Bharti Airtel Ltd v A.S. Raghavendra

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 271

Citation	2024 INSC 265
Date of Judgement	2nd April 2024
Court	Supreme court of India
Appellant	Bharti Airtel Ltd
Respondent	A.S. Raghavendra
Bench	HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLIHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

INTRODUCTION

Bharti Airtel Ltd., India’s largest telecom company, defeated consumer complaints in a legal battle that drew the attention of activists and government officials. The legal director is AS Raghavendra, a long-time Bharti Airtel customer whose complaints have sparked controversy over pricing practices and service quality. This led to a historic decision in the Supreme Court.

Raghavendra’s case against Bharti Airtel has become a major consumer rights and liability issue in the telecom industry. Allegations of unethical practices and failure to meet promised service standards have sparked a court battle that will alter the business’s contractual relationship.

In its defense, Bharti Airtel denied the allegations, saying the billing system was legal and open. Long recognized as an example of service excellence, the business reaffirms its ongoing commitment to providing critical communications services to its broad customer base.

After a long struggle characterized by arguments and lengthy presentation of evidence, the court delivered its verdict, finding the quality of Bharti Airtel Ltd. Undisputed. The decision recognizes the company’s compliance with the law and highlights its strong processes for handling customer complaints and providing quality service.

The court decision caused excitement in communication and led to comments from business people, experts and consumers. Many hailed this decision as a turning point and suggested that the industry would now focus on compliance and consumer protection.

Court’s decision Bharti Airtel Ltd. It is useful for. ‘s business strategy and corporate culture. Following the ruling, the company released a statement saying it was pleased with the outcome and reiterated its commitment to upholding the law while putting its customers’ needs first.

But even as the companies celebrated, the user’s right to counsel issued a warning stating that business transactions must be constantly reviewed. They argue that this demonstrates the importance of openness, accountability and consumer support in protecting the rights of phone users. > The consequences of this decision could guide future laws and regulations as lawmakers and regulators grapple with changes in the market. First, it can affect the course of business next year.

All, Bharti Airtel Ltd. The victory of customer complaints is a turning point in the history of Indian telecommunications. As business faces an environment full of opportunities and competition, the values of fairness, accountability and customer empowerment must remain unchanged. These results will lead stakeholders to a future that provides fair, creative and equitable services.

FACTS OF THE CASE

The interviewee was appointed as Regional Business Director (South) in 2009 and received a bonus of ₹ 100 crore. 22 Lakhs including fixed salary. 13,20,000 and different salaries. 8,80,000 O. The employees of the defendants were questioned by the relevant employees of the plaintiff company. This employee is responsible for managing four account managers representing various states. In 2011, he submitted his first resignation letter using the internal process and it was approved by the business. Therefore he received Rs. 5,92,538 as the be all and end all of his claims. About 19 months later, he appealed to the Deputy Minister of Labor, claiming that he had to leave his job. This led to a deal that was eventually terminated.

In 2013, the state government filed a complaint with the Labor Court under the Right to Complaint Act 1947. The Labor Inspectorate ruled in 2017 that the employee did not provide evidence or allegations that he was an “employee” acting in a managerial capacity. This angered the employee and he wrote to the Supreme Court. The judge allowed the lawsuit in part because the employee was an “employee.” After the judge’s decision, the Labor Court is responsible for the decision. Disappointed, the company appealed to the Chamber; but it was rejected and therefore appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Court also noted that in order to be fair in the intervention, the decision of the Supreme Court had to be negative in some respects, for example, it had to be more negative than usual; but that’s not the problem. He said the statement was ”not his freedom” and did not mean the company forced him to do so.

ISSUES RAISED

The petitioner-employee challenged the order of this Tribunal by challenging the order dated September 5, 2017, a copy of Annexure S to the fourth judge of the Second Additional Employment Tribunal, Bangalore, and dismissed the petition under the Right to Complaint Act. , 1947 (Claim for compensation under Section 10(1) of the Trade Disputes Act, 1947 was rejected on the ground that it did not fall within the definition of “personal business” as set out in Section 2(s) of the Commercial Code Act,1947.

CONTENTIONS OF APPEALENT

Mr CU Singh, counsel for the petitioner, said that the order of the Labor Court clearly states all the facts and law without interruption and according to the evidence adduced by both the parties. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge and the learned Division Bench of the High Court erred in intervening in the matter.
Mr Singh said that although he did not consider the order and findings of the Labor Court.
Furthermore, the learned Public Prosecutor said that it was proved that the accused was an “employee” under the Identity Act “He was not dismissed and the nature of the post and He did not defend or testify about the nature of his work.His stance is that the defendant decided to resign on 24 March 2011 and accepted full and final settlement on 23 June 2011 and was dismissed from his job on 9 May 2011 because he received SIP on 26 August 2011. What happened in 2011 is clearly It has been confirmed in the law that the Supreme Court has overstepped its jurisdiction in such matters as the order may be given for the purpose of rectifying the tort under section 226 of the law or the error committed by the court or the court through natural justice and not for the purpose of examining the evidence or following the judge of the court. Syed The key to this argument, which can be applied to the decision in Yakub v KS Radha Krishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477, is paragraph 74.

