Upholding the Right to Freedom of Speech
Justice Satish Ninan, who presided over the case, emphasized that charging the employee with harming the company’s reputation based on their messages infringes upon their right to freedom of speech, which is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution. The court maintained that expressing concerns about safety should not be misconstrued as an intention to damage the company’s reputation.
Employee’s Concerns about Safety
The petitioner, an employee of FACT, had sent messages to a private WhatsApp group comprised of technicians from the company. These messages addressed safety concerns related to the handling of ammonia. However, during a company inquiry, the petitioner was accused of spreading false information and making defamatory statements that allegedly harmed the company’s reputation. The charge claimed that the petitioner’s messages could create the perception that the company has an unsafe working environment and may incite workers to protest against the company.
Mere Expression of Concern Cannot Be Considered Harmful
The court ruled that the mere expression of concern for safety cannot be grounds for charging an employee with harming the company’s reputation. The petitioner’s right to freedom of speech was deemed to have been infringed upon, leading the court to declare that the charge against the employee was not valid.
Lack of Formal Inquiry and Disciplinary Action
The petitioner argued that no formal inquiry was conducted before disciplinary action was taken against them. The punishment imposed on the petitioner was a “WARNING,” the lowest category of disciplinary action. However, the petitioner expressed concern that even a warning would negatively impact their service record and future career prospects.
No Admission of Guilt
The court clarified that the petitioner’s admission to sending the messages did not imply that they admitted to the messages being objectionable. The court emphasized that the petitioner’s apology should not be misconstrued as an admission of guilt. Therefore, the court held that there was no waiver of the necessity for a formal inquiry.
Unauthorized Entry Charge
Additionally, the petitioner was charged with unauthorized entry into the ammonia handling section of a division. The court noted that the petitioner had unambiguously admitted to this charge, and it acknowledged that such an entry would contravene safety rules.
No Interference with the Punishment Imposed
Lastly, the court stated that the company was not obligated to hold a hearing on the punishment imposed. Given that the petitioner was found guilty of one charge and the punishment was of the lowest category, the court saw no need to interfere with the disciplinary action.
In summary, the Kerala High Court’s ruling upholds the employee’s right to freedom of speech and emphasizes that expressing concerns about safety should not be considered harmful to a company’s reputation. The court also emphasized the importance of conducting a formal inquiry before imposing disciplinary action and clarified that an admission of certain charges does not imply guilt for all charges.
No comments:
Post a Comment