Introduction:  

In the case of Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd. v. Nirajkumar Prabhakarrao Kadu , the Bombay High Court deliberated on the termination of an employee who posted incendiary content on Facebook. Justice Milind N Jadhav’s ruling, emphasizing the limits of freedom of speech, reiterates the necessity to curtail speech that may incite discord, especially in sensitive contexts like workplace negotiations.

Arguments of Both Sides:  

The petitioner company, Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd., justified the termination by citing provocative and defamatory Facebook posts made by the respondent employee during wage negotiations. The company alleged that these posts incited violence and hatred toward the management, posing a threat to the workplace environment.

On the other hand, the respondent employee defended himself, disputing the legality of the charge-sheet and enquiry against him. He argued that his Facebook account might have been hacked, implying that he was not responsible for the posts in question. Additionally, he contended that the Labour Court’s decision deeming the misconduct as having no adverse effect was valid.

Court’s Judgement:  

Justice Milind N Jadhav’s ruling upheld the termination, highlighting the seriousness of the situation caused by the inflammatory Facebook posts. The court determined that the posts were defamatory and intended to incite hatred and violence against the company’s management. Emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the claim of a hacked account, the court concluded that the employee indeed made the controversial posts.

The judgment stressed the responsibility of office bearers of recognized unions to exercise restraint, especially during sensitive negotiations. The court deemed the employee’s actions as a violation of clauses 24(d), 24(k), and 24(l) of the Model Standing Orders, justifying the termination.

The ruling set aside the Labour Court’s order, affirming the fairness of the enquiry and the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It directed the Labour Court to conclude the hearing on remaining issues within eight months from the dateo f the judgment.