Labour Laws:
Termination of service – In terms of Regulation 24 of Terms and Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations, 1975 (Service Regulations of respondent- Corporation) – On the ground of her continued absence – Initially the employee/workman resorted to Writ jurisdiction for challenging the termination order – Petition having been dismissed on the ground of maintainability, raised the dispute before Labour Court – Labour Court held the termination as illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages – In writ petition, order of the Labour Court was upheld so far as finding on termination order, but instead of full back wages granted back wages only to the extent of 30% – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Termination of the employee/workman in terms of Regulation 24, treating her as a temporary employee was not justified in law – The absence having been regularized, the same could not be the ground for termination – However, the facts of the case show that the employee was a habitual absentee – Therefore, ends of justice would be met if the employee is paid 10% of back wages alongwith benefit of reinstatement – Considering her conduct, since the employer would not be obliged to take work from her, therefore, in lieu of reinstatement, she may be paid salary from the present day till the date of her superannuation (i.e. from July 30, 2019 till May 2020).
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. High Court has rightly held that the termination of the appellant in terms of Regulation 24 of the Terms and Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations 1975 , treating the appellant as a temporary employee, was not justified in law and thus could not be sustained, as she had been in employment for over eleven years. [Para 9] [357-G-H]
2. The finding of the High Court, that in a case of termination, formal domestic enquiry is not required is misconceived, is also correct, as the order of termination has serious civil consequences to an employee, and thus such termination should not be without following the process of law and holding an inquiry. The High Court has also rightly held that since the period of absence was regularized by the Management by converting the same as period of leave, and as such the same could not be the ground for termination. [Para 10] [358-B-C]
3. Even if it is taken that the appellant was not temporary but deemed to be permanent, yet an employee who remained absent from duty for such long periods, averaging to over 281 days in a year, continuously for seven years, would not be entitled to any substantial back wages. The Medical Board constituted by the Corporation also found that the period of leave granted on the basis of many of the medical certificates submitted by the appellant was disproportionate to the severity of the ailments. [Para 11] [358-E-F]
4. Even though the said absence was converted as leave (which was ex-post facto granted in her favour) yet the fact remains that she was a habitual absentee, which would be a material fact while considering the question of payment of back wages to her. [Para 12] [359-B]
5. The ends of justice would be met if the appellant is paid 10% back wages, along with the benefit of reinstatement and all other consequential benefits. Considering the conduct of the appellant, the respondent-Corporation would not be obliged to take work from her, and in lieu thereof she may be paid her salary from date of the present judgment till the date of her superannuation, i.e. May 2020. Thus, the appellant may be treated as reinstated but may not be required to work in the Organisation of respondent-Corporation. [Para 13] [359-C-D]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.