May the counsel seeks permission to approach the dice.

Much obliged your lordships.

Good Morning to the honourable bench.

If it may please the court may the counsel seeks permission to address the bench as lordships.
(or)
Counsel recognised the gracious presence of your ladyship. However for the convenience of the
proceeding may the counsel seeks permission to address the bench as lordships.

Much obliged your lordships.

May the Counsel seek permission to begin with the statement of facts

Much obliged your lordship

Statement of Facts:

Woogle Randia Pvt. Ltd, a tech giant, dismissed its top employees from Dhihar State based on their
failure to meet expected standards. Further, it amended pertinent clause of its Hiring Policy to explicitly
exclude the recruitment of individuals who rank as toppers from the State of Dhihar. The Chief Minister
of Dhihar requested Woogle to withdraw its hiring policy amendment due to the ongoing investigation.
Woogle’s CEO, Lydia Persiana, criticized this interference, prompting controversy. Despite apologizing
later, Lydia met with an untimely demise in a suspicious car accident. Due to the suspicious
circumstances surrounding the incident, the police registered an FIR, accusing the dismissed employees
Athary, Aarnik, Noman, Priyanshu, and Laraib.

May the counsel seeks permission to proceed with the pleadings.

Much obliged your lordships.

Moving towards the second issue, the 2nd issue is that, WHETHER THE ACCUSATION AGAINST ATHARV,
AARNIK, NOMAN, PRIYANSHU, AND LARAIB IS LEGALLY JUSTIFIED?

The Chief Minister of Dhihar writes a letter to the CEO of Woogle Randia to withdraw the amendment as
the Scandal was pending before CB-CID. In response to the letter from the Chief Minister, Lydia Persiana
had stated that, “He is keen on protecting the wrongdoers, and who knows, he might be one himself.”
This remark stirred controversy, prompting widespread calls for Lydia to apologize from party members
across the State. After that statement, tragedy struck as her car collided and she met with an accident,
resulting in her untimely demise. The police registered an FIR, accusing the dismissed employees Athary,
Aarnik, Noman, Priyanshu, and Laraib.

In regards to it, the counsel on behalf of the petitioner humbly submits that The accusation against
Atharv, Aarnik, Noman, Priyanshu, and Laraib is not legally justified, which the counsel would be
establishing on three main grounds:
Firstly, PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE:

They were dismissed by Woogle Randia Pvt. Ltd due to their failure to meet expected standards, their
termination does not inherently imply culpability for Ms. Lydia Persiana’s accident. The legal principle of
innocent until proven guilty must apply. In State of U.P. v. Naresh and Ors, every accused person is
assumed innocent unless their guilt is established, the presumption of innocence is a human right.

Despite allegations against them, there exists a notable absence of direct evidence implicating them in
any illicit activities related to the DSEB Scandal or any other criminal conduct. In Thirupala v. Public
Prosecutor, the Supreme Court emphasized the requirement for direct evidence to establish the guilt of
the accused in criminal cases.

Secondly, PARTIAL INVESTIGATION PROCESS:

The mere coincidence of their dismissal from employment and the subsequent accident does not
establish causation or culpability. Based on that ground, without any further investigation, the employee
cannot be accused of the crime.

The present case coupled with the involvement of high-profile individuals and potential political motives,
necessitates a thorough and impartial investigation. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat, the
Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough and impartial investigation, especially in complex
cases involving high-profile individuals or political motives. Rushing to judgment without conclusive
evidence jeopardizes the fairness of the legal process and the rights of the accused to a fair trial.

Thirdly, DEFAMING THE REPUTATION OF EMPLOYEES:

The accusation and subsequent filing of an FIR against the dismissed employees have led to severe
damage to their reputation and standing in society. This potentially hinders their future employment
prospects and subjects them to social stigma. Such defamation without proper evidence constitutes a
violation of their right to dignity and reputation, as guaranteed under Article 2161 of the Constitution.

