Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras High Court

Karnataka High Court Sets Precedent: Upholds Company’s Right to Terminate Probationary Supervisor

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment, the Karnataka High Court, presided over by THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI, has upheld a company’s prerogative to terminate the employment of a probationary supervisor. The ruling, which came on September 15, 2023, sheds light on the importance of employment probation and the definition of a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The case in question revolved around M/S. POWERICA LIMITED, a company specializing in diesel generator manufacturing. They terminated the employment of SRI MANJUNATH PATTAR, who had been appointed as a Supervisor with a probationary period. The termination stemmed from an incident where Pattar was allegedly involved in gambling with workers on the shop floor. The company issued warnings and extended his probation, but ultimately, the employment was terminated.

The court’s decision rested on the fact that Pattar, despite being appointed as a Supervisor, drew a salary exceeding Rs. 10,000 per month, a threshold that made him ineligible to be considered a “workman” under Section 2(S)(iv) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Moreover, the court took into account evidence that Pattar was gainfully employed in another venture, further affirming the company’s right to terminate his employment.

The judgment set a significant precedent by emphasizing the importance of probationary periods in employment contracts and clarified the distinction between workmen and supervisors under labor laws.

The case was represented by Sri.Somashekar for the petitioner company and Sri.Adinarayana for the respondent, Sri Manjunath Pattar.

This ruling serves as a vital reference point for future cases involving employment disputes, probationary periods, and the classification of workers, providing clarity on employers’ rights in such matters.

Date of Decision: September 15, 2023                                       

M/S. POWERICA LIMITED (DTA UNIT)   vs SRI MANJUNATH PATTAR

Latest Legal News