Disposed

Suman Saurabh v. Hewlett Packard Enterprises Globalsoft Private Limited

Karnataka HC5 Nov 2024WP/9959/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An employee facing termination during a workforce reduction sought injunction protection while his appeal over a POSH Act notice was pending. The High Court found the Trial Court erred in refusing ex-parte injunction without considering alleged retaliation, extended its earlier stay order till the Trial Court decides the injunction application within three months.

What did the court decide?

Interim order of stay dated 22.05.2023 extended until decision of I.A.No.I; Trial Court directed to decide it within three months.

Suman Saurabh Vs Hewlett Packard Enterprises… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 9959 OF 2023 (GM-CPC)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SUMAN SAURABH S/O AKHILESHWAR PRASAD AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/A S-36, A1 BLOCK, MAHAVEERA VARNA APTS. KANNAMANGALA, SAI BABA ASHRAM ROAD, BANGALORE-560067.

¶7

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

HEWLETT-PACKARD ENTERPRISES GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY, HEWLETT-PACKARD GLOBALSOFT PRIVATE LIMITED) Digitally signed PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER by MARKONAHALLI THE COMPANIES ACT, 2013, RAMU PRIYA HAVING OFFICE AT: Location: HIGH COURT OF HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISES KARNATAKA INDIA PRIVATE LTD., 2^ND FLOOR, (BLOCK- 2) DLF DOWN TOWN, BLOCK-V, DLF CITY, PHASE-III, SECTOR 25A, GURGAON, HARYANA - 122022 ALSO AT: HEWLET-PACKARD ENTERPRISES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED NO.24, SALAPURIA ARENA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560030 REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. R.V. GOUTHAM, ADVOCATE)

¶10

¶11

NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE XII ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE (CCH-27) ON 19.04.2023 IN OS NO.2649/2023 (AT ANNEXURE-A) IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶13

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶14

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶15

ORAL ORDER

¶16

The plaintiff in O.S.No.2649/2023 pending trial before the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court') has filed this petition challenging an order dated 19.04.2023 by which, it refused to grant an ex-parte order of interim injunction.

¶17

The parties shall henceforth be referred to as they

¶18

were arrayed before the Trial Court. The petitioner herein was the plaintiff while the respondent was the defendant before the Trial Court.

¶19

(i) A suit in O.S.No.2649/2023 was filed for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from terminating the service of the plaintiff until disposal of W.A.No.3041/2019.

¶20

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶21

Along with the plaint, an application (I.A.No.I) was filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC') for interim injunction to restrain the defendant from terminating the service of the plaintiff.

¶22

(ii) In a nutshell, the case of the plaintiff was that he was employed with the defendant as an Engineer in the year 2003. The defendant initiated proceedings under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (henceforth referred to as 'POSH Act, 2013') and a notice dated 23.06.2014 was served upon the plaintiff, which was challenged by him in W.P.No.29790/2014. The writ petition was allowed and the same was challenged by the Internal Complaints Committee in W.A.No.3041/2019 which is pending consideration before this Court. It is alleged that the defendant is now trying to terminate the service of the plaintiff under the garb of work force reduction. The plaintiff therefore, sought for perpetual injunction to restrain the defendant from terminating his service until consideration of W.A.No.3041/2019.

¶23

¶24

NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶25

An application (I.A.No.I.) filed by the plaintiff for

¶26

interim ex-parte injunction was considered and refused by the Trial Court in terms of the impugned order.

¶27

Being aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶28

When this petition was listed on 22.05.2023, this Court passed the following order:

¶29

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶30

2. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioner invites my attention to the order dated 01.07.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.No.29790/2014 (GM-RES) whereby, the notice/order dated 23.06.2014 directing enquiry to be held against the petitioner was quashed by this Court. It is also submitted that though the respondent preferred an appeal in W.A.No.3041/2019, there is no interim order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in the said appeal. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, the respondent attempted to terminate the services of the petitioner, who was constrained to institute the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶33

instant suit in O.S.No.2649/2023 in which, he sought for an ad interim exparte order of temporary injunction and the same having been refused by the trial Court vide the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶34

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited my attention to the E-mails dated 11.05.2023, 12.05.2023, 16.05.2023 and 17.05.2023 issued by the respondent to the petitioner during the pendency of the present petition in order to point out that the respondent is purporting to terminate the services of the petitioner with effect from 25.05.2023 in terms of a Mutual Separation Agreement (MSA) which has not been signed by the petitioner and is not binding upon him and as such, there is urgency in the matter.

