BD Dadlani ordered to reinstate, pay US$74,000 to worker ‘unjustifiably terminated’

THE I NDUSTRIAL Disputes Tribunal has ruled that B. D. Dadlani (Jamaica) Limited is to reinstate Raj Kumar Khurana to his post as chief financial officer by March 18 and pay him US$74,000 because he was unjustifiably terminated.

Failure to reinstate him as stipulated i n the award then the company must pay him compensation of US$80,000, the tribunal ruled on February 29.

The tribunal has castigated the company for its failure to recognise, in keeping with the Labour Relations Code, “That work is a social right and obligation and should not be taken away on a whim.”

The company, which operates a chain of i n-bond duty-free jewellery stores, contended that the aggrieved worker Khurana was an employee since April 1999. He went on vacation to India in January 2020 and due to the COVID-19 pandemic he was unable to return in March 2020.

Upon his return in November 2020, the company held meetings with him to discuss some discrepancies that were discovered.

Khurana did not resume work since his return to Jamaica.

Khurana engaged the services of King’s Counsel Andre Earle who contested his separation and sought the assistance and intervention of the Ministry of Labour and Social Security. No resolution was reached and the matter was referred to the tribunal for determination and settlement.

While on vacation, Khurana contended that he was denied access to the company’s business computer and emails. On his return to Jamaica he requested a date that he should resume work and was informed to wait a few weeks. He said he was invited to meetings with the company in December 2020 and January 2021 to discuss concerns the company had.

He was never charged with any offence and no disciplinary hearing was held concerning issues the company had, he stated.

He asked the tribunal to find that he was unjustifiably dismissed.

Khurana said in his evidence that he wanted justice, his name to be cleared and to be reinstated.

THREE WITNESSES

The company made oral submissions and called three witnesses, including its managing director, Indru Kumar Dadlani.

In handing down the award on February 29, the tribunal stated that it did not accept Dadlani’s evidence and found that he was he was fully aware of the fragile state of the company’s finances prior to the pandemic, in not being able to meet its obligations and all the measures taken by Khurana to keep the company afloat.

One of the measures, the tribunal said was Khurana taking out a loan in his name for the benefit of the company.

It was the tribunal’s finding that, “The company’s actions prior to the aggrieved worker’s return to Jamaica where the company deleted the aggrieved worker’s emails and blocked his access to the company’s files were not in keeping with good industrial relations practices, taking into consideration that the aggrieved worker was neither charged with an offence nor given an opportunity to state his case.

“The manner in which it was done, without any notification or discussion was an underhanded move on the part of the company.”

The tribunal found that the way the company treated Khurana was unfair and upon his return to Jamaica the company’s action showed an intention not to continue with the employeremployee relationship.

NO EVIDENCE

Khurana initiated the first meeting and after the second meeting, there was no evidence that the company made any attempt to engage with Khurana to resolve the concerns it had, the tribunal stated.

The tribunal said further that the company simply cut ties with him with no decision made as to whether it had enough evidence to charge him or any reason given to him for the separation.

“In keeping with the Labour Relations Code, the company failed to recognise that work is a social right and obligation and should not be taken away on a whim. The tribunal is of the view that dignity was not afforded to Mr Khurana after many years of service to the company. The tribunal accepts the evidence of both parties that Mr Khurana didn’t resume work after returning to Jamaica and has not done so up to date. The tribunal also notes that the aggrieved worker has not been paid as well.

“For the above reasons, the tribunal finds that the aggrieved worker was unjustifiably terminated as the company’s actions were not in keeping with the strict rules of natural justice and showed inconsistency with principles stipulated in the Labour Relations Code,” the tribunal ruled.

The tribunal found that Khurana did not make any effort in seeking alternative employment with a view to mitigate his circumstances. The tribunal, in making the award, noted that Khurana’s desire was for justice and to be reinstated in his job.

Attorneys-at-law Taniesha McIntosh and Gordon Brown represented the company.

King’s Counsel Andre Earle and attorney-at-law Diandra McPherson represented Khurana.