Labour Laws:
Termination of service – Of contract employee Pursuant to holding departmental enquiry – Departmental appeal as well as review dismissed – Industrial dispute dismissed – Writ petition allowed by Single Judge of High Court relying on its earlier judgment and directed the employer to re-engage the employee and extend benefit of continuity of service from the date of termination till the date of his re-engagement – The order of Single Judge was affirmed by Division Bench of High Court – On appeal, held: High Court mechanically issued directions without having regard to the facts of individual case – The facts of the earlier case on which the High Court had relied was distinct – Grant of continuity of service by the High Court was misconceived.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Single Judge of High Court without having regard to the facts of the individual cases, mechanically issued the directions exclusively relying on the earlier decision. The Single Judge and the Division Bench both have materially erred in not appreciating the facts that in the present case the workman was dismissed from service after holding the departmental enquiry and having all the charges of misconduct proved. The earlier decision was passed on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice as therein termination order was passed without holding an enquiry. [Paras 5 and 6][1266-C-F]
2. Even otherwise such a direction cannot be issued by the Single Judge without the termination being set aside. The ground of continuity was not sustainable for the simple reason that unless the order of termination is set aside, continuity cannot be granted. Continuity is granted when the order of termination is set aside to ensure there is no hiatus in service. [Para 7][1266-F-H]
3. The appellant had recruited personnel like the present respondent on contract after a regular process of selection. Eventually, the contract employees are to be regularised. Granting continuity of service to a person such as the respondent, who was found to have committed misconduct, would place him on the same footing as other contractual employees who have a record without blemish. Hence, once a fresh appointment was given to the respondent and neither the termination nor the fresh engagement was placed in issue, the grant of continuity of service by the High Court was manifestly misconceived. [Para 8] [1267-A-C]
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.