Plaint against impugned Suspension:

In the High Court of Bombay

Civil Original Jurisdiction
Civil Suit No 19 of 2021

In the matter of:

Gajanan Sharma, son of Ashwin Sharma, Residing at 203, The Summit, Ghatkopar, Mumbai 400043, former
employee (Assistant manager) in the Respondent-Company.

…Plaintiff

1. Vendanta Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at
MIDC, Andheri, through its Managing Director.
2. Ramesh Screwala, Managing Director of the above Company.

…Respondent

Civil Writ Petition against the order, dated March 24, 2021, passed by the Managing Director, respondent
No. 2 herein, by which the services of the plaintiff as an employee of the respondent-company have been
terminated.

May it please the Hon’ble Chief Justice of the High Court of Bombay and His Lordship’s companion Judges.

The plaintiff most respectfully begs to state as follows:

1. That on the 22nd of April, 2018, the plaintiff and the respondent mutually agreed that the former should
serve as the Assistant Manager of the latter’s Mumbai office for a period of five years on a salary of Rs.
50,000 per month.

3. That respondent No. 1 is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered
office at MIDC, Mumbai.

4. That on March 24th, 2021, the respondent No. 2 herein abruptly discharged the plaintiff terminating the
services of the plaintiff and the plaintiff came to be relieved of his duties the same day. A copy of the
impugned termination letter is annexed hereto and marked as ANNEXURE-1.

5. That on a bare reading of the impugned order it becomes clear that the order has been issued on the
basis of some allegations of sexual harassment on the part of the plaintiff, but no inquiry as required
under the company’s policy the has been held before the passing of the order of termination.

6. That the plaintiff has not committed any act that could be termed to be an act of sexual harassment.

7. That the plaintiff has ever been and is willing to continue in such service for the remainder of the staid
period of five years in accordance with the agreement.

8. That the plaintiff has suffered a loss of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees one lakh fifty thousand only) on account of
damages due to his wrongful dismissal before the stipulated time.

9. The Plaintiff assails the impugned order on the grounds that the said termination, without conducting a
proper inquiry into the matter, violates the principles of natural justice.

10. That the cause of action for the suit arose within the jurisdiction of this court at MIDC, Andheri on the
24th of March, 2021, when the respondent wrongfully discharged the plaintiff from his service.

11. That the plaintiff has not filed any petition or other proceedings relating to the matter at this petition in any
other court.
Relief:
In the facts and circumstances stated above the plaintiff prays that the respondent be directed to pay Rs.
25,000 per month, being fifty percent of the current salary, for the first 90 days and Rs. 37,500 per month
thereafter as subsistence allowance under Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act,
1946, along with damages for wrongful termination of the plaintiff. It is further prayed that the respondent be
burdened with costs.

Verification:
I, A, do verify that the facts stated in paragraphs 1 to 10 of the above plaint are true to my personal
knowledge and the contents therein are believed by me on information received to be correct. I append my
signature to this verification at Mumbai on March 26, 2021.

Sd/-
Mr. Gajanan Sharma
Plaintiff
Dated: March 26, 2021

Counsel,
Adv Harish Salve