Team Code:

INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2019

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WOODLANDS

(FILED UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF WOODLANDS)

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION

IN THE MATTERS OF:

Abdul………………………………...………………….………………………... Appellant 1

V.

Bavithra……………….………………………...………………...........................Respondent1

Hygienic Health Care Products Ltd……………………………………………….Appellant 2

V.

Catherine…………………………………………………………………………Respondent2

TO THE HON‟BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF WOODLANDS AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF WOODLANDS

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

Table of Contents
List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................................... III
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................................................... IV
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................................... VI
STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................................... VII
STATEMENT OF ISSUES .................................................................................................................... VII
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS .............................................................................................................. X
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED................................................................................................................. 13
[1]: Whether the employer proved the charges of misconduct framed against Abdul. ................ 13
[2]: The inquiry proceedings by the internal committee and the subsequent disciplinary
proceedings against are in violation of the principles of law and natural justice. .......................... 14
[3]: Whether Abdul deserves sympathy on account of the special mitigating circumstances in place
of dismissal from service as the quantum punishment is excessive. ............................................. 16
[3.1] QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE LESS THAN DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE. ............ 16
[3.2] SYMPATHY ON ACCOUNT OF MITIGATING CIRCUM STANCES. ......................................... 17
[4]: Whether the plea of loss of confidence in the employee is available to employer for its refusal
to reinstate the employee in service, in the facts and circumstances of the case. ........................ 18
[5]: whether the defence provided under section 95 of Woodland Penal code can be invoked by
Abdul for disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the employer. ................................... 19
[6]: Whether the employer is justified in refusing to provide CCTV camera facilities on the
ground that the right to safe working environment of the employees is not violated by him and
that will cause heavy financial burden to it?............................................................................... 20
PRAYER ........................................................................................................................................... 23

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

II
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

List of Abbreviations

AIR All India Reporter

& And

Anr. Another

Art. Article

cl. Clause

Del. Delhi
Ed. Edition

HC High Court

Hon‟ble Honourable

Mad Madras

N. Note

Ors. Others

Raj. Rajasthan

SC Supreme Court

SCR Supreme Court Report

Sec. Section

SSC Supreme Court Cases

U.P. Uttar Pradesh

v. Versus

W.P.C Woodlands Penal Code

WSHWW(PP&R) ACT2013 Woodlands Sexual Harrasment Of Women

At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition
And Redressal) Act, 2013

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

III
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

A. CASES

1. Amber Tickoo v. Government of NCT Of Delhi & Ors, 10.05.2019. ................................... 21

2. Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, A.I.R (1977) S.C.R (1) 125. ................................. 20
3. Chandrama Tewari v. Union Of India, Through General, 1988 AIR 117. ............................. 15
4. Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor , 1991 AIR 101. ........................................ 15
5. Dr. B.N. Ray v. Ramjas College & Ors A.I.R.(2012) Del. H.C. ........................................... 13
6. Dr. B.N. Ray v. Ramjas College & Ors.,(2012) Del HC. ................................................ 13, 20
7. Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2019). .......... 21
8. Indian Iron And Steel Compant Limited v. Workmen , A.I.R (1958) S.C. 130 at 138). ........ 16
9. J.K.Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P.Agrawal & Anr.(2007) SC.......................................................... 17
10. Justice P.D. Dinakaran v Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee, (2011) S.C. .......................... 16
11. Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management Of Pan American World, AIR 1987 SC 229...... 18
12. Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & Ors v. Factory Manager, G Awalior Sugar Co. Ltd., AIR (2001) S.C.
3645 ................................................................................................................................... 19
13. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade (2005) SC.................................................. 18
14. New Shorrock Mills v. Mahesh Bhai T. Rao ( 1996 ) SCC 590. ........................................... 17
15. People‟s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, S.C. (2013). ....................................... 22
16. Ramakant Misra v. State Of U.P. And Ors , A.I.R (1983) SCR (1) 648. ............................. 16
17. State Of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors ,A.I.R (1967) S.C. 1269. ........................ 14
18. The Mangement Of Christain Medicial College And Hospital v. S.G.Dhamodharan
(2019)IILLJ487Mad. .......................................................................................................... 13
19. Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan Hani Ibrahim Khan, A.I.R. (1966) S.C.R 123. .................... 19
20. Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India v. Management & Others
1973 AIR 1227, 1973 SCR (3) 587...................................................................................... 17

