Punjab and Haryana High Court Grants Financial Benefits to Employee, Sets Aside Decision Treating Suspension and Dismissal Period as Non-Duty Period

Share:
senior bail finger bail public accused 202 Voter Tenant Imagination Constitutional Law landlord 90 rti Punishment jails cheque compromise medical injury station evidence ada motor employee Right Punjab evidence wife penalty Punjab suicide 1 students vamendment la nd 44 fir suit interim consideration evidence property food financialfinancial Gram ginder wife order 202 natural DEMARCATION Property

In a significant judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled in favor of an employee, Mr. R.N. Uppal, by granting him financial benefits and setting aside a decision that treated his suspension and dismissal period as non-duty period. The judgment was delivered by Ms. Jaishree Thakur, J.

Mr. Uppal, who was employed by the Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. (Confed), had filed a writ petition seeking the quashing of a decision that denied him financial benefits for the period of suspension and dismissal. The petitioner had objected to the purchase procedure approved by the Managing Director and had refused to sign quotations, which ultimately led to his suspension and subsequent dismissal on charges of insubordination and disobedience of orders.

However, the High Court noted that the petitioner’s act of objecting to the purchase procedure did not amount to insubordination or prejudice against the federation. The court further highlighted that the petitioner’s integrity was never in question, as acknowledged by the Board of Directors. The termination order was subsequently modified to a minor penalty of warning, resulting in Mr. Uppal’s reinstatement with certain conditions.

Citing precedents, including the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, the court applied an equitable approach in determining the extent of financial benefits. It emphasized that reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the normal rule in cases of wrongful termination. The court also emphasized the burden on the employer to provide evidence if they seek to avoid full back wages.

High Court held that the petitioner’s termination was motivated by his objections to the purchase procedure and that the modification of his punishment to a minor penalty of warning indicated acceptance of his appeal. Therefore, the court allowed the writ petition, set aside the decision treating the suspension and dismissal period as non-duty period for financial benefits, and declared Mr. Uppal entitled to all financial benefits, including leave encashment, EPF, ACP, and increments, as per the relevant rules.

This judgment reaffirming the principles of fairness and equitable treatment in employment matters, particularly in cases of alleged insubordination or disobedience. It highlights the need for employers to act with utmost fairness and avoid undue duress when seeking undertakings from employees in lieu of reinstatement. The judgment also underscores the court’s role in ensuring that employees receive their rightful dues in cases of wrongful termination.

Date of Decision: 26th May 2023

R.N Uppal vs Haryana State Federation of Consumers Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. (Confed)

Download Judgment

Share: