IT staffer sacked for ‘lack of project’ gets Rs 1.5 Lakh compensation

CHENNAI: A software professional, who was terminated from service by her employer, citing lack of suitable projects for her after she returned from a eight-month maternity leave, has been awarded Rs 1.5 lakh compensation by a city labour court.
However, though the employee cited gender discrimination and sought reinstatement with back wages, the court did not find any malafide intentions on the part of her employer EIT Services India Pvt Ltd (formerly Hewlett-Packard Global Soft Pvt Ltd) and ordered the company to compensate the woman instead of reinstating her.
The woman, an engineer who joined the company in 2011, availed herself of eight months maternity leave in 2017 and rejoined work on November 1 that year. In her petition, she said she was not allotted a project on her return and two weeks later, she was given a ‘separation letter’ stating that her role had become redundant and an alternative role had to be found within the company.
“The letter read that three months notice was being served on failure to find a suitable alternative role,” the petition stated. She contended that despite her requests to the management to help her find new projects, it never did so and her service was terminated at the end of the notice period.
In response, the management said neither could the terminated employee come within the meaning of a workman nor could the company be classified an industry as defined in the Industrial Disputes Act. It said the woman employee’s petition was liable to be quashed.
N Venkatavaradan, presiding officer of 1st additional labour court, rejected the company’s argument, saying that only those involved in managerial work were excluded from the definition of ‘workman.’ He also pointed out that the petitioner herself had expressed her reservation in upgrading the knowledge in fields as required by the company and held that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the company.
“But, anyhow, the termination was not in accordance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act,” he held, and added, “That it is just that the petitioner is paid a compensation of 1.5 lakh by the end of June, failing which the management will be liable to pay interest at 8% per annum on the awarded amount.”
On the contentions of gender discrimination, counsel for the company cross-examined the petitioner and obtained an admission that there were about 1,000 women employees in the firm and that her own colleagues had children and continued to work there.