B. STATUTES
1. The Constitution of India.
2. The Penal Code, 1860.
3. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
4. The Information Technology Act, 2000.
5. The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace ( Prevention, Prohibition and
Redressal) Act, 2013.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IV
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

C. BOOKS
1. M.P. Jain, Indian Constitutional Law, VI Ed. , Reprint (2011)
2. S.N. Misra, Labour and Industrial Laws, 28th Ed.
3. Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, The Indian Penal Code.
4. K.D. Gaur , The Indian Penal Code.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

V
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court of Woodlands has the inherent jurisdiction to try, entertain and
dispose of the present case by virtue of article 136 of The Constitution of Woodlands.

“Article 136- Special Leave to Appeal by the Supreme Court

1) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter, the Supreme Court may , in its discretion ,
grant special leave to appeal from any judgement , decree , determination , sentence or order
in any cause or matter passed or made by any court or tribunal in the territory of India.

2) Nothing in clause(1) shall apply to any judgement , determination , sentence or order

passed or made by any court or tribunal constituted by or under any law relating to the
Armed Forces.”

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

VI
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. There in an industrial establishment “Hygienic Health Care Products Ltd.” in “Apple

island”, a state in the Union of Woodlands(Constitution and other laws of Union of
Woodlands are in perimeter with that of the Union of India). There establishment was
set of for 3 years employing nearly 100 in which 50% are women. Abdul and Bavithra
are co-employees and perform miscellaneous works.
2. On new year after taking lunch in a common dining hall sitting in the adjacent seats
Abdul and Bavithra were talking about their family. Abdul took out a gift (Taj Mahal
statue) with note written on it and gave it to Bavithra and said he is giving her as a
new year gift. At that time she became shy and hesitated to receive as everyone
looking at her. She refuses to take it and said she was not in a position to take it. But
Abdul forcibly put that gift in her handbag.
3. After that incident happened Bavithra had a sleepless night as the incident comes in
her mind repeatedly. Next day she consulted it with her close friend Cathrine who was
also a member of Internal complaints Committee constituted under the Woodlands
Sexual Harassment of Women at workplace. As per her suggestion Bavithra came
forward and complaint against Abdul. After knowing this incident Abdul went to
Bavithra‟s home and apology for that and said he had no intention to hurt her.
4. Bavithra moved by his apology and thought that she over thinks and acted in instance
of Cathrine. Immediately she requested the Internal committee about settlement. Later
at the first day of conciliation she was absent so the proceedings ended in failure.
5. The internal committee conducted the inquiry by giving opportunity to both the
parties to state their case in accordance with the service rule. In the inquiry Abdul
admitted the incident but pleaded not guilty as he has no intention. At the conclusion
internal committee gave its finding as Abdul guilty of sexual harassment, causing
criminal force, act intended to insult the modesty and recommend employer to take
action against him for sexual harassment as misconduct in accordance with the service
rules of respondent.
6. Abdul challenged his termination before the Labour Court. He took the plea that the
inquiry proceedings of the internal committee were vitiated by bias on the part of its
member Catherine in whose influence Bavithra complaint about him. He also
contended that the punishment allotted is excessive. The Labour Court pronounced
awards as the misconduct against Abdul proved and inquiry proceedings conducted in
MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT
VII
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

accordance with law. Labour Court ordered reinstatement of Abdul in his original
employment with continuity of service but without back wages, holding that the
workman deserves sympathy and an opportunity should be given to reform. For
ordering reinstatement the court took into consideration special facts and mitigating
circumstances.
7. Bavithra moved a writ petition before the High Court of Apple island for quashing the
award of Labour Court, Catherine moved a separate writ petition against employer to-
on the ground of right to privacy of women.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

VIII
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

Whether the employer proved the charges of misconduct framed against Abdul.

ISSUE 2

The inquiry proceedings by the internal committee and the subsequent disciplinary
proceedings against are in violation of the principles of law and natural justice.

ISSUE 3

Whether Abdul deserves sympathy on account of the special mitigating circumstances

in place of dismissal from service as the quantum punishment is excessive.

