Sale Deeds Must Be Interpreted Literally When the Language is Clear and Unambiguous: Supreme Court    |     Non-Signatory Can Be Bound by Arbitration Clause Based on Conduct and Involvement: Supreme Court    |     Right to Passport is a Fundamental Right, Denial Without Justification Violates Article 21: Allahabad High Court    |     Insurance Company's Liability Remains Despite Policy Cancellation Due to Dishonored Cheque: Calcutta High Court    |     Deductions Under Sections 36(1)(vii) and 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act Are Independent and Cannot Be Curtailed: Bombay High Court    |     Diary Entries Cannot Alone Implicate the Accused Without Corroborative Evidence: Supreme Court Upholds Discharge of Accused in Corruption Case    |     MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     If Two Reasonable Conclusions Are Possible, Acquittal Should Not Be Disturbed: Supreme Court    |     Kalelkar Award Explicitly Provides Holiday Benefits for Temporary Employees, Not Subject to Government Circulars: Supreme Court Upholds Holiday and Overtime Pay    |     NDPS | Homogeneous Mixing of Bulk Drugs Essential for Valid Sampling Under NDPS Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     POCSO | Scholar Register Is Sufficient to Determine Victim’s Age in POCSO Cases: Madhya Pradesh High Court    |     Abuse of Official Position in Appointments: Prima Facie Case for Criminal Misconduct: Delhi High Court Upholds Framing of Charges Against Swati Maliwal in DCW Corruption Case    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Gift Deed Voided as Son Fails to Care for Elderly Mother, Karnataka High Court Asserts ‘Implied Duty’ in Property Transfers    |     Denial of a legible 164 statement is a denial of a fair trial guaranteed by the Constitution of India: Kerala High Court    |     Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Fraud on the Courts Cannot Be Tolerated: Supreme Court Ordered CBI Investigation Against Advocate    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand High Court    |     Prima Facie Proof of Valid Marriage Required Before Awarding Maintenance Under Section 125 Cr.P.C: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Interim Maintenance Order    |    

Labour Court Ought To Have Given The Employer A Chance To Adduce Evidence To Prove The Charge – Gujarat High Court Remands Dismissal Case Back To Labour Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad addressed procedural irregularities in a Labour Court decision regarding the dismissal of an employee for repeated unauthorized absences. The bench of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Biren Vaishnav and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pranav Trivedi highlighted the necessity of allowing the employer to present evidence before making a ruling on such dismissals.

The case revolved around Rajeshbhai Ramjibhai Purabiya, a former employee of Rajkot Municipal Corporation, dismissed for repeated absences under Section 56(2) of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. The dismissal had been previously overturned by the Labour Court, which reinstated the employee with 20% back wages citing a violation of the principles of natural justice, as the employer was not given an opportunity to prove the charges due to a defective inquiry process.

Rajeshbhai was dismissed from his position as a sweeper on June 18, 2011, leading to multiple legal battles culminating in this appeal. The primary issues discussed in the court were:

Whether the Labour Court erred in reinstating the employee without allowing the Municipal Corporation to present evidence.

The application of principles of natural justice concerning procedural fairness in the dismissal process.

The High Court meticulously analyzed the previous proceedings and emphasized that the Labour Court should have permitted the employer to lead evidence to establish the charges of misconduct. Justice Biren Vaishnav noted, “A defective inquiry or no inquiry stands on the same footing,” referencing Apex Court precedents which support the need for an employer to have an opportunity to justify dismissals when procedural errors are present.

Justice Vaishnav further elaborated on the necessity of procedural justice, stating, “When a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication, the labour court should first decide whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice.” The court criticized the Labour Court’s oversight in not addressing this crucial procedural aspect as a preliminary issue, which ultimately affects the fairness of the judicial process.

Decision of the High Court The High Court set aside the orders of both the Labour Court and the Single Judge, remanding the matter back to the Labour Court with directions to allow the Rajkot Municipal Corporation to present evidence substantiating the dismissal of Rajeshbhai Ramjibhai Purabiya. The case must be decided within six months, with both parties expected to cooperate fully in the expedited proceedings.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024

Rajkot Municipal Corporation vs. Rajeshbhai Ramjibhai Purabiya

Similar News