Facts relevant for the purpose of law from the point of view of Employee:

Hi-Tell Technologies Ltd. is one of the leading companies in the IT/BPO sector at the Information City in Bangalore.

The company has more than 500 employees planning to further augment the workforce in the light of fresh outsourcing/consulting contracts.

Mr. Work-Me is one of the most productive employees of Hi-Tell and is regularly rewarded with different incentives by the Company.

After due negotiations, Hi-Tell entered into a contract with ITalk and the work began immediately.

This

activity

involved

the

complex

mechanisms

of

M-

Commerce, whereby the payment portals of different utilities were to be networked with that of I-Talk. Considering the high quality effort required, Hi-Tell asked Mr. Work-Me to take charge of this part of the work contract. I-talk complained to Hi-Tell that there has been a shortfall in the collection of the commission that is owed to I-Talk in each and every transaction involving mobile-based payment. Just because I-Talk is the biggest client, both in terms of volume of work and high revenues, Hi-Tell immediately responded by sacking Mr. Work-Me and made him a scapegoat.

Work-me had a blemish free reputation and good will throughout his career.

It is an admitted fact that He has been awarded by the company solely on the basis of his hard work and his abilities.

Just for the sake of maintaining business relations, a company cannot terminate the employment of its employee who had a reputation of being most productive employee.

It is against the principles of natural justice and equity. By terminating his services, the company had leveled

Remedies available for Employee: A. Under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 B. Under civil law (civil suit for compensation/tort/

damages etc. etc.

if no remedy available under

Industrial Disputes Act,1947.

A. Relevant provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 "EMPLOYER" means(i) -in relation to an industry carried on by or under the authority of any department of
31

[the Central Government

or a State Government,] the authority prescribed in this behalf, or where no authority is prescribed, the head of the department; (ii) in relation to an industry carried on by or on behalf of a local authority, the chief executive officer of that authority;

[(j) "INDUSTRY" means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or a vocation of workmen; (k) "INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE" or means any dispute or

difference between employers and employers, or between employers and workmen, between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment or nonemployment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labor, of any person; [(ka) "Industrial establishment or undertaking " means an establishment or undertaking in which any industry is carried on: PROVIDED that where several activities are carried on in an establishment or undertaking and only one or some of such activities is or are an industry or industries, then,(a) if any unit of such establishment or undertaking carrying on any activity, being an industry, is severable from the other unit or units of such establishment or undertaking, such unit shall be deemed to be a separate industrial establishment or undertaking; (b) if the predominant activity or each of the predominant activities carried on in such establishment or undertaking or any unit thereof is an industry and the other activity or each of the other activities carried on in such establishment or undertaking or unit thereof is not

severable from and is, for the purpose of carrying on, or aiding the carrying on of, such predominant activity or activities, the entire establishment or undertaking or, as the case may be, unit thereof shall be deemed to be an industrial establishment or undertaking;]

"Retrenchments" means the termination by the otherwise than as a punishment

employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, include(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or (b) retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or
43

inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not

[(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a

result of the non-renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation on that behalf contained therein; or] (c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health;] "workman" means any person (including an apprentice employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be

express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), or the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison; or (iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity; or (iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity, draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred rupees per mensem or exercises, either by the nature of the duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, function mainly of a managerial nature [also refer to Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( u can get it on google]

Relevant extract of Important cases decided by Honble Supreme Court on the issue of Employee-Employer:

Case

namely

Rajasthan

SRTC

v.

Krishna

Kant,reported in (1995) 5 SCC 75, at page 86 : The expression Industrial Dispute is defined in Section 2( k) to mean any dispute or difference (i) between employers and employers; (ii) between employers and workmen; and (iii) between workmen and workmen, provided such dispute is connected with the employment, non-employment, terms of employment or conditions of labour of any person. It is well settled by several decisions of this Court that a dispute between the employer and an individual workman does not constitute an industrial dispute unless the cause of the workman is espoused by a body of workmen (see Bombay Union of Journalists v. The Hindu9). Of course, where the dispute concerns the body of the workers as a whole or to a section thereof, it is an industrial dispute. It is precisely for this reason that Section 2-A was inserted by Amendment Act 35 of 1965. It says where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute. By virtue of this provision, the scope of the concept of industrial dispute has been widened, which now embraces not only Section 2(k) but also Section 2-A. Section