ISSUE 4

Whether the plea of loss of confidence in the employee is available to employer for its
refusal to reinstate the employee in service, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

ISSUE 5

Whether the defence provided under section 95 of Woodland Penal code can be
invoked by Abdul for disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the employer.

ISSUE 6

Whether the employer is justified in refusing to provide CCTV camera facilities on the
ground that the right to safe working environment of the employees is not violated by
him and that will cause heavy financial burden to it.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

IX
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1

Whether the employer proved the charges of misconduct framed against Abdul.

It is humbly submitted giving or offering gift to someone who is known to you or having
friendly relation with that person doesn‟t amount to sexual harassment as misconduct. As gift
given by Appellant 1 to Respondent 1 was in the knowledge of his wife who is also friend to
respondent1 and the same was given on the new year‟s eve which does not show any Mens
Rea or any intention of sexual harassment from Appellant1.

ISSUE 2

Whether the inquiry proceedings by the internal committee and the subsequent
disciplinary proceedings against Abdul are in violation of the principles of law and
natural justice.

It is humbly submitted the aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it
negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. The person cannot act as Judge of a cause in
which he himself has some interest either pecuniary or otherwise as it affords the strongest
proof against neutrality. He must be in a position to act judicially and to decide the matter
objectively. As in our present case the member of the Internal Committee who was also a
close friend to the complainant. So she cannot act as a judge of a cause as she has some
interest as it affords the strongest proof against neutrality so, the inquiry proceedings of the
internal committee were vitiated by bias on the part of respondent2 as the report of the
inquiry was also prepared by her.

ISSUE 3

Whether Abdul deserves sympathy on account of the special mitigating circumstances

in place of dismissal from service as the quantum punishment is excessive.

It is humbly submitted the statement of objects and reasons has specifically referred to the
limitations on the powers of an Industrial Tribunal. The punishment of discharging the person
from the service imposed by the employer is excessive and harsh which could lead the
Appellant 1 and his family members to suffer from economic and mental destruction. As with

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

X
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

this case it must be noted that the harm caused to Respondent 1 was so light that no person of
ordinary sense and temper would complaint of such harm.

ISSUE 4

The plea of loss of confidence in the employee is available to employer for its refusal to
reinstate the employee in service, in the facts and circumstances.

It is humbly submitted that the employer cannot take plea of loss of confidence in employee
to refuse his reinstatement in service. Loss of confidence by the employer in the employee is
a feature which certainly affects the character or reputation of the employee as the allegation
of loss of confidence amounted to a stigma. Appellant1 was in position of trust and
confidence so, while terminating his service he should consider his past conduct.

Issue 5

Whether the defence provided under section 95 of Woodland Penal code can be invoked
by Abdul for disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the employer.

The defence provided under section 95 of Woodland Penal Code can be invoked by
Appelant1 for disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the employer. As the act of
appellant1 was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such
harm. As also respondent1 was so confused about the things happens to her. Later Appellant1
gets to know that she complaint under the influence of respondent 2 who was also a member
of Internal Committee.

Issue 6

Whether the employer is justified in refusing to provide CCTV camera facilities on the
ground that the right to safe working environment of the employees is not violated by
him and that will cause heavy financial burden to it.

The appellant2 is justified in refusing to provide CCTV camera facilities on the ground that
right to safe working environment of the employees is not violated by him and that it will
also cause heavy financial burden to it. By providing CCTV Camera facilities may hamper
the individual right to privacy. CCTV Cameras subjects individuals to the gaze of people they
do not want to be watched or observed by.

MEMORIAL ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

XI
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1

Whether the employer proved the charges of misconduct framed against Abdul.

