Skip to main content

Service cannot be terminated by merely giving notice

In Webfil Ltd. vs Dipesh Kumar Bagchi, writ application was filed by the employer (Webfil Limited) challenging an award  passed by the 8th Industrial Tribunal, state of West Bengal wherein the tribunal passed the award in favour of the employee for payment of all the back wages including the benefit of revised wages or salary etc. The tribunal also held that the termination of the employee by the employer with effect from 31.03.2010 is not justified and the employee is entitled to get reliefs as prayed for.

On appeal before the Calcutta High Court, the Hon'ble Court took strong exception to the fact that while terminating the petitioner only a clause in his appointment letter was used to terminate his service and there was no domestic enquiry against the employee. 

Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harjinder Singh vs Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, the court held that such clause of termination of service by giving one month‟s notice is not an acceptable situation at all in view of the change of the entire atmosphere of employer-employee relationship in last 60/70 years and such high-handed action of termination which fits in a feudal minded society for termination of service of a person by merely giving a notice without holding him guilty of any offence is wholly unfit in the atmosphere of a democratic country like ours where the dynamics of law is towards fairness in all actions.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

One Sided Clauses In Builder-Buyer Agreements Is An Unfair Trade Practice

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 12238 OF 2018, Pioneer Urban Land & Infrastructure Ltd. vs Govindan Raghavan, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court  by the builder against the order of the National Consumer Forum. The builder had relied upon various clauses of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement to refute the claim of the respondent but was rejected by the commission which found the said clauses as wholly one-sided, unfair and unreasonable, and could not be relied upon. The Supreme Court on perusal of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement found stark incongruities between the remedies available to both the parties. For example, Clause 6.4 (ii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to charge Interest @18% p.a. on account of any delay in payment of installments from the Respondent – Flat Purchaser. Clause 6.4 (iii) of the Agreement entitles the Appellant – Builder to cancel the allotment and terminate the Agreement, if any installment remains in arrears for more than 30 da...
Post a Comment
Read more

Inherited property of childless hindu woman devolve onto heirs of her parents

In Tarabai Dagdu Nitanware vs Narayan Keru Nitanware, quashing an order passed by a joint civil judge junior division, Pune, the Bombay High Court has held that under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, will devolve upon the heirs of her father/mother, if she dies without any children of her own, and not upon her husband. Justice Shalini Phansalkar Joshi was hearing a writ petition filed by relatives of one Sundarabai, who died issueless more than 45 years ago on June 18, 1962. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/property-inherited-female-hindu-parents-shall-devolve-upon-heirs-father-not-husband-dies-childless-bombay-hc-read-judgment/
Post a Comment
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more