Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also detail the various safeguard and security system adopted by the respondents to prevent unauthorized dissipation of their business processes. That the petitioner by letter dated 20.04.2015 addressed to the management and set out the reasons for failure of certain ventures and in that he contended that he alone cannot be fastened with the liability of the failures and the burden has to be borne by the entire team and thereafter he expressed his desire to resign. That on 14.03.2014 he received a mail from the management stating that he needs to be put on a performance improvement plan which the petitioner construed as a precursor to his removal and by the said mail he was also put on notice that if he was not able to meet the PIB target he was required to leave the organization. It is submitted that the petitioner was frustrated and tendered his formal resignation on 18.04.2014 in compliance with the terms and conditions of his appointment. Despite the tendering of the resignation letter, the respondent Management continued the harassment and that they neither relieved him nor gave a letter of acceptance. That instead the respondent proceeded to alter his service condition by re-designating him as a Operations Manager which was protested to by the petitioner stating that they could not have altered the job profile without his consent. That on 22.04.2014 the petitioner received a communication from the respondent asking him to return the company assets including laptop, mobile, Access Card, I.D. Card and companies confidential information and that he was accused of gross indiscipline and acting against the companies interest and it was also alleged that he had stolen companies confidential information and hence, the respondent management was compelled to initiate disciplinary action. Thereafter, the management, without considering the replies and explanations offered by the petitioner, proceeded to issue a termination letter and also got filed a complaint with the local police authorities and that one employee of a company orally agreed to issue the formal relieving order withdrawal of the police complaint and payment till 10th of January 2014 and also a letter recalling the termination order dated 23.04.2014 and on the said promise the petitioner handed over the companies assets in his possession. That the respondent management issued a stigmatic order of termination without holding any enquiry or affording any opportunity and that as a consequence of the said stigmatic order, the petitioner's chances of reemployment was totally wiped out.