1. It is humbly submitted to the apex court that the charges against Appellant1 of
misconduct during his course of employment was not proved by the employer. As
stated in the fact that the gift given by Appellant l does not signify any act related to
misconduct as sexual harassment 1.
2. As the word MISCONDUCT is a transgression of some established and definite rule
of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behaviour, wilful in
character, improper or wrong behaviour; its synonyms are misdeed, misbehaviour,
delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or
carelessness and does not include sexual harassment as misconduct within its
meaning.
These acts and omission include wilful in-subordination, disobedience, theft, fraud,
dishonestly and habitual negligence.
3. Sexual Harassment is not an offence merely amounting to disruption of law and order
but it is an act of power, and a public and collective violation that is often trivialised
by labelling it an interpersonal transgression2 In Our present case Appellant 1 gifted
the gift to respondent no. 1 in front of all the co-employees which shows that his act
was not misconduct.
4. It is the duty of employer or other responsible persons in work places or other
institutions to prevent or deter the commission of acts of sexual harassment and to
provide the procedures for the resolution, settlement or prosecution of acts of sexual
harassment by taking all steps required as per the guidelines given by the Hon‟ble
Supreme Court of India 3 . In our present case it was the duty of co-employees and
Respondent 2 who was also the member of Internal Complaints Committee to prevent
the sexual harassment act as they were present when Appellant 1 gifted the

1
Section 2(n),The Woodlands Sexual Harassment Of Women At Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition And

Redressal) Act,2013 (Act No. 14 Of 2013)

2
Dr. B.N. Ray v. Ramjas College & Ors A.I.R.(2012) Del. H.C.
3
The Management Of Christian Medical College And Hospital v. S.G. Dhamodharan (2019)IILLJ 487Mad.

13
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

respondent no.1 which they do not prevented which shows that the act was not a
misconduct.
5. The motive of presenting a gift was neither past cohabitation nor future cohabitation
the court unable to hold that the object of the gift was illegal and therefore, hold in
disagreement with the learned Civil Judge that contemplated future cohabitation was
not the object or purpose of the gift 4.In our present case the Appellant 1 has no means
rea or any motive to present gift for past cohabitation as the petitioner and
complainant have past relation and many times she accepted gifts from Appellant 1
nor the gift was of such nature which may cause any harm or misconduct.
The act of Appellant 1 was not a misconduct as he acted in a good faith and friendly
manner with no intention to offend, cause harm or harass Respondent no. 1. The
nature of act will not be included within the meaning of misconduct.

Issue 2

The inquiry proceedings by the internal committee and the subsequent disciplinary
proceedings against are in violation of the principles of law and natural justice.

6. It is humbly submitted to the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the inquiry proceedings by
internal committee and subsequent disciplinary proceedings are in violation of the
principles of natural justice.
7. It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order
which involves civil consequences as already stated, must be made consistently with
the rules of natural justice. The aim of the rules of natural justice is to secure justice or
to put it negatively to prevent miscarriage of justice. These rules can operate only in
areas not covered by any law validly made. In other words they do not supplant the
law of the land but supplement it. The concept of natural justice has undergone-
 No one shall be a judge in his own case( Nemo debt esse judex propria causa)
 No decision shall be given against a party without affording him a reasonable
hearing(Audi Alteram Partem)

4
Smt. Naraini v. Pyaremohan (1971) Raj HC.

14
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

 Quasi judicial enquiries must be held in good faith without bias and not
arbitrary5.
8. To control arbitrary action on the part of the administration, that the person adversely
affected by administrative action be given the right of being heard before the
administrative body passes an order against him. As in our present case-
 Appellant 1 pleaded in Labour court that the inquiry proceedings of internal
committee were vitiated by bias on the part of its member respondent 2 who
influenced respondent 1 on the one hand to give complaint against Appellant 1
and influenced the internal committee members on the other hand to submit
findings against Appellant 1. This shows that respondent 2„s action was
arbitrary in inquiry proceedings.
 The Audi Alteram Partem rule, in essence , enforce the equality clause in
Art.146 and it is applicable not only to quasi-judicial bodies but also to
administrative order adversely affecting the party in question unless the rule
has been excluded by the act in question7.
9. A declaration that the punishment of dismissal awarded to him was illegal and
unconstitutional mainly on the ground that the enquiry had been held in violation of
the principles of natural justice and he was denied reasonable opportunity of defence 8.
In our present case there is audi alteram partem but there was denial of reasonable
opportunity of defence, as petitioner admitted the incident which occurred on
01.01.2019 but he also pleaded not guilty stating that he had no intention to harass or
cause any harm to Bavithra and as he acted in good faith. These facts were not
considered and gave its findings holding Abdul guilty.
10. The person cannot act as Judge of a cause in which he himself has some interest either
pecuniary or otherwise as it affords the strongest proof against neutrality. He must be
in a position to act judicially and to decide the matter objectively. A Judge must be of
sterner stuff. His mental equipoise must always remain firm and undetected. He
should not allow his personal prejudice to go into the decision-making. The object is

5
State Of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei & Ors ,A.I.R (1967) S.C. 1269.
6
The Constitution of Woodlands,1950.
7
Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdoor , 1991 AIR 101.
8
Chandrama Tewari v. Union Of India, Through General, 1988 AIR 117.

