Facing Harassment and Wrongful Termination: Can Employers Really Fire Without Cause?

I was working for one of the biggest telecom companies in the Bangalore office, and I was facing an issue of workplace harassment and perhaps wrongful termination. I have been threatened and harassed to resign for months, and when I refused to do so, they finally terminated me by citing a clause from my offer letter, which I believe was wrong. I have consulted a few lawyers, and some of them told me that if such a term is mentioned in the offer letter, you cannot do anything about it. But then I came across a comment from a senior lawyer on a post: "Just remember the terms of your appointment letter that services can be terminated without assigning any reason are not legally valid and do not stand effective in the eyes of Law Courts." This gives me some hope. I am just not able to connect to the senior advocate who mentioned this in that comment. There are many other employees from my company who have been forced to resign in a similar way.

Can an employee be terminated without cause?

But my question is, can any employee be terminated without cause just because the appointment letter has such a clause? They almost always have that in the offer letter. If yes, then why are they forcing people to resign, why not use this to terminate anyone?

Regards, Rohit

Hi Rohit, It would be good to check if the same appointment letter has a clause for a notice period, stating that upon resigning, the employee is supposed to serve a notice period. If there is a clause on serving the notice period, then this contradicts the clause that termination can happen without assigning any reason. This is because the appointment letter then becomes invalid, providing an advantage to the company but not to the employee, who cannot leave whenever she/he wants to.

In the US, there is "at-will employment," which provides the employer and the employee the benefit of ending their work relationship without any notice or reason, as long as there is no ground for discrimination or retaliation of any kind. Under such arrangements, the company can terminate the employee's services anytime, or the employee can leave the company anytime without serving any notice period.

Now, if your appointment letter poses terms of at-will employment, which is most unlikely in India, you can still provide evidence from the harassment you have suffered over the months, stating that your exit was part of a "constructive discharge," where an employee is made to feel uncomfortable in a hostile work environment, finally resulting in exit.

@Nelson

Yes, there is a clause about the notice period as well, but it states that either party can waive the notice period by paying a salary equivalent to the duration of the notice period.

Employment Termination Clauses and Legal Validity

A clause in the appointment order stating that employment can be terminated without assigning any reason will not be maintainable before the law. Although it is true that an appointment order, once signed by both parties, can be considered a contract of employment, it cannot contain any negative clauses solely favoring the employer. You cannot argue that since the employee has accepted the terms, it would be binding on them. This is because, at the time of signing the contract, the employee is in a weaker position compared to the employer, who holds supremacy. This means the contract is a voidable contract and will not stand. If we allow it in favor of the employer, there will be a tendency to include clauses like not being eligible for gratuity after completing five years, salary being paid on the 15th of every month, or prohibiting joining a union.

Protection Available to Employees

There are two approaches to employee protection: one for an employee who has no reportees under them or is a worker as per the definition of the Industrial Disputes Act, and another for an employee with supervisory or managerial powers as per functions. I have highlighted the word "functions" because you may be designated as a Manager but may not have any managerial rights, such as the right to approve leave for subordinates, initiate disciplinary action against them, or conduct their performance appraisal. In the case of the former, the provisions of the ID Act will prevail over the provisions of the appointment order, and you cannot terminate an employee without following the procedures given in the ID Act, regardless of the terms agreed upon by the employee. On the other hand, the provisions of the ID Act do not apply to the service conditions of managerial persons. For them, the contract of employment will prevail. However, this does not mean that you can make an agreement with clauses that favor the employer only.

Dear Rohit,

You can challenge your termination by filing a case in the labor office or civil court, as per your position. Let the court decide whether the termination is right and justified according to the terms of your appointment. The court has ample authority to interpret the clause positively or negatively based on the circumstances. Seize the opportunity to prove your employer wrong by putting up a fight.

Thank you.