IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court

No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer

25 November 2024 11:04 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Orissa High Court mandates compliance with Director’s reinstatement order, regularizes service period with consequential financial benefits.
The Orissa High Court has ordered the reinstatement and payment of full back wages to Madhusmita Dutta, a Lecturer in History, whose services were wrongfully terminated in 1995. The court, in a judgment delivered by Justice Sashikanta Mishra on May 9, 2024, emphasized that the principle of “no work no pay” does not apply in cases where the employer is at fault. The decision mandates the State of Orissa and the governing body of Joda Women’s College to comply with the reinstatement order and regularize her service with all consequential financial benefits.

The court noted that the governing body of Joda Women’s College failed to comply with the Director of Higher Education’s order to reinstate Dutta, issued in 1996. Justice Mishra stated, “No valid reason has been cited for not reinstating the petitioner in service after the order of termination was held unlawful by the Director and confirmed by this Court.”
Justice Mishra highlighted Dutta’s consistent efforts to regain her position, indicating her lack of gainful employment during the termination period. “The petitioner’s consistent case that despite repeated entreaties made before the Director as well as the governing body she was not allowed to join, along with her continuous approach to the concerned authorities and multiple litigations, safely presumes that she was not gainfully employed,” the judgment observed.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s precedents, the court emphasized exceptions to the “no work no pay” principle, especially when the fault lies with the employer. “The principle of ‘no work no pay’ cannot be applied as it would afford a premium to the authorities and the governing body for their illegal inaction,” Justice Mishra remarked.

The court’s reasoning was rooted in established precedents that support the awarding of back wages in cases of wrongful termination where the employer is at fault. Justice Mishra referenced several Supreme Court rulings, including J.K. Synthetics Ltd. V. K.P. Agrawal and Shobha Ram Raturi v. Haryana Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd, underscoring that when an employee is wrongfully terminated and reinstatement is ordered, back wages are typically granted unless the employer can prove the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere.

Justice Mishra stated, “The services of the petitioner for the period from 23.09.1995 to 09.01.2006 need to be regularized and all consequential service and financial benefits as admissible in law disbursed in her favour.”

The Orissa High Court’s judgment in favor of Madhusmita Dutta underscores the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that wrongful terminations do not go uncompensated, especially when the fault lies with the employer. The decision not only reinstates Dutta with back wages but also sets a significant precedent for similar cases, reinforcing the legal framework that protects employees’ rights against unlawful termination practices.

Date of Decision: May 9, 2024
 

Similar News