CONTENTIONS OF REPONDENT

Defendant appeared in person and opposed the immediate objection. He said that the applicant’s previous allegations had no validity. The applicant argued before the learned Judge of the High Court and the learned Division Bench that he had successfully established that he was an “employee” by virtue of his position. He further argued that the Labor Court ignored the fact that there was sufficient oral and documentary evidence as to the nature of the activities carried out by him, that it did not ignore this technology because it was specifically stated that it was “Workers”. What is missing in his claim is “.
The petitioner said that the petitioner is a telecommunications company that provides products and services to individuals and organizations, including government institutions, and participates in government tenders. The petitioner said that the petitioner has a company called “Government”. He said that the petitioner has a company called “Government”. It cooperates with government projects , the vertical department/division that needs to collect information and send it to the company’s senior officials/management. The defendant said that he worked In a vertical department and therefore his position was of a managerial nature.
The defendant said that he had no knowledge of the decision and/or nature and/or law and that no one told him. BT. The petitioner’s duty is to provide its employees with easy access to government offices; The petitioner, like many other private sector organisations, is known as “Regional Operating Office”, “Team Head” etc. It has given attractive and attractive names such as, but has no real authority. Or law.

JUDGEMENT

It was found that the resignation of the employees was not coerced

The case also involves a Bharti Airtel employee named Raghavendra, who resigned and later claimed that his resignation was involuntary. The Karnataka High Court partially upheld Raghavendra’s case; but the decision was overturned by the Supreme Court.

After reviewing Raghavendra’s resignation letter, the court ruled that there was no sign of coercion. The court held that dissatisfaction with Raghavendra’s performance was not a reason for resignation.

Distribution and Powers of Workers

Definition of “worker” under the Industrial Relations Act 1947 The Supreme Court further elaborated on this issue. The court held that the “employee” was not bound by the authority to appoint, dismiss, or conduct disciplinary proceedings. This distinction is important because having an “employee” gives you access to certain problem-solving processes.

Intervention and Burden of Proof by the Supreme Court

In addition, the Court also commented on the appropriate pattern of judicial review requiring the Supreme Court to accept the decision of the Parliamentary Labor Court. He said the Supreme Court should intervene only if the court’s decision was grossly wrong.

The court also clarified that the words “not freedom” do not always mean using force against oneself. Part of the employer. Raghavendra’s dissatisfaction with the memo he received, including his call to the company’s superior, appeared to indicate more dissatisfaction than the forced resignation.

The court made clear t’at there was no real allegation of injustice or oppression against the employer. Although Raghavendra feels his complaints are not appreciated, this does not always mean full-blown resignation.

ANALYSIS

After carefully considering the facts of the case and the arguments of both parties, the court upheld the decision of the respondent and the order passed by the Single Judge cannot be supported. The issue at issue is whether the defendant falls within the definition of “employee” in Article 2(s) of the Identity Act. The meaning is as follows:

“2(s) “Employee” means any person (including an employee) who performs work as a teacher, skill, skill, business, job, job or care, regardless of the terms of employment expressly or impliedly and for the purpose of initiating a process under this Act in connection with a dispute with a person dismissed, dismissed or terminated in connection with or arising from an employment contract, regardless of the terms of employment or gift or gift. Commercial dispute. Dispute arising out of or its elimination, evacuation, removal or extraction arising from conflict, but does not include any such person –

Any person subject to the Air Force Regulations, 1950 (45 of 1950). ) or the Army Act 1950 (46 of 1950) or the Navy Act 1957 (62 of 1957)
Employment in the police force or employment as a police officer or other prison employee
Working primarily in an administrative or managerial capacity
Those employed in a supervisory capacity at a salary exceeding ten thousand rupees, even if, by the nature of the responsibility arising from the position or the authority conferred on him, the duty or duties performed are primarily administrative.

CONCLUSION

Although the defendant seriously claimed that he was forced to resign, this court rejected this claim primarily due to the language used by the defendant in his resignation letter, causing the defendant to be forced to resign. He submitted his resignation, which could have been approved to protect his family and his job, to shame and criticism.

He also revealed that he felt unfairly judged in the six months before his resignation and expressed his dissatisfaction and discontent throughout his time working at the company. Wait a minute here, the courts will say that no company employee can tell his employer the words of his job. He has the opportunity to submit his complaint, but ultimately his evaluation/evaluation will depend on the opinion of the authorities in the institution.

In his resignation letter dated March 24, 2011, the defendant also stated that he was exposed to personal and professional criticism, that he was harassed because he was unfairly accused, that he was right without comment and analysis, and that he had no choice but to resign. Not his freedom. The court noted that the words “not his freedom” did not mean that the company forced him to do this. More precisely, it appears from the record and the decision of the forum below that the dismissal decision was rather based on the assumption that the petitioner was wrongfully convicted.

From the available information, it is also understood that the defendant filed a complaint with the Ombudsman regarding his unfair assessment. Needless to say, it is an exaggeration for the court to think that an entire organization (for example, a company) would target one person (the defendant) and that a person of such high qualifications and quality would be of great help to it. Customers. . The company will have to submit its information.

REFERENCES

This Article is written by Natasha Bothra student of Asian Law College, Noida (ALSN); Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.