2-A, however, covers only cases of discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination otherwise of services of an individual workman and not other matters, which means that to give an example if a workman is reduced in rank pursuant to a domestic enquiry, the dispute raised by him does not become an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2-A. (However, if the union or body of workmen espouses his cause, it does become an industrial dispute.) We have given only one instance; there may be many disputes which would not fall within Section 2(k) or Section 2-A. It is obvious that in all such cases, the remedy is only in a civil court or by way of arbitration according to law, if the parties so choose. The machinery provided by the Industrial Disputes Act for resolution of disputes (in short Sections 10 or 12) does not apply to such a dispute. To sum up, the principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the civil court in relation to an industrial dispute may be stated thus: (1) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act the remedy lies only in the civil court. (2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy. (3) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then

the only remedy available to the suitor is to get an adjudication under the Act. (4) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter V-A then the remedy for its enforcement is either Section 33-C or the raising of an industrial dispute, as the case may be. summarise the principles flowing from the above discussion: (1) Where the dispute arises from general law of contract, i.e., where reliefs are claimed on the basis of the general law of contract, a suit filed in civil court cannot be said to be not maintainable, even though such a dispute may also constitute an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) or Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. (2) Where, however, the dispute involves recognition,

observance or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations created by the Industrial Disputes Act, the only remedy is to approach the forums created by the said Act. (3) Similarly, where the dispute involves the recognition, observance or enforcement of rights and obligations created by enactments like Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 which can be called sister enactments to Industrial Disputes Act and which do not provide a forum for resolution of such disputes, the only remedy shall be to approach the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act provided they constitute industrial disputes within the meaning of Section 2(k) and Section 2-A of Industrial Disputes Act or where such enactment says that such dispute shall be either treated as an industrial dispute or says that it shall be

adjudicated by any of the forums created by the Industrial Disputes Act. Otherwise, recourse to civil court is open. (4) It is not correct to say that the remedies provided by the Industrial Disputes Act are not equally effective for the reason that access to the forum depends upon a reference being made by the appropriate Government. The power to make a reference conferred upon the Government is to be exercised to effectuate the object of the enactment and hence not unguided. The rule is to make a reference unless, of course, the dispute raised is a totally frivolous one ex facie. The power conferred is the power to refer and not the power to decide, though it may be that the Government is entitled to examine whether the dispute is ex facie frivolous, not meriting an adjudication. (5) Consistent with the policy of law aforesaid, we commend to Parliament and the State Legislatures to make a provision enabling a workman Tribunal to approach i.e., the Labour the Court/Industrial directly without

requirement of a reference by the Government in case of industrial disputes covered by Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This would go a long way in removing the misgivings with respect to the effectiveness of the remedies provided by the Industrial Disputes Act. (6) The certified Standing Orders framed under and in accordance with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are statutorily imposed conditions of service and are binding both upon the employers and employees, though they do not amount to statutory provisions. Any violation of these Standing Orders entitles an employee to appropriate relief either before the forums created by the Industrial

Disputes Act or the civil court where recourse to civil court is open according to the principles indicated herein. (7) The policy of law emerging from Industrial Disputes Act and its sister enactments is to provide an alternative disputeresolution mechanism to the workmen, a mechanism which is speedy, inexpensive, informal and unencumbered by the plethora of procedural laws and appeals upon appeals and revisions applicable to civil courts. Indeed, the powers of the courts and tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are far more extensive in the sense that they can grant such relief as they think appropriate in the circumstances for putting an end to an industrial dispute Case namely Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. Anil, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 610, There is one more reason for coming to the above conclusion. There is a difference between an individual dispute which is deemed to be an industrial dispute under Section 2-A of the said 1947 Act on the one hand and an industrial dispute espoused by the union in terms of Section 2( l) of the said 1947 Act. An individual dispute which is deemed to be an industrial dispute under Section 2-A concerns discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination whereas an industrial dispute under Section 2(l) covers a wider field. It includes even the question of status. This aspect is very relevant for the purposes of deciding this case. In Radhey Shyam v. State of Haryana4 it judgments of has been held after considering various the Supreme Court that Section 2-A

contemplates nothing more than to declare an individual dispute to be an industrial dispute. It does not amend the definition of industrial dispute set out in Section 2( k) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [which is similar to Section 2( l) of the said 1947 Act]. Section 2-A does not cover every type of dispute between an individual workman and his employer. Section 2-A enables the individual worker to raise an industrial dispute, notwithstanding, that no other workman or union is a party to the dispute. Section 2-A applies only to disputes relating to discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination of service of an individual workman. It does not cover other kinds of disputes such as bonus, wages, leave facilities, etc.

For Employer who want to action against employee for misappropriation etc.

One of the remedy is under civil law to claim for compensation for wrong committed by Employee

Another remedy is under criminal law for the offences relating to fraud, cheating and most importantly for criminal breach of trust