15
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

not merely that the scales be held even; it is also that they may not appear to be
inclined. If the Judge is subject to bias in favour of or against either party to the
dispute or is in a position that a bias can be assumed, he is disqualified to act as a
Judge, and the proceedings will be vitiated. This rule applies to the judicial and
administrative authorities required to act judicially or quasi-judicially9. As in our
present case the member of the Internal Committee Respondent 2 (Catherine) who
was also a close friend to the complainant (respondent 1). So she cannot act as a judge
of a cause as she has some interest as it affords the strongest proof against neutrality
so, the inquiry proceedings of the internal committee were vitiated by bias on the part
of respondent 2 as the report of the inquiry was also prepared by her.

Issue 3

Whether Abdul deserves sympathy on account of the special mitigating circumstances

in place of dismissal from service as the quantum punishment is excessive.

11. It is humbly submitted to the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the quantum of punishment
was excessive, where appellant 1 deserves sympathy on account of mitigating
circumstances the court should warrant less penalty in place of dismissal from service.
A court may set aside the order of discharge or dismissal which are not justified and
give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in
lieu of discharge or dismissal as there circumstances of the case may require 10.To
avoid the charges of vindictiveness, justice, equality and fair play demand that
11
punishment must always be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged .

[3.1] QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE LESS THAN DISMISSAL

FROM SERVICE.

12. The object is stated to be that the tribunal should have power in cases, where
necessary, to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement or

9
Justice P.D. Dinakaran v Hon'Ble Judges Inquiry Committee, (2011) S.C.
10
Sec. 11-A, The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 14 Of 1947).
11
Ramakant Misra v. State Of U.P. And Ors , A.I.R (1983) SCR (1) 648.

16
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

award any lesser punishment. The statement of objects and reasons has specifically
referred to the limitations on the powers of an Industrial Tribunal 12.
13. The punishment of discharging the person from the service imposed by the employer
is excessive and harsh which could lead the appellant 1 and his family members to
suffer from economic and mental destruction13. As with this case it must be noted that
the harm caused to Respondent 2 was so light that no person of ordinary sense and
temper would complaint of such harm.

[3.2] SYMPATHY ON ACCOUNT OF MITIGATING CIRCUM STANCES.

14. When such dispute is being adjudicated by the Tribunal, the records pertaining to the
proceedings under section 3314 will be relied on by an employer as material on record.
It will lead to an anomaly if it is held that the Tribunal can straightaway order
reinstatement merely because the domestic enquiry conducted is defective for one
reason or other15. In our present case the appellant 1 deserves sympathy on account of
mitigating circumstances as the he pleaded that the inquiry proceedings of the internal
committee were vitiated by bias on the part of its member Catherine (Respondent 2)
who influenced Respondent 1 to make complaint against him and also influenced the
internal committee on the other hand to submit findings against appellant1.
15. Court confirms the finding regarding misconduct, but only interferes with the
punishment being of the view that it is excessive and awards a lesser punishment,
resulting in reinstatement of employee 16. In a same way in our present case after
observing the fact labour court reinstate Appellant 1 in his original employment with
continuity of service but without back wages. As court thinks that the workman
deserves sympathy and an opportunity should be given to him to reform himself.

12
Indian Iron And Steel Compant Limited v. Workmen , A.I.R (1958) S.C. 130 at 138).
13
New Shorrock Mills v. Mahesh Bhai T. Rao ( 1996 ) SCC 590.
14
The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947(14 of 1947) , sec. 33.
15
Workmen of Messrs Firestone Tyre & Rubber Company of India v. Management & Others 1973 AIR 1227,

1973 SCR (3) 587.

16
J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K .P .Agrawal & Anr ,(2007) SC.

17
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

16. The discretion which can be exercised u/s 11A17 is available only on the existence of
certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct so
as to disturb the conscience of the court, or the existence of any mitigating
circumstances which require the reduction of the sentence other past conduct of the
workman which may persuade the labour court to reduce the punishment 18.

