The petitioner, an Executive Director (now removed) of the 2nd respondent-Company, filed a writ petition challenging the termination letter dated 25.03.2019 issued by the Managing Director cum Chief Executive Officer of the company. The letter informed the decision of the Board of Directors regarding the determination of his contractual appointment.
Sri. S. Raghunathan, the petitioner, was an Executive Director of National E-Governance Services Ltd (NESL). He was appointed for a period of five years vide letter dated 30.08.2016, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions allowed the company to determine his service by giving three months' notice or three months' gross emoluments. The petitioner's services were terminated vide letter dated 25.03.2019. The petitioner challenged this termination, arguing that it was stigmatic and required an enquiry. The company argued that it was a private limited company and the termination was in accordance with the terms of the contract. The petitioner allegedly accepted a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as gross emoluments for three months without protest.
Sign in to view the parties.
Petitioner appointed as…
Letter issued…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.
The petitioner, an Executive Director (now removed) of the 2nd respondent-Company, filed a writ petition challenging the termination letter dated 25.03.2019 issued by the Managing Director cum Chief Executive Officer of the company. The letter informed the decision of the Board of Directors regarding the determination of his contractual appointment.
Sri. S. Raghunathan, the petitioner, was an Executive Director of National E-Governance Services Ltd (NESL). He was appointed for a period of five years vide letter dated 30.08.2016, subject to certain conditions. One of the conditions allowed the company to determine his service by giving three months' notice or three months' gross emoluments. The petitioner's services were terminated vide letter dated 25.03.2019. The petitioner challenged this termination, arguing that it was stigmatic and required an enquiry. The company argued that it was a private limited company and the termination was in accordance with the terms of the contract. The petitioner allegedly accepted a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- as gross emoluments for three months without protest.
Petitioner appointed as…
Letter issued…
Sign in to view related legal provisions.