Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

Gujarat High Court Slams Arbitrary Termination: Medical Evidence Must Be Fairly Considered

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court Orders Rs. 5,00,000/- Compensation to Widow, Criticizes University for Ignoring Medical Opinion and Failing to Accommodate Employee

In a significant ruling, the Gujarat High Court has set aside the termination of Maheshbhai Tejabhai Desai, a contractual driver with a respondent-University, on medical grounds. The bench, comprising Justices A.S. Supehia and Mauna M. Bhatt, criticized the arbitrary nature of the termination and ordered the University to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- in compensation to Desai’s widow. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to contractual terms and fair treatment of employees.

Maheshbhai Tejabhai Desai was appointed as a driver on a contractual basis by the respondent-University on August 1, 2014. Despite rendering satisfactory service for nearly three years, he was terminated on February 16, 2018, citing medical reasons. Desai challenged his termination, but the writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge. Desai passed away during the pendency of his appeal, and his widow continued the legal battle seeking justice and compensation.

The Court noted that the Medical Board Examination had deemed Desai fit for duty as a driver with due risk. “The opinion of the Medical Board stated that despite Desai’s neurological condition, he did not have any neurological deficit and could perform his duties with caution,” observed the bench.

Addressing the University’s reliance on Condition No.3 of the appointment order, which allowed termination without reason, the Court remarked, “Such a clause must be read in conjunction with the overall objective of ensuring satisfactory performance.” The termination was found inconsistent with both the appointment terms and the University’s failure to accommodate Desai in an alternative role, despite the Medical Board’s advice.

The bench emphasized that no rules or regulations justified the termination on medical grounds, particularly when the Medical Board had not declared Desai entirely unfit. “The action of the University appears illegal and arbitrary,” the judgment stated.

The judgment highlighted the importance of fair and reasonable application of termination clauses in employment contracts. The Court held that the University’s failure to accommodate Desai in a suitable alternative position, despite medical clearance with due risk, constituted a violation of employment terms and principles of natural justice.

Justice A.S. Supehia remarked, “The termination of the petitioner from service by resorting to Condition No.3 of the appointment order was uncalled for and unjustified.”

The Gujarat High Court’s decision to set aside the termination and award compensation to Desai’s widow marks a significant precedent in employment law, particularly concerning the fair treatment of contractual employees. By highlighting the need for just and reasonable application of termination clauses, the judgment reinforces the judiciary’s role in safeguarding employees’ rights against arbitrary administrative actions.

 

Date of Decision: June 11, 2024

Maheshbhai Tejabhai Desai & Anr. V. State of Gujarat & Ors.

Similar News