Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 6406
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO, NINALA JAYASURYA, JJ
Novartis India Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Chairman cum Presiding Officer and others – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 1269/2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: P ROY REDDY
For the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES III, M.B.Raj Kumar
Termination of an employee requires a prior inquiry unless justified otherwise; lack of inquiry invalidates dismissal.
Headnote:(A) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2A - Termination of employee - Employee challenged transfer order leading to termination citing non-communication and language issues - The Industrial Tribunal ruled termination invalid for lack of inquiry - Single Judge upheld Tribunal's decision observing no legal infirmities - Appellant failed to establish malafide intent or prejudice - Court emphasized necessity of inquiry before termination in accordance with natural justice. (Paras 9, 10, 17, 19)
(B) Natural Justice - Requirement of an inquiry before termination for misconduct - Supreme Court precedents cited that highlight due process - Courts will provide relief if failure to hold inquiry causes significant prejudice. (Paras 8, 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
The employee, after transferring to a new location per company policy, filed to contest the transfer order claiming it was unjust; subsequently, he was terminated for not reporting.
Findings of Court:
Court found the termination invalid due to lack of inquiry prior to dismissal; reinstatement ordered without back wages.
Issues: The legality of termination without inquiry and whether the transfer order was made with malafide intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that failure to conduct a proper inquiry invalidated the termination, affirming the need for following principles of natural justice before such action.
Result: Writ appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of parties and factual background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. litigation involving transfer and service termination. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. employee's appeal against tribunal's ruling. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's observations on evidence and inquiry. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT:
(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao Writ petitioner is Novartis India Limited having Registered Office at Sandro House, Shiv Sagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 018, a company registered under Companies Act , for brevity and understanding herein after called as “Company”.
2. The 2nd respondent by name Madhavabhaktula Rajkumar M.B. Raj Kumar (for facility purpose called as “employee”) joined as Medical Representative in Hindustan CIBA-GEIGY Limited. Latter CIBA and SANDOZ companies merged and formed as Novartis India Limited. The employee joined as Medical Representative on 29.12.1993 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 09.05.1994 and he was placed at Kakinada in Andhra Pradesh.
3. Due to the marketing strategies arising out of the need of business, the employee being transferred from Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh to Davanagere, Karnataka State w.e.f., 15.10.2001 vide proceedings dated 09.10.2001 and as per the transfer policy the employee is entitled to all the benefits.
4. The employee assailed the transfer order dated 09.10.2001 of the company, and filed suit O.S. No. 1511 of 2001 on the file of I Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court at Kakinada for cancellation of the transfer order and also filed an Interlocutory Application i.e. I.A. No. 1561 of 2001 under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w Section 151 of CPC to grant temporary injunction restraining the company from affecting the transfer order on the grounds that it cause prejudice to the employee and language problem and communication problem and it is no way benefit to the company and further stated that with the malafide intention in an unjustifiable manner transfer was affected. Initially the trial Court has granted ad- interim injunction restraining the transfer of the 2nd respondent. Latter, the I.A. No. 1561 of 2001 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 11.04.2002 on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Suit for the relief claimed by the employee and he has to approach the Industrial Tribunal.
5. Against the said order in I.A. No.1561 of 2001, the employee has preferred the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the same was dismissed confirming the order dated 11.04.2002 of the learned Junior Civil Judge Kakinada. However, the O.S. No.1511 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge instituted by the employee was rendered infructuous.
6. Indisputably, the employee has availed himself of all possible leaves to which he is entitled. Despite the transfer order dated 9.10.2001, the employee has not reported for duty at Davangere. As a result, the company has terminated the employee's service, providing one month's salary of Rs.12,388/- (Rupees twelve thousand three hundred and eighty eight), in accordance with rules.
7. Assailing the determination of the service order dated 08.05.2002, employee filed I.D. No.9 of 2005 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court at Visakhapatnam, invoking the provision under Section 2A of the Industrial Tribunal Act, 1947. The Tribunal has allowed the dispute noting that no inquiry had been conducted prior to the determination of the employee's service, in its order dated 05.01.2009, and issued the following directives:
1. The termination of the service of the employee (petitioner in I.D.) is illegal and invalid.
2. The employee (petitioner in I.D.) shall report to duty within 30 days after publication of the award at its Kakinada Office and after that it is open to the respondent management to post him at any territory of its choice including Davangere.
3. Within reasonable time, the management shall initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee (petitioner in I.D.) and after conducting domestic enquiry, it h
