Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K 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