Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a petition challenging the reinstatement order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, Ujjain, a single-judge bench comprising of Anil Verma, J., sets aside the impugned order and ruled in favor of the petitioner and held that the termination was justified based on the respondent’s unsatisfactory work performance and loss of confidence.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed the present petition challenging the order dated 17-02-2020, passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Ujjain. The impugned order reinstated the respondent in service with 50% back-wages. The petitioner contended that the respondent, employed as a daily wager since 04-03-2013, had unsatisfactory work performance and was terminated for gross misconduct. However, the respondent argued that the Labour Court’s decision was based on thorough consideration of the evidence and does not warrant interference.
The Court noted that the petitioner’s termination was based on unsatisfactory work and for gross and wrongful misconduct. “The respondent was not permanent employee, therefore, there is no requirement for conducting any disciplinary action against her.” The Court noted that the petitioner is an educational institution and cannot be considered as an industry. The Court stated that the petitioner, being an educational institution, is governed by specific laws and regulations concerning service conditions, which were not adequately considered by the Labour Court.
The Court acknowledged that the respondent worked for the petitioner for more than 240 days in a year, based on the petitioner’s admission. Relying on Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad v. Anil Kumar Mishra, (2005) 5 SCC 122, the Court determined that completion of 240 days of work does not automatically grant regularization rights under the Industrial Act. “It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of service.” The Court observed that the termination was justified due to unsatisfactory work performance and loss of confidence in the respondent, as per Circular No. 12(9). The Court held that the termination was not founded on misconduct but on unsatisfactory work and loss of confidence in the employee. Consequently, the impugned award is set aside, and the petition is allowed.W
[Maharishi Panini Sanskrit Evam Vedic University v. Kumari Rajani, Misc. Petition No. 570 of 2021, order dated 03-05-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Yash Tiwari, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Mahesh Kumar Choudhary, Counsel for the Respondent