Issue 4

Whether the plea of loss of confidence in the employee is available to employer for its
refusal to reinstate the employee in service, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

17. It is humbly submitted to the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the appellant 2 cannot take
plea of loss of confidence in employee to refuse his reinstatement in service. Loss of
confidence by the employer in the employee is a feature which certainly affects the
character or reputation of the employee as the allegation of loss of confidence
amounted to a stigma19.
18. The test for loss of confidence to find out as to whether their was bona fide loss of
confidence in the employee, observing that ,
 The workman is holding the possession of trust and confidence ;
 By abusing such position he commits act which results in forfeiting the same;
and
 To continue him in service/establishment would be embarrassing and in
convenient to the employer, or would be detrimental to the discipline or
security of the establishment.
Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, based upon the mind of the
management , objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of
apprehension in the mind of the management, regarding trustworthiness or

17
THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947(14 Of 1947), sec.11A.
18
Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. v. N.B. Narawade, A.I.R (2005) S.C.
19
Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. Management Of Pan American World, AIR 1987 SC 229.

18
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

reliability of the employee must be alleged and proved 20. As in our present
case
Petitioner no. 1 was in position of trust and confidence so, while terminating
his service he should consider his past conduct. Also, petitioner never
committed such act which results into embarrassment and inconvenient to
employer in course of employment. The act which was done by the petitioner
no. 1 was of not such nature which result him in termination of his service.

Issue 5

Whether the defence provided under section 95 of Woodland Penal code can be
invoked by Abdul for disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the employer.

19. It is humbly submitted to the Hon‟ble Apex Court that the defence provided under
section 95 of Woodland Penal Code can be invoked by Appellant 1 for disciplinary
proceedings initiated against him by the employer. As the act done by petitioner 1 to
respondent1 was so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would
complain of such harm. In this case respondent1 was so confused about the thing
happens to her, she was not sure about the act is wrong or not, whether this is a major
issue to complaint against Appellant 1. Later, she made complaint under the influence
of her friend respondent 2 who was also a member of Internal Committee.

20. The Supreme Court held that whether an act which amounts to an offence is trivial
would undoubtedly depends upon the nature of the injury, the position of the parties,
the knowledge or intention with which the offending act is done, and other related
circumstances21. Before any act to be judged, intention of the party must be seen and
appellant 1 nothing did intentionally but in a good faith and out of friendship.
21. A case22 stated that the complaint itself contains allegations of a very petty nature, of
which hardly any cognizance could have been taken and which would be a trivial act
under Section 95 of Woodland Penal Code for which no criminal proceedings could

20
Kanhaiyalal Agrawal & Ors v. Factory Manager, G Awalior Sugar Co. Ltd., AIR (2001) S.C. 3645
21
Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan Hani Ibrahim Khan, A.I.R. (1966) S.C.R 123.
22
Bindeshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh, A.I.R (1977) S.C.R (1) 125.

19
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

be taken. As appellant 1 on new year a grand occasion day gifted a materialistic thing
to respondent1 who was his childhood friend is of very petty nature which cannot
harms anyone‟s feeling that much which cause her to complaint against him.
22. Sexual harassment is not an offence merely amounting to disruption of law and
order. Sexual harassment is an act of power, and a public and collective violation that
is often trivialised by labelling it an interpersonal transgression. It is therefore a
violation of gender equality and also, of the right to a safe education and work
environment for all. Sexual harassment not only affects a few individuals but
reinforces gender- based discrimination for everyone 23. Appelant1 gifted respondent 1
as a new year gift is nowhere a violation of gender equality.

To gift someone, something which does not signifies any sexual favour or sign to her
is not amount to any such harm which caused her to take major step towards it. As
Appellant 1 gift to respondent 1 is very normal, she was his childhood friend. He
gifted her out of friendship, it cannot cause that much harm that she actually
complaint about it and result it into termination of Abdul‟s employment.

