel opposed the plea on the ground that an Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry and after providing necessary opportunity to the petitioner, the termination order was passed. This order was challenged before the Labour Court and the reference was dismissed. The High Court observed, "Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, the petitioner having been dismissed from service and thereafter, a reference made by him also having been dismissed. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the mode of filing this present writ petition is not permissible, more so, when the reference has attained finality and the award has been published, there being no grounds made out. As such, the present writ petition stands dismissed." Case Title: AP v. WIPRO LIMITED REPRESENTED Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 47550 OF 2017 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 379 Date of Order: 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 Appearance: Advocate PRABHAKAR SHETTY S K for petitioner; Advocate AISHWARYA, FOR Advocate RAJESWARA P. N, FOR R1; AGA BOJEGOWDA T., FOR R2-R4Click Here To Read/Download Order

Grievance Redressal Committees Of Startups & IT Companies Can't Decide Disputes Qua Termination: Karnataka HC Dismisses Plea Against WIPRO

Mustafa Plumber

Tags