MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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