Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, NAVIN SINHA, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ
State Of Uttarakhand & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sureshwati – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 142 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9864 of 2020)
Decided on : 20-01-2021
Labour and Industrial Law – Termination – Reversal by High Court – Where an employer has failed to make enquiry before dismissal or discharge of a workman, it is open for him to justify action before Labour Court by leading evidence before it – Entire matter would be open before Tribunal which would have jurisdiction to satisfy itself on evidence adduced by parties whether dismissal or discharge was justified – Full opportunity was given to parties to lead evidence, both oral and documentary, to substantiate their respective case – High Court has not even adverted to said evidence and has disposed of Writ Petition on sole ground that School had not conducted disciplinary enquiry before discharging respondent from service – School has led sufficient evidence before Labour Court to prove that Respondent had abandoned her service from 01.07.1997 when she got married, and moved to another District which was not denied by her in her evidence – Record of School reveals that she was not in employment of School since July 1997 – Initial employment of Respondent as a teacher from July 1993 to 21.5.1994 was itself invalid, since she was only inter-mediate and did not have B.Ed. degree which was minimum qualification to be appointed as a teacher – Respondent has failed to prove that she had worked for 240 days during year preceding her alleged termination – Onus was entirely upon employee to prove that she had worked continuously for 240 days’ in twelve months preceding date of her alleged termination on 8.3.2006, which she failed to discharge – Judgment of High Court set aside and Award passed by Labour Court restored. (Paras 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19)
Facts of the Case:
State of Uttarakhand has filed the present Special Leave Petition to challenge the Judgment dated 28.8.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in W.P. No. 3439 (M/S) of 2016, whereby High Court has reversed the Award passed by the Labour Court, and directed reinstatement of Respondent.
Findings of Court:
Development Officer, Roorkee cannot be relied upon. The letter acknowledges that the Respondent was on leave when the Government took over the School, and started receiving grants in aid. The Block Development Officer’s recommendation to the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar to act in compliance with the Order dated 5.2.2010 passed by the Labour Court cannot be relied on, as the Award dated 5.2.2010 was set aside by the High Court.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
INDU MALHOTRA, J.
Leave granted.
1. The State of Uttarakhand has filed the present Special Leave Petition to challenge the Judgment dated 28.8.2019 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in W.P. No. 3439 (M/S) of 2016, whereby the High Court has reversed the Award passed by the Labour Court, and directed reinstatement of the Respondent.
2. The background facts of the present case are that the Respondent was initially engaged as an Assistant Teacher in Jai Bharat Junior High School, Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as “the School”) during the period July, 1993 to 21.5.1994. Subsequently, she worked as a Clerk from 1.7.1994. On 25.3.1996, the District Basic Education Officer granted approval to the appointment of the Teachers, Clerk and Peon in the School, including the Respondent herein w.e.f. 1.7.1994. During this period, the School was an unaided private institution.
3. From 24th May, 2005 the School started receiving grants-in-aid from the State, and came to be governed by the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006.
4. It is the case of the Appellants that the Respondent had abandoned her service as a clerk in the School since 1.7.1997 when she got married, and shifted to Dehradun.
5. After a period of 9 years, on 15.7.2006, the Respondent filed a complaint before the School contending that she had worked continuously upto 07.03.2006. She alleged that on 8th March, 2006 her services were illegally retrenched without granting her any hearing, or payment of retrenchment compensation.
6. The School vide letter dated 21.08.2006 requested the Additional District Education Officer (Basic), Haridwar to conduct an inquiry on the complaint made by the Respondent.
The Basic School Inspector vide his detailed report dated 24th August, 2006 stated that he had inspected the records of the School in the presence of both parties. He found that the Respondent had tampered and manipulated the date of appointment, by mentioning two different dates. The enquiry revealed that the employment of the Respondent was illegal, since the father of the respondent was a member of the Managing Committee, and her mother was the Chairman employed by the School. The records revealed that the Respondent had not worked in the School from July 1997 onwards, nor was there any leave application received from her on the record. On account of her continuous absence, the School engaged another clerk-Mrs. Sneh Lata in her place, who was appointed on 17.07.2002. The Respondent never made any grievance about her alleged termination till 2006, which was made only after the School started receiving grants-in-aid from the State and became a Government School.
7. The Directorate School Education, Internal Audit Division, Uttarakhand, Dehradun prepared an Audit Report of the School. The Audit Report dated 19.2.2008 has been placed on record. The Audit Report records the names of the 6 employees of the School, which comprised of the Principal, three Assistant Teachers, Smt. Snehlata-clerk, and Sh. Ram Kumar Saini-Peon.
The name of the Respondent is not mentioned in the Report of February, 2008.
8. The Respondent filed a Complaint before the Labour Commissioner, Haridwar. The Complaint was referred to the Additional Labour Commissioner to determine whether the alleged termination of the services of the workman was proper and/or valid. An ex-parte award was passed by the Labour Court on 05.02.2010 in favour of the employee. The said Award was challenged before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1853 of 2010. The High Court vide Order dated 16.09.2015 allowed the Writ Petition, and remanded the case to the Labour Court to decide the matter de novo in accordance with law.
9. On remand, the Labour Court permitted the parties to lead detailed evidence.
The case of the claimant/Respondent herein was that she had been in the employment of the School from 1.7.1994 till 8.3.2006, when she was illegally terminated, without holding any enquiry, or granting her personal hearing. She con
Section 11A of Industrial Disputes Act are reproduced as power of Labour Courts, Tribunals and National Tribunals to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workmen.
Unauthorized absence due to illness can be justified under compelling circumstances, affecting the severity of disciplinary action imposed.
Misconducts - Award Modified - Workman was earning by plying rickshaw since his dismissal i.e. from 1990, appropriate relief may be moulded in favour of workman by tilting balance -Workman be paid re....
Point of Law : An opportunity to lead evidence to prove misconduct independently of domestic enquiry ought to have been granted.
The Labour Court must first determine the validity of domestic enquiry before evaluating evidence presented for dismissal in industrial disputes.
The termination of employment must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and compensation may be awarded in lieu of reinstatement depending on the circumstances.
The burden of proof lies on the employer to establish the voluntary nature of the workman's resignation, and the court emphasized the principles governing the payment of back wages.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