Therefore, the counsel concludes that the absence of any prior instances of misconduct or criminal
behaviour further strengthens the argument against the legality of the accusation. Mere association or
suspicion of conspiracy is insufficient to establish guilt as stated in the case of State of Maharashtra vs.
Sheela Barse. The prosecution must provide concrete evidence of a conspiracy beyond a reasonable
doubt.
May the counsel seeks permission to proceed with the 3rd issue.

Much obliged your lordships.

The 3rd issue is that, "Whether the actions of Woogle Randia Pvt. Ltd in response to the DSEB scandal
are justifiable"?

In response to DSEB Scandal, the company dismissed its top five employees from Dhihar State, all of
whom had been hired based on their status as toppers in the 2022 examinations as they did not meet
the expected standards of credibility. The company further substantiates its actions by referencing a
reliable clause in the Employment Contract which states that:

“Every employee will be placed under a Probation Period for 3 years from the date of employment, and
Woogle Randia Pvt. Limited has full discretion to dismiss an employee during the Probation Period on
unsatisfactory or other grounds.”

In regards to it, The counsel humbly submits that the actions of Woogle Randia Pvt. Ltd in response to
the DSEB scandal are justifiable, which the counsel would be establishing on four main grounds:

Firstly, VALIDITY OF DISMISSAL IN LIGHT OF CONTRACTUAL PARAMETERS:

Woogle has acted within the bounds of their employment contracts, citing the clause empowering them
to dismiss employees during probation for “unsatisfactory” performance or “other grounds.” The parties
have freely consented to its terms, and the employer’s right to dismiss employees during probation is
legally valid as per the Employment Contract.

In order to substantiate it, the counsel refers to the case Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. Laxman
(2015) in which Courts have upheld the validity of employment Contracts and probationary clauses,
allowing employers to terminate employees during the Probation period for unsatisfactory performance
or other grounds specified in the contract.

Secondly, PROTECTION OF INTEREST OF THE COMPANY::

The counsel humbly submits that the Woogle Randia Pvt. Ltd is a global tech giant with its registered
head office in the USA. As a reputable company, Woogle Randia Pvt. Ltd has a vested interest in
upholding its credibility and maintaining high standards.

By taking action and distancing itself from individuals implicated in the scandal and also the employees
who are not eligible to work in the company due to the lack of performance, the company aimed to
protect its corporate image and brand integrity which helps to uphold the main motive of the company
i.e., profit making.

The act of the company is justified as per Section 166 of the Companies Act, 2013 which states that the
company’s actions are in line with the duties imposed on directors to act in the best interests of the
company and its stakeholders. By taking decisive action to address the scandal and mitigate associated
risks, the company sought to safeguard the interests of its stakeholders, customers, and employees and
uphold their trust.

In order to substantiate it, the refers to the case of Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. vs. J.P. and Company
(2004)75, in which the Bombay High Court emphasized the importance of protecting business
reputation. It justifies the company’s measures to safeguard its brand from potential harm arising from
the DSEB scandal.

Thirdly, MITIGATION OF FUTURE RISKS:

The counsel humbly submits that the Companies have a legal obligation to take reasonable precautions
to mitigate foreseeable risks. Randian laws recognize the principle of risk management in business
operations. The principle was upheld in the case of State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976)82, where the
Supreme Court emphasized the importance of preventive measures to address potential threats.

The company’s decision to dismiss employees and amend its hiring policy is a proactive measure aimed
at preventing future risks and maintaining corporate governance standards.

Lastly, IN COMPLIANCE WITH CONSTITUTION:

The counsel humbly submits that the act of the company is not violative of the fundamental rights
prescribed under Article 14 and 15 of the constitution as The company’s decision to dismiss employees is
solely based on performance criteria, not discriminatory factors such as race, religion, or place of birth.
Further, the amendment to the hiring policy targeting individuals from the State of Dhihar is a
reasonable restriction aimed at addressing specific concerns arising from the DSEB scandal, rather than
discriminatory intent based on place of birth.

Therefore, the counsel concludes that the act of the company is justified as Woogle has acted within the
bounds of their employment contracts. Moreover, employing individuals lacking basic knowledge could
damage Woogle Randia’s reputation, impacting investor confidence, brand image, and customer trust.

May the counsel seeks permission to address the prayer.

Much obliged your lordships.