Document Fragment View
Matching Fragments
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the 1st and 2nd petitioners are President and General Manager of 3rd petitioner company. There was Income Tax raid in the company from 10.06.2015 to 15.06.2015 and the entire office was brought under the control of the Income Tax authorities, the regular functions of all servers and computer systems were also stalled. Only after 19.06.2015, the computer system network became accessible by the company. The bio-metric device records the finger print data and forwards the same to the main window server, from there, the data would reach linux server and there from it would flow to the display of HRIS server, which is an application programme interface. The data from bio-metric device to server was not able to be accessed due to the Income Tax raid from 10.06.2015 to 15.06.2015. After the Income Tax raid, the server was restarted. The presence of Income Tax officials from 10.06.2015 to 15.06.2015 in the company is not in dispute. The learned counsel further submitted that the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1st respondent admitted the Income Tax survey and the presence of the Income Tax officials even in his notice, dated 18.06.2015. The complaint of the 1st respondent is that he was a loyal employee to M.A.M.Ramasamy, who is the adoptive father of the 1st petitioner and founder of the company and he has left with four more years of service. Since there was conflict between the 1st petitioner and his father M.A.M.Ramasamy, it was presumed that the 1st respondent is a loyalist of M.A.M.Ramasamy, who is the founder of the 3rd petitioner company. Hence, he was targeted, his bio-metric attendance registered were not forwarded to HRIS server. Further, the manual attendance register not available in its usual place from 10.06.2015 to 15.06.2015. This has been done only to project the 1st respondent as a regular absentee and to remove him from the service, is far-fetched.