The Kerala High Court recently ruled that an employee sharing messages about safety concerns on a private WhatsApp group is not wrongful [Sujith T V v Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd].
In a ruling dated June 18, Justice Satish Ninan emphasized that disciplining an employee for such actions would violate the freedom of speech and expression protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.
This observation was made while overturning one of two disciplinary charges against a technician at a government-run fertilizer company. The technician had posted messages regarding safety concerns related to ammonia handling on a private WhatsApp group for company technicians.
“The ‘WhatsApp’ group was a private one among the technicians of the Company. The mere expression of concern on safety cannot attract the charge as leveled against him. The petitioner is justified in his contention that his fundamental right of freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) is infringed. The disciplinary charge against the petitioner could not be sustained,” the Court stated.
The technician was an employee of Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (FACT). After sharing the WhatsApp messages, he was suspended on July 31, 2019, on two charges: spreading false information and unauthorized entry into a restricted area. The company argued that his actions damaged its reputation and violated safety protocols.
Although the technician expressed regret and his apology was accepted, the company later issued a formal warning, which would be recorded in his service books, potentially affecting his career. This prompted the technician to challenge his suspension and the warning in the Kerala High Court.
The technician’s counsel argued that no formal inquiry was conducted before the disciplinary action was taken. FACT countered that the WhatsApp messages suggested the workplace was unsafe and could incite other workers against the company, adding that the punishment was minor.
The Court noted that the technician’s apology did not equate to admitting the charges and emphasized the necessity of a formal inquiry before imposing disciplinary action. The Court ruled that sharing the WhatsApp messages was within the employee’s rights and set aside the disciplinary charge related to this issue.
However, the Court upheld the company’s decision to issue a warning for unauthorized entry into the ammonia handling section, recognizing the violation of safety rules and the technician’s admission to entering the restricted area.
“Since the petitioner is guilty of one charge and the punishment imposed is of the lowest category, there is no need to interfere with the same,” the Court concluded.
The petitioner was represented by advocates Kaleeswaram Raj, Thulasi K Raj, Varun C Vijay, and Maitreyi Sachidananda Hegde. Advocates M Gopalakrishnan Nambiar, K John Mathai, Joson Manavalan, Kurian Thomas, Paulose C Abraham, and Raja Kannan represented FACT and its representatives.