Issue 6

Whether the employer is justified in refusing to provide CCTV camera facilities on the
ground that the right to safe working environment of the employees is not violated by
him and that will cause heavy financial burden to it?

23. It is humbly submitted to the kind perusal of the jurisdiction it is justified to the
appellant 2 in providing CCTV camera facilities on the ground that the right to safe
working environment of the employees is not violated by him and that it will cause
heavy financial burden. As by providing CCTV camera facilities may hamper the
individual right to privacy. Employees have the right to privacy , and intrusive and
disproportionate CCTV monitoring may breach this right. Breaches to this right could
manifest as filming in areas where individuals would expect privacy, such as in toilets
or break areas.

23
Dr. B.N. Ray v. Ramjas College & Ors. , (2012) Del HC.

20
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

24. CCTV surveillance subjects individuals to the gaze of people they do not want to be
watched or observed by. The said installation of CCTV cameras and providing live
feed of the same to anyone with a user id and password jeopardizes the safety and
security of young girls as also the female teachers and shall directly give rise to the
incidents of stalking and voyeurism24. This case highlights the misuse of CCTV
installation which however causes a great impact on employees, their safety issues,
uncomfortable working environment.
25. Using of CCTV cameras violates Art. 2125 of right to life and personal liberty as well
as sec. 354C and 354D 26 of voyeurism and stalking. Any individual may stalk any
employee through CCTV or can publish or viral any images or videos.
26. Lack of detailed legislation and stiff penalties, as well as low awareness among the
general public about the pitfalls of being under surveillance, are some of the reasons
behind the rising number of such instances. Digital voyeurism is increasingly
dramatically in India because of the proliferation of mobile phones with cameras and
the easy availability of CCTV cameras. One can take any legal action under section
66E27. So far, however, there has been no reported conviction under the provision as
there is no any strict law against it.
27. In the case Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association and Anr v. State of Maharashtra,
it was held that installation of CCTV cameras is a violation of Right to Privacy 28. As
employees working in Hygienic Health Care Products Ltd. must get affected by the
cameras and unable to do their personal stuffs. They will find difficult in
manufacturing products, gets conscious while doing their work. They doubt their way
of working, can‟t relax for a while. There is always a question in their mind employee
can see this and cut their wages for not working.
28. In the case PUCL v. Union of India29, the court held that freedom of expression which
overlaps with freedom of speech is not confined to expressing something orally or in

24
Amber Tickoo v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors, 10.05.2019.
25
CONSTITUTION OF WOODLANDS, art.21.
26
WOODLANDS PENAL CODE, 1860(45 Of 1860), Sec. 354 C & Sec. 354 D .
27
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000. Sec. 66 E
28
Indian Hotel and Restaurant Association and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (2019).
29
People‟s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India, S.C. (2013).

21
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

writing , it includes manifestation of any emotion. Visual recording permits one to

monitor speech and expression as understood under Art. 19(1) (a)30. Employees
working in the industrial establishment could not able to discuss their personal issues
as they are recorded. There is a violation of an individual right to freedom of speech
and expression. They will be seen through this machine , only work with what they
left with.
In a modern technological society where surveillance technologies, including CCTV
cameras, can effectively monitor any individual‟s location and movements. While crores are
being spent world wide on CCTV systems, there is a little evidence of the success of CCTV
to combat or deter crime. These systems have not been properly evaluated. Majority of
people are not even aware of CCTV cameras neither aware about the laws related to the
issue. These footages of CCTV cameras maybe misused stalking or personal abuse, majority
of people don‟t feel conscious when being surveilled. This aims to produce the impression of
constant observation in the name of security.

30
CONSTITUTION OF WOODLANDS, Art.19Cl (1) (a).

22
 SCHOOL OF LAW, MODY UNIVERSITY, INTRA MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2019

PRAYER

In the light of arguments advanced an authorities cited, the petitioner humbly submits that the
Hon‟ble Apex Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare that:

1. Appellant 1 should be reinstated in service with compensation for sufferings.

2. There is no violation of safe working environment, by installing CCTV camera it will
cause heavy financial burden to Appellant 2.

Any other order as it deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good

conscience.

For This Act Of Kindness, the Petitioner Shall Duty Bound Forever Pray.

23