Searching For Another Job With Rival Company Is A Basic Right, Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that an employee searching for another job with better pay or benefits, even with a rival company, does not amount to moral turpitude for the purpose of termination of employment.
Justice Shampa (Dutt) Paul held: "Thus looking for another job, even if with a rival company (though, not proved in this case) with better perks and facilities is a basic right and does not constitute moral turpitude as it is not contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals."
The petitioner is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and performing as the sole Dielectric Film Manufacturer in India.
The private respondent no. 4 was appointed w.e.f. 01.08.2012 in the petitioner company as a technician. It is further stated that the private respondent being in a responsible position, was privy to various process, techniques, recipes which are developed with the company over the years through research and in house experimentation which was strictly confidential in nature and not to be shared outside the company.
It was stated that the petitioner company had found out that the private respondent violated the terms of employment and was playing the role of a middleman in contracting with another company and trying to set up another company, of Capacitor Film Manufacturing plant and after receiving proof of the same, the company issued show cause letter dated 21.07.2022 to the private respondent and suspended him from service.
The petitioner initiated an enquiry against the employee, and did not accept his resignation. Upon completion of the enquiry, the private respondent was terminated from service and did not challenge the said enquiry report nor the order of termination.
It was further stated that due to misconduct amounting to moral turpitude and loss sustained by the petitioner, the gratuity of the respondent was forfeited by the order dated 22.11.2022 under Section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act. The charges against the private respondent was further proved when he admittedly joined the rival company, it was claimed.
The private respondent then submitted an application for gratuity to the petitioner and filed an application under Form N to the Controlling Authority for payment of Gratuity. After hearing the parties, the Controlling Authority passed an order dated 09.02.2024 in favour of the private respondent directing the appellant company to pay gratuity.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal. The Appellate Authority upheld and confirmed the order of the Controlling Authority. Hence the writ application.
The allegation against the private respondent was that he was in regular in touch of a rival company and was passing the confidential information of the petitioner/company to them.
However, the court noted that the petitioner in this case, could not prove that any damage or loss to, or destruction of, property belonging to the employer was due to the act of the respondent, which was riotous, disorderly, or involved moral turpitude.
It thus upheld the decision of the appellate authority regarding payment of gratuity to the petitioner.
Case: M/s. Xpro India Limited. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case No: WPA 4620 of 2025