Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS D. T. C. MAZDOOR CONGRESS ANB...
1990 0 Supreme(SC) 493 : An employee cannot be terminated in the absence of specific rules for termination. The court held that statutory authorities, including statutory corporations, cannot terminate the services of permanent employees without following a just, fair, and reasonable procedure, even if the contract of service allows termination by notice. The power to terminate must be exercised in accordance with constitutional principles, including Articles 14, 16(1), 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the absence of specific rules or procedures for termination renders the power arbitrary and unconstitutional. The authority must record reasons for termination, provide an opportunity to respond to the grounds, and communicate the decision, even if the material is scanty. The mere existence of a contractual right to terminate by notice is insufficient if it lacks procedural safeguards. Therefore, termination without specific rules or procedural safeguards is invalid and violates fundamental rights.Checking relevance for Delhi Transport Undertaking VS Balbir Saran Goel...
1970 0 Supreme(SC) 66 : The legal documents establish that an employee can be terminated even in the absence of specific rules for termination, provided the termination is carried out under a general provision that confers authority to terminate employment. Regulation 9(b) of the D.R.T.A. (Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations), 1952, explicitly authorizes termination of service by giving one month''''s notice or pay in lieu thereof in circumstances other than those specified in Regulation 9(a), such as misconduct or probation. The court held that such termination under Regulation 9(b) does not constitute ''''dismissal'''' under Regulation 15(2)(c), which requires a formal inquiry for punishment-related actions. Therefore, termination under Regulation 9(b) is permissible without following the detailed procedure of Regulation 15, as it is not a punitive measure but a non-punitive termination. The court emphasized that the employer''''s choice to terminate under Regulation 9(b) is valid and lawful, even if the real reason for termination relates to misconduct, as long as the form of the order complies with the statutory provision. This confirms that specific rules for termination are not mandatory if a general statutory or regulatory provision (like Regulation 9(b)) confers the power to terminate under defined conditions.Checking relevance for State Bank of India VS S. N. Goyal...
Checking relevance for O. P. Bhandari VS Indian Tourism Development Corporation LTD. ...
1986 0 Supreme(SC) 359 : The legal document establishes that an employee cannot be terminated in the absence of specific, constitutionally valid rules for termination. It holds that a rule authorizing termination by merely giving notice—without any requirement for justification, rational grounds, or adherence to principles of fairness—violates Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. The court explicitly invalidates Rule 31(v) of the ITDC Rules, which allowed termination by giving 90 days'''' notice or pay in lieu, because it permits arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory termination without any substantive basis. The judgment emphasizes that such a rule would allow termination based on personal preferences, nepotism, casteism, or religious bias, thereby undermining fundamental rights. Therefore, termination without specific, non-arbitrary rules is unconstitutional and cannot be legally enforced.Checking relevance for Punjab And Sind Bank VS Sakattar Singh...
2000 8 Supreme 47 : An employee can be terminated even in the absence of specific rules for termination, provided there is a valid agreement (such as a Bipartite Settlement) that outlines the procedure for termination due to prolonged absence. In this case, clause XVI of the IV Bipartite Settlement explicitly provides a mechanism for deemed voluntary retirement after 90 or more consecutive days of unauthorized absence, requiring the employee to report for duty within 30 days of notice or provide a satisfactory explanation. The absence of formal rules is not fatal if the termination is based on a mutually agreed-upon framework that includes procedural safeguards and due process, such as notice and opportunity to explain. The court upheld the termination as justified because the employee failed to respond to the notice or provide proof of communication, despite claiming illness and sending letters. Thus, the existence of a negotiated agreement with clear terms for termination in cases of prolonged absence satisfies the requirement for a lawful termination process, even without standalone statutory or regulatory rules.Checking relevance for State Of Assam VS Akshaya Kumar Deb...
Checking relevance for Chander Prakash VS Apparel Training And Design Centre Though Director General...
2021 0 Supreme(Del) 1691 : An employee cannot be terminated in the absence of specific rules for termination. The court held that for permanent employees, termination must follow a non-arbitrary and non-discriminatory process, and must be in accordance with the General Service Rules, 2011. Even if the post is not abolished, termination without proper notice (three months) or a fair procedure is deemed arbitrary and discriminatory. The court emphasized that the management cannot ''''pick and choose'''' among permanent employees and must adhere to principles of natural justice, including show-cause notice and enquiry. Thus, the absence of specific rules or procedural safeguards renders termination unlawful.
