Poor HR Practice - Human Right Violation & The BRSR Report In The Maruti Suzuki India Limited - A SEBI Listed Entity Where Mandatory Third Party Audit Needed For The BRSR Report.
HR Practice - Human Right Violation : HR Laws On Domestic Inquiry.
* Birendra K Jha Certified Social Auditor; Practitioner Social Impact Assessment Audit; Practitioner BRSR Audit. EMail: birendrajha03@yahoo.com
Maruti Suzuki India Limited is within top 1000 SEBI listed Companies in India. The Maruti Suzuki India Limited (MSIL) is binded to submit for the BRSR Report, Third Party HR Audit Report on Principle 9 of the BRSR. The MSIL has history of engagement in Human Right violation. This is surprising that how this establishment was given "Great Place to Work" certificate. It appears all such certificates are bogus. Social Auditors deeply examining the entity for the Third Party BRSR Audit, should must ignore such bogus certificates like "Great Place to Work". They should not come under the influence or impression of such certificates. There is huge skill gap here in the HR Department of the Maruti Suzuki India Limited. People do not know basic HR Law in the Maruti Suzuki India Limited. The case of Inderjeet Kumar is reported here. This is one of the several incidents of the Human Right violation in the MSIL. One sample case is sufficient to check the health pulse of the HR Practice in the MSIL. This is must for the Social Auditors who are in the process of conducting the mandatory Third Party Audit in the SEBI listed entities for the BRSR Audit. This is also must for the HR Practitioners.
Case of Inderjeet Kumar:
(1) Inderjeet Kumar was Technician L-3 in the establishment of the Maruti Suzuki India Limited ( MSIL ) at Manesar. The Trade Union gave a demand notice to the Management of the MSIL on certain demands. When the demands were not met and even no discussion was held by the Management, the Trade Union resorted to a peaceful demonstration outside the factory gate. The Management retaliated by resorting to victimization of the workers. Many workers were suspended. Some were dismissed. Eventually the Trade Union called for a three hours tool down strike in the factory. The confrontation between the Management and the Trade Union even figured in the Parliament. Ultimately, under the auspices of the Hon'ble Minister for Heavy Industries a settlement was reached between the Management and the Trade Union and work was resumed there after. This was alleged by Trade Union that the settlement agreed with the Minister had not yet been fulfilled. There was no any change in the attitude of the Management towards the workers. As part of a design to reduce the strength of the Trade Union, the workers were transferred to new department and new job on some charge sheeted ground.
(2) Inderjeet Kumar was also given a warning letter under this desgn that he was not completing his work. Inderjeet Kumar then and there submitted reply denying the allegations. He was issued another warning letter on the same lines as the previous letter. Inderjeet Kumar again replied denying the allegations. After two warning letters. Inderjeet Kumar was then transferred to another department where the nature of the work was completely different.
(3) Inderjeet Kumar was 2 of the 8 suspended employees under this design. Inderjeet Kumar was issued charge-sheet on the charge that he did not complete the assigned work and was not respecting his superiors in the transferred unit. Without considering the reply of Inderjeet Kumar the Management decided to hold domestic inquiry against him. Inquiry Officer was appointed as a show-off arrangement. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report, without properly conducting the enquiry. The Inquiry Officer proved the charges without any "speaking evidence".
(4) On the basis of the Inquiry Officer's report, Inderjeet Kumar was issued again a show cause notice, that his charges are proved so why not he should be dismissed from service? Inderjeet Kumar, denied again the proved charges. HR Department after the issue of this show cause notice, terminated the employment of Inderjeet Kumar.
(5) The entire process of conducting the enquiry was illegal. The fairness of the enquiry was treated a major issue. Inderjeet Kumar was examined as PW 1 by the Management and closed his evidence. The evidence given by the Management was certain documents. No witness was examined. Clearly the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. The principles of natural justice were not followed in the domestic enquiry. The 3 of 8 findings recorded by the enquiry officer were not supported with any clear cogent evidence.
