Electricity Act 2003 | Section 56(2) Does Not Preclude Licensee From Raising Supplementary Demand After Two Years; Only Restricts Right To Disconnect: Supreme Court Dissolution Of Partnership At Will | Outgoing Partner Entitled To Market Value Of Assets As On Date Of Distribution, Not Date Of Dissolution: Supreme Court SEBI | Release Of Escrow Under Buyback Regulations Does Not Preclude Independent Inquiry Into Fraud Under PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Promotion Based On Merit Does Not Wipe Out Past Adverse Records But Must Be Balanced In FR 56(j) Compulsory Retirement: Supreme Court Appellate Court Can Convict For Offence Even If Charge Not Framed By Trial Court Under Section 464 CrPC: Supreme Court Extradition | Sovereign Assurance Does Not Override Judicial Sentencing; Cannot Be Used To Artificially Accelerate Sentence Completion: Supreme Court Article 21 | State Has A Positive Duty To Protect Public Health By Implementing Front-Of-Package Labelling Regulations: Supreme Court Revenue Entries Are Not Documents Of Title, Cannot Replace Substantive Evidence In Property Disputes: Supreme Court Long Possession Without Hostile Animus Does Not Amount To Adverse Possession: Supreme Court Administrative Discretion Must Comply With Article 14; Subsequent Executive Decisions Cannot Retroactively Cure Failure Of Timely Performance: Supreme Court Municipal Corporation Cannot Unilaterally Downgrade Market Value Of Land Acquired For Road Widening To Deny TDR Certificates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Execution Of Agreement To Sell Does Not Automatically Terminate Existing Tenancy: Allahabad High Court Writ Jurisdiction Not Maintainable When Title To Property Is Under A Cloud And Subject Matter Of Disputed Facts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Amendment Of Plaint Seeking Impleadment Of Third Parties And Addition Of Time-Barred Claims In A Partition Suit Cannot Be Permitted: Bombay High Court Reassessment Order Does Not Result In Merger Of Original Assessment Order If Issues Are Distinct: Andhra Pradesh High Court GST Assessment Order Uploaded Only Under 'Additional Notices' Tab Without Separate Intimation Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Calcutta High Court 'Prolonged Inaction' Cannot Be Rewarded: Delhi High Court Upholds CESTAT Refusal To Condone 968-Day Delay In Filing Customs Appeal Probate No Longer Mandatory To Establish Rights Under A Will Following 2025 Amendment To Indian Succession Act: J&K High Court Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Used To Introduce New Factual Foundations Or Reopen Concluded Arbitral Awards: Karnataka High Court High Court Cannot Invoke Article 227 To Strike Off Plaint When Statutory Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Is Available: Madras High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Arrest And Subsequent Remand: Orissa High Court Arbitrator Is The Sole Judge Of Quality And Quantity Of Evidence, Court Cannot Act As Court Of Appeal: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 5 Limitation Act | Court Cannot Condone Delay In A Mechanical Manner Without Ascertaining Bona Fides Of The Applicant: Calcutta High Court High Court Cannot Quash FIR Under Section 482 CrPC By Conducting Mini-Trial On Merits: Punjab & Haryana High Court Taxation Law | Mere Assertion Of Natural Justice Violation On Disputed Facts Won't Bypass Statutory Appeal: Delhi High Court

High Court Quashes Disengagement Orders of J&K Handicrafts Corporation Employees: ‘Principles of Natural Justice Require Opportunity of Representation’

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has overturned the disengagement orders issued by the Managing Director of the J&K Handicrafts Corporation. The court’s landmark judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. A. Chowdhary, emphatically stated that “principles of natural justice require that they should be given a reasonable opportunity of representation,” setting a precedent in matters concerning the rights of contractual employees.

The case, WP(C) No. 2260/2022, which came to a conclusion on December 16, 2023, revolved around the petitioners, who were engaged on various contractual bases in the Corporation. They had challenged the legitimacy of their disengagement, which was executed following an alert note from the Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB).

In his detailed judgment, Justice Chowdhary observed that the disengagement of the petitioners was conducted without providing them an opportunity to be heard. This action was deemed as a violation of the principles of natural justice and potentially infringed upon Article 311 of the Constitution of India.

The Court’s decision to quash the disengagement orders has been hailed as a victory for employee rights, especially for those on contractual terms. The judgment also directs the respondents to reinstate the petitioners, allowing them to perform their duties and entitling them to all service benefits, including wages.

The case drew attention to the larger issue of contractual employment rights in the public sector. Senior Advocate Mr. Z.A. Qureshi, representing the petitioners, argued that the disengagement attached a stigma to the petitioners and was punitive without proper inquiry. Conversely, Mr. Abdul Rashid Malik, Sr.AAG, representing the respondents, contended that contractual employment does not confer a vested right to continue, citing the precedent set by the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors.

Justice Chowdhary, in his ruling, underscored the necessity for a full-fledged inquiry when allegations cast a stigma on employees. This judgment is expected to influence future cases concerning the termination of contractual employees in various sectors.

Date of Decision: 16.12.2023

Feroz Ahmed Sheikh VS Union Territory of J&K through

 

Latest Legal News