Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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.

Latest Legal News