R. Senthilkumar, a member of the Union NDLF IT Employees Wing, said in his appeal that the termination order was issued on February 25, 2019, based on his unwillingness to accept the project and his unsatisfactory performance, both of which are unfounded claims. Mr. Senthilkumar stated that he was prepared to accept the project in Coimbatore but was not prepared to accept the projects assigned to him in Kolkata and Pune due to his poor health. He argued that the dismissal of his employment was unjustifiable even without conducting a domestic investigation.
The corporation stated in its answer that the petitioner denied the chances presented to him even after being added to the Corporate Deployable Pool since he did not chose to accept the project in Kolkata and Pune.
It stated that if an individual is not assigned to a project, he will be placed temporarily in the Corporate Deployable Pool or Associate Deployable Pool (often referred to as Bench) until such time as he is assigned to another project.
His desire for a transfer to Coimbatore was denied by the company since the aforementioned project in Coimbatore was never implemented. According to Cognizant, the employee’s unwillingness to accept the project that was presented to him constituted a clear instance of misbehaviour, and there was no other option but to fire him.
The Labour Court noted that the Union had brought the matter before the Labour Officer on behalf of the petitioner and that the employer should have requested permission from the Labour Officer before terminating the employee. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner has been laid off, the business has not satisfied with the legal requirements, it was pointed out. The corporation was instructed to hire the employee back at any position that would be a good fit for his abilities and skill set.
According to the Court, the company is free to take the employee’s request into consideration and consider offering him tasks in either Coimbatore or Chennai in light of his medical condition.
It was noted that, according to section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the petitioner falls under the definition of “workman.” It concluded that the employee is also entitled to 50% of pay earned between the date of termination and the date of the award.