9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to termination order, Fairness of enquiry, Distinctive features in termination, Justification of actions, Reinstatement and back wages, Discrimination in treatment Challenge to Termination Order: The appeal before the Supreme Court challenged the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which held that the termination order by the employer was not sustainable in law. The respondent had filed a writ application to quash the termination order, which was initially upheld by the Industrial Tribunal but later deemed legal by the Tribunal after further evidence was presented. Fairness of Enquiry: The Tribunal initially found the enquiry unfair but allowed the employer to present evidence to prove otherwise. The termination was ultimately deemed in order based on the materials on record, highlighting the importance of a fair and proper enquiry in employment termination cases. Distinctive Features in Termination: The Tribunal distinguished the respondent-workman from others involved in the strike based on their actions and responses. While some employees expressed regrets and gave undertakings, the respondent-workman continued to justify his actions, leading to a different treatment in the termination process. Justification of Actions: The respondent-workman's refusal to express regret or give an undertaking, along with justifying his actions during the enquiry, was considered a distinctive feature by the Tribunal. The High Court, however, viewed this distinction as artificial and inferred an apology based on the respondent's subsequent behavior. Reinstatement and Back Wages: The High Court set aside the termination order and directed reinstatement of the respondent-workman with 50% back wages if he had not reached superannuation. If superannuated, back wages were to be paid until that point. The Court considered the respondent's conduct post-termination in determining the back wages. Discrimination in Treatment: The Supreme Court analyzed the treatment of the respondent-workman compared to other employees involved in the strike. It was held that the employer's decision to accept the apologies and regrets of some employees while proceeding with the termination of the respondent-workman was not discriminatory. The Court cited a previous case to support the principle that different individuals involved in a matter may not be treated identically. In conclusion, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and emphasizing the importance of considering individual actions and responses in employment termination cases to ensure fairness and non-discrimination.
|
