Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. CHAKRABARTI, J.
N.K. Tripathi - Appellant
Versus
U.P. State Yarn Co. and Another - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 18277 of 1987
Decided On : 17-08-1995
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - SECTION 2(S) - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - EMPLOYEE ABSENT WITHOUT LEAVE - EMPLOYER CANNOT TERMINATE SERVICE WITHOUT NOTICE AND ENQUIRY - TERMINATION HELD INVALID.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the termination of his employment by the Respondents, alleging that it was arbitrary and that junior employees had been retained in service. The Respondents contended that the Petitioner's service was terminated due to unsuitability and inefficiency, including unauthorized absence from work.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the termination of the Petitioner's employment was invalid as it violated the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that one of the grounds for termination was the Petitioner's unauthorized absence from work, and that the employer cannot terminate an employee's service without notice and enquiry when the termination is based on absence without leave.
Issues: Whether the termination of the Petitioner's employment was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on several Supreme Court precedents, including L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway and D. K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., which held that an employer cannot terminate an employee's service without notice and enquiry when the termination is based on absence without leave. The Court also noted that the employer had not complied with the principles of natural justice in terminating the Petitioner's employment.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the impugned termination order and allowed the writ petition.
A. CHAKRABARTI, J.
1. Challenging the order dated 11.5.1987 and for consequential benefits, the present writ petition was filed.
2. According to the Petitioner, the facts of the case are that the Petitioner was appointed by order dated 1.9.1986 with effect from 25.4.1986 and, in fact, the Petitioner was working since 25.4.1986. The Petitioner's service was terminated by order dated 11.5.1987 at Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. The Petitioner complained of arbitrary action of the Respondents in the matter of his termination and that the persons junior to the Petitioner including one B.N. Sachan, have been retained in service.
3. The Respondents filed counter-affidavit with the contention that the Petitioner's service was dispensed with by a simple order of discharge and for passing such order, the grounds have been stated in the counter affidavit which included the grounds that the Petitioner was not suitable for the post, there were reports of inefficiency against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was in the habit of going on leave without proper sanction not even making any leave application.
4. The Petitioner filed his rejoinder-affidavit.
5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the impugned order, though apparently appears to be a termination simpliciter, but the same, in fact, is a penalty imposed for specified reasons. The facts stated in paragraph No. 4 of the counter-affidavit has been relied upon and special reference was made to the ground that the Petitioner was absent without obtaining leave and without making proper leave application. The reference was also made to the fact that the employees junior to the Petitioner have been retained. The increment granted to the Petitioner by order dated 30.12.1986 (Annexure No. 3 to the rejoinder-affidavit) has also been referred to show that the Petitioner could not be treated as unsuitable and there could not be a termination order a few months thereafter on the ground of unsuitability.
6. On behalf of the Petitioner several case laws have been referred to including the case of The Manager, Government Branch Press and Another Vs. D.B. Belliappa, AIR 1979 SC 429, S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and Others, AIR 1981 SC 136, L. Robert D'Souza v. Executive Engineer, Southern Railway AIR 1982 SC 854, K.C. Joshi Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1985 SC 1046; Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1431; Om Prakash Goel Vs. The Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., Shimla and another, AIR 1991 SC 1490; Kesho Ram v. G.B. Pant University 1993 (1) UPLBEC 170 ; D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259; Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., AIR 1994 SC 1074; Mafatlal Naraindas Barot Vs. Divisional Controller, State Transport Corporation and Another, AIR 1966 SC 1364; G.S. Asthana v. Uttar Pradesh Textile Corporation Ltd. and Anr. 1994 (3) UPLBEC 1835.
7. Learned Counsel for the Respondents contended that the impugned 1 termination was on the ground of unsuitability and his services have been found not proper as stated in the counter-affidavit. It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents that in such circumstance, termination simpliciter is fully permissible and the learned Counsel referred to the cases of Ravindra Kumar Misra Vs. Uttar Pradesh State Handloom Corpn. Ltd. and Another, AIR 1987 SC 2408, State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla 1991 UPLBEC 153 ; State of Uttar Pradesh and another State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Km. Prem Lata Misra and others, AIR 1994 SC 2411 and the case of G.B. Pant Agricultural and Technology University v. Kesho Ram 1994 UPLBEC 1095.
8. Upon hearing the respective contentions of the parties and considering the law referred to by them, I And that in the present case admittedly one of the grounds for passing the impugned order was the charge that the Petitioner used to remain absent without obtaining leave
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
