CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on Cognizant Technology Solutions Private Limited for levelling unsubstantiated “serious allegations” against a top labour department official, a quasi-judicial officer, in connection with an order passed to set aside the termination of an employee of the firm.
Justice AD Maria Clete passed the orders while dismissing the petitions filed by the subsidiary of the US-based tech firm challenging the order of the special joint commissioner of labour (JCL), who is the appellate authority.
The JCL, by an order dated October 18, 2019, set aside the order of the firm issued on December 21, 2015 to terminate Sivakumar Krishnamurthy, an associate director of the company, from the service on the grounds of under-performance and causing loss to the firm. The JCL also ordered his reinstatement with back wages on an appeal filed by him under the TN Shops and Establishments Act, 1947.
The matter was entangled in several litigations as Krishnamurthy filed petitions in the high court seeking to expedite the hearing and disposal, and later, for transferring the matter from the JCL concerned.
After the JCL passed the orders, the tech firm moved the high court with petitions challenging the orders and levelled certain allegations and even questioned the official’s integrity stating she had favoured the same person who sought transfer of the case.
Justice Maria Clete remarked, “If the allegations made by the petitioner (Cognizant) against the statutory appellate authority are to be taken at face value, it would render it virtually impossible for any authority to discharge its quasi-judicial functions.”
The judge described the company’s request for a comparative analysis or forensic audit of the impugned order with the other orders of the officer as “wholly unwarranted and mischievous”. “Entertaining such requests would seriously undermine the independence and integrity of quasi-judicial authorities and cannot be countenanced by this court,” the judge said in the recent order.
Observing that the entire episode appears to be ‘much ado about nothing’, the judge remarked it was also “improper on the part of the petitioner to level grave and unsubstantiated allegations”.
The judge said the imposition of costs is warranted considering the petitioner management, despite its institutional resources, had levelled serious allegations against a quasi-judicial authority without impleading her in personal capacity and considerable judicial time spent on those unsubstantiated claims.
“The allegations having been found to be baseless, the petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs 1 lakh which shall be remitted to the TN Labour Welfare Fund,” the judge ordered.