Stay informed about the latest High Court cases on service and labour laws with this comprehensive overview as we delve into the latest cases reported in the High Court Cases (HCC), focusing on critical issues such as industrial disputes, employee transfers, departmental inquiries, and compulsory retirement.
(2024) 1 HCC (Bom)
Labour Law — Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — S. 2(a)(i) — Appropriate Government — Central or State Government — Held, prior to the 2010 amendment, the test was whether the industry was carried on by or under authority of the Central Government, which required proving a relationship akin to agency. Post-amendment, autonomous bodies controlled by the Central Government also fall under the Central Government’s jurisdiction. In the present case, Tata Memorial Centre was held to be an autonomous body, as administrative control exercised by Government of India through TMC, require approval of Department of atomic energy — Funds required to pay pension etc, borne through grants released by Government of India —Court reached to the conclusion that Central Government exercised control over TMC Hence, appropriate Government for TMC is Central Government, not State [Tata Memorial Centre v. Tata Memorial Hospital Workers Union Tata Memorial Hospital, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 415]
Service Law — Transfer of Employee/Service — Validity of transfer/Judicial review — Held, transfer of Respondent from Nashik to Pune was contrary to Cl. (3) read with Cl. 6(vi) of the ECI Circular dt. 21-12-2023 as he was due to retire within six months and not handling election-related duties — Further held, transfer was not supported by any recorded reason under S. 22-N (2) of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951, such as public interest or administrative exigency, and hence was invalid — Petitioner’s transfer, being a consequence of this, also could not be sustained [Dattatraya R. Karale v. Shekhar Balasaheb Genbhau, (2024) 1 HCC (Bom) 435]
(2024) 1 HCC (Cal)
Service Law — Recruitment Process — Challenge to recruitment process — Validity thereof — Scrutiny committee shortlisted 11 candidates for the post of Director, Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre (EZCC), and subsequently, Search-cum-Selection Committee called 20 additional eligible candidates for interview — Held, Search Committee was empowered to review applications to ensure no eligible candidate was left out, particularly when no mala fide, fraud, or procedural irregularity was established — Further held, while scrutinising validity of recruitment process judicial process need to be exercised only to prevent “miscarriage of justice” and to secure “fair play in action” [Eastern Zonal Cultural Centre v. Laipubam Upendro Sharma, (2024) 1 HCC (Cal) 1]
Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Disciplinary Proceedings — Quashing of Proceedings — Petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated by the respondent and subsequent affirmation of dismissal by appellate authority filed the writ petition — Held, order of the appellate authority which had affirmed order of dismissal passed against the petitioner by disciplinary authority had failed to assign cogent brief reasons in support of its concurrence with the decision taken by disciplinary authority. Both orders of disciplinary authority and appellate authority were set aside. petitioner entitled to continuity in service till superannuation and 50% back wages [Prokash Chandra Maity v. State of W.B., (2024) 1 HCC (Cal) 318]
(2024) 4 HCC (Del)
Labour Law — Domestic/Departmental Enquiry — Charge-sheet — Chargesheet issued against bank employee for misappropriation of public funds — Labour court ruled in favour of bank employee and held inquiry against him was not just, fair and proper. Application filed to adduce fresh evidence to prove misconduct which tribunal dismissed, present petition — Held, right to adduce fresh evidence must be exercised by making a specific plea/request in written statement during course of proceedings and not after conclusion of findings [Central Bank of India v. Kunwar Pal Singh, (2024) 4 HCC (Del) 420]
Service Law — Departmental Enquiry — Charge/Charge sheet — Quashing of — When final order imposing punishment or otherwise adversely affecting party is passed, that party can have grievance — Held, Neither disciplinary proceedings, nor charge memo/show cause can be quashed by Courts at initial stage of proceedings since it would be premature to deal with asserted issues, as no legal rights per se have been infringed by issuance of charge memo/ show cause — Writ jurisdiction can be invoked only when charge memo/ show cause notice issued wholly without jurisdiction and there exists violation of procedure prescribed for initiating departmental enquiry [Rakesh Mohan Agarwal v. Union of India, (2024) 4 HCC (Del) 119]
Labour Law — Abandonment of Service — Burden of proof of abandonment — Respondent was working with Petitioner-company — Respondent issued a retrenchment notice informing the respondent employee pertaining to the termination of his services — Held, onus to prove abandonment of job is on employer/management — sole statement in evidence of abandonment which is controverted by workman is not sufficient to make out case of abandonment — Mere filing of affidavit alleging that workman abandoned services is insufficient to discharge onus — Further held, absence of production of resignation letter on record and amount paid for settlement not being mentioned in the settlement agreement rendering the agreement invalid reflects lack of evidence — Nothing to show mutual agreement between petitioner Company and respondent employee — Respondent employee illegally terminated — Company to satisfy the requirements of S. 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 [Atlas Logistic (P) Ltd. v. Jitendra Kumar, (2024) 2 HCC (Del) 297]
Service Law — Compulsory Retirement — Rules for compulsory retirement- Union of India issued order retiring petitioner a government servant in exercise of powers conferred under R. 56(j) of the Fundamental Rules on his attaining 50 years of age — Order Challenged, Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the order of compulsory retirement — Held, Office Memorandum issued by Union of India clearly contemplates that non-adherence to timelines due to certain administrative exigencies shall not take away power of appropriate authority to prematurely retire a government servant under Fundamental Rules 56(j), 56(l) and 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 [Jitendra Kumar Ojha v. Union of India, (2024) 3 HCC (Del) 334]
(2024) 1 HCC (Mad)
Service Law — Departmental enquiry — Disciplinary proceedings — Mercy petition — Petitioner filed a mercy petition sough to set aside punishment — Held, Respondent 3 was not appointing authority hence not competent to impose punishment — The rejection order of the mercy petition by the respondent was seen bad in the eyes of law and fit to be necessarily interfered with. Order was quashed and remanded back [K. Kanthavel v. T.N. SEB, (2024) 1 HCC (Mad) 1]
Service Law — Penalty/Punishment — Proportionality/Quantum of punishment — Held, respondent was under suspension and had attained the age of superannuation dismissal from service was modified to compulsory retirement as enumerated under the head of major penalties in Cl. 4(j) of United Bank of India Officers and Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 [United Bank of India v. Sujatha Bhupathiraj, (2024) 1 HCC (Mad) 79]