¶35

4. Issue emergent notice to the respondent returnable by 05.06.2023.

¶36

5. In the meanwhile, all further proceedings/action to be taken by the respondent against the petitioner pursuant to the E-mail dated 17.05.2023 addressed to the petitioner are stayed till the next date of hearing.

¶37

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶38

6. Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondent to seek modification/vacation of this order."

¶39

(i) The respondent/defendant has entered

¶40

appearance and filed an application (I.A.No.1/2024) for vacating the order of stay. It is contended in the affidavit accompanying the application that the employment of the plaintiff is under a contract of personal service and can be terminated at the instance of the plaintiff or the defendant. Therefore, it is contended that under Sections 14 and 41 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963, no injunction can be granted against enforcement of such contract of personal service. It is claimed that the defendant had proposed to transform its business model to a "service" company and in that regard, had undertaken several transformation and reorganization exercise. The defendant therefore, sought mutual separation agreement from all its employees, which resulted in the following benefits to the affected employees:-

¶41

(a) sufficient notice of separation;

¶42

¶43

NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶44

(b) one month's salary for every year of employment of the impacted employee (subject to a cap of 12 months' salary);

¶45

(c) two months' notice pay;

¶46

(d) the option to avail redeployment to other teams/verticals subject to Global Work Force Redeployment Policy.

¶47

(ii) It is contended that the plaintiff was one such

¶48

employee, who was offered the option to mutually part ways between 23.03.2023 and 27.03.2023 and a draft agreement was shared with him on 27.03.2023 for his feedback. It is claimed that despite repeated reminders, the plaintiff refused to sign the agreement who claimed that it was enforced as a retaliatory measure in response to the proceedings against him under the POSH Act, 2013. It is contended that the plaintiff was informed that the ongoing litigation had nothing to do with his termination and he was offered internal support for an internal job search within the establishment of the defendant. He was also offered a sum of Rs.40,72,530/- upon his separation from the company. It is therefore, contended that the order of stay

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶51

granted by this Court cannot be continued in the teeth of the policy of the defendant.

¶52

The learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant reiterated the above contentions. The learned counsel for the defendant vehemently contended that continuation of the interim order of stay would act as an incentive to many employees not to sign the mutual separation agreement as per the policy of the defendant.

¶53

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the plaintiff as well as the learned counsel for the defendant.

¶54

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 19.04.2023 by which, the Trial Court refused to grant an exparte order of injunction. Therefore, the examination in this writ petition is limited to the question, whether the Trial Court had exercised discretion in holding that the plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case and whether such discretion was exercised reasonably.

¶55

The Trial Court while refusing to grant ex-parte injunction held as follows:-

¶56

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶57

"Further the defendant is the corporate body, has an international stature, has a reputation in the corporate sector and therefore, may not take a hasty decision. This Court is therefore, of the opinion that the suit of the plaintiff is immature and without the cause of action in the absence of material to show that the defendant is acting against the interest of the plaintiff by violating contractual obligation."

¶58

Since the plaintiff has expressed apprehension that his services are being terminated under the garb of work force reduction but in reality it is done in retaliation to the proceedings initiated by him before this Court, the Trial Court did not consider this situation. Under the circumstances, the Trial Court ought to have granted an ex-parte order of injunction, more particularly when the appeal filed by the Internal Complaints Committee in W.A.No.3041/2019 is pending consideration. Since this Court has passed an order dated 22.05.2023 granting injunction as stated above and the same is in force from 22.05.2023 till date, it is appropriate to dispose off this writ petition on the following terms;-

¶59

(i) This writ petition is disposed off .

¶60

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:45018 WP No. 9959 of 2023

¶61

(ii) The order dated 22.05.2023 passed by this Court referred above, is extended till the consideration of I.A.No.I filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC in O.S.No.2649/2023 before the XII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶62

(iii) Having regard to the complexity of the issues, the Trial Court is directed to consider and dispose off the application (I.A.No.I) as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

¶63

(iv) The plaintiff and the defendant are directed to keep their submissions before the Trial Court as crisp and short as possible and the same may be regulated by the Trial Court.

¶64