(6) The Clause 21.4 of the Certified Standing Orders of the Maruti Udyog Limited is needed to be examined here. This clause speaks clearly what is the legal procedure of conducting the enquiry. The relevant extract is as under:
"A charge sheet will be served upon the workman against whom the enquiry is to be held wherein the circumstances against him will be mentioned clearly and he will be asked to give clarification. He will be given time to reply to the charges and he will be allowed to be defended by any worker working in the same department where he is working or by the members of the recognized union. Except for the reasons recorded by the Enquiry Officer in writing, the workman will have the liberty to produce witnesses in his defence and to cross-examine such a witness on whose evidence the charge is based. The short crux of the evidence will be provided to the opposite party and the argument of the workman will be recorded."
Further, the Constitution of India in Article 311 (2) provides this important Law:
No person can be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank, unless: 1) an inquiry is held ; 2) in the inquiry, he is informed of the charges framed; and 3) the person is given the opportunity to defend himself.
If any one of the three elements mentioned here is missing that person dismissal or removal or reduction in rank is illegal.
(7) This is revealed that the Inquiry Officer had been provided names of some co-workers working with Inderjeet Kumar. Inderjeet Kumar had requested to the Inquiry Officer to permit such co-workers to plead on his behalf before the Inquiry Officer. This was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer. Denial of such request was going against Clause 21.4 of the Certified Standing Orders cited above. This was clear violation of the legal procedure for conducting fair Inquiry.
(8) Resultantly Management witnesses 1 to 4 were examined without Inderjeet Kumar or his representative. The absence of Inderjeet Kumar and not providing any assistance of any co-worker/ member of the Union, was major flaw in this enquiry. Meanwhile Inderjeet Kumar asked for two weeks time to submit reply on the Management charges. The Inquiry Officer also refused this time grant and ordered the inquiry closed. This was another second lapse by the Inquiry Officer. Law says maximum opportunity shall be given to the workmen to defend his case. That was not given.
(9) It was thus clear that the whole process of Inquiry Officer was defective with three clear legal lapses. This was clearly the violation of the principles of the natural justice. Any dismissal order based on such defective Inquiry was also going to be summarily rejected. The HR Department moved dismissal order of Inderjeet Kumar on such defective Inquiry Officer's report. The HR Department never applied mind that there is patent three legal errors in conducting the Inquiry. Such patent errors and the legal flaws, had demanded another fresh enquiry.That was not done.
(10) Inquiry - Defective & "Ultra-Vires" of Fundamental Human Right Protection For Fair Trial :
Inderjeet Kumar lost his fundamental Human Right protection available under the Law on "fair trial" on three different procedures mentioned here:
a) No support of Co-workmen was given. When this was permitted under Law.
b) No fair opportunity of time was given to reply and defend his case. When Law says maximum opportunity be given to the workmen.
c) No speaking evidence was given by the Inquiry Officer to prove the charge in report. When Law says "Cogent" "Speaking" evidence shall be the basis to prove charge in the report.
Thus, the "fair trial" was not given. This is apparent skill gap of the HR Department. People failed to apply mind, whether Inquiry Officer had conducted correctly the Inquiry or not? The correct action in similar case is that, the HR Department should have gone for appointing another Inquiry Officer. On the ground of three clear apparent legal procedural errors in conducting the domestic - Inquiry. A list of catena of cases are given here. This is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. This is ruling law of India, that should must not be violated by any entity:
Conclusion:
a) The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana turned down the dismissal order of Inderjeet Kumar issued by the HR Department. This was set aside.
b) Re-instatement order of Inderjeet Kumar was given with all consequential service benefits.
c) The Maruti Suzuki India Limited should introspect. The HR Practice of the entity is very poor here. The sound HR Practice is one where Human Right is protected and respected.
d) The Maruti Suzuki India Limited has been certified as a "Great Place to Work". This certificate is just an "eye-wash". It has no value addition for measuring the HR Practice. The Social Auditor should must ignore such document and lift the curtain and watch the real HR Practice.
e) Lesson For the Social Auditors:
Social Auditors should must look the status of the suspended and terminated employees, other than the cases sub-judiced or under appeal in any court or judicial forum. If there is any Human Right violation that should must be noted on the audit report.
Comments
Post a Comment