After Admitting Lease, Defendant Cannot Turn Around and Call It Forged—Contradictory Stand at Advanced Trial Stage Impermissible: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Revision Against Rejection of Amendment Plea Dismissed Employee Has No Right to Leave Encashment Under Statutory Rules: Punjab and Haryana High Court Section 13 of Gambling Act Is Cognizable — Magistrate Can Take Cognizance on Police Report: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Surveyor’s Report Not Sacrosanct, Arbitral Tribunal Has Jurisdiction to Apply Mind Independently: Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurer’s Challenge to Award in Fire Damage Dispute Anti-Suit Injunction in Matrimonial Dispute Set Aside: Calcutta High Court Refuses to Stall UK Divorce Proceedings Filed by Wife Res Ipsa Loquitur Not a Substitute for Proof of Negligence: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Fatal Road Accident Case NSA Detention Doesn’t Bar Framing of Charges If Prima Facie Evidence Exists: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Charges in Ajnala Police Station Violence Case Continued Contractual Service Despite Sanctioned Posts Is Unfair Labour Practice: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of ECG Technicians After 15 Years Will Duly Proved Even If Witnesses Forget Details After Eight Years: Madras High Court Validates Bequest, Sets Aside Partition Decree Writ Petition Not Maintainable Where Commercial Appeal Remedy Exists: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Petition, Permits Conversion Under Commercial Courts Act Circumstantial Evidence Must Be Cogent, But Caste-Based Offences Demand Specific Intent: Supreme Court Draws Line Between Heinous Crimes and Caste Atrocities Court Must Step into Testator’s Shoes, Not Substitute His Intent: Supreme Court Upholds Will Excluding One Daughter Production of Arbitration Clause is Enough - Not Conduct Mini-Trials on Capacity or Consortium Structure: Supreme Court Title to Property Must Be Proven by Evidence, Not Just Claimed by Deed: Supreme Court Strikes Down Injunction Order Rejecting Police Investigation Is Not Interlocutory Where It Affects Complainant’s Right to Fair Probe in Murder Case: Madhya Pradesh High Court Restores Revision in 156(3) Application Rejection Conviction Cannot Rest On Contradictions, Hostility And Conjecture: Supreme Court Acquits Seven Accused In 2010 Village Murder Power to Lower NEET Percentile Lies Only With Centre - States Can’t Dilute NEET by Administrative Letters: Supreme Court Imposed 10 Crore Cost On Private Dental College Identification Without TIP, Electronic Records Without 65B Certificate – Conviction Set Aside: Patna High Court Nothing Inflicts A Deeper Wound On Our Constitutional Culture Than A State Official Running Berserk Regardless Of Human Rights: Jharkhand High Court Orders ₹1.5 Lakh Interim Compensation Identification Vitiated, Diamonds Not Produced, Last Seen Theory Unreliable: Bombay High Court Acquits Two in 2011 Diamond Courier Murder Dishonour Due to ‘Account Blocked’ Not Attributable to Drawer—No Offence Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act Cannot Be Rebutted By Mere Assertions: Delhi High Court Affirms Conviction In 32-Year-Old Cheque Bounce Case Accused Cannot Demand Documents During Investigation Merely to Assist in Answering Queries: Delhi High Court Upholds Dismissal of S.91 CrPC Plea in Bank Fraud Probe Once a Person is a Major, They Are Free to Choose Their Partner – Absence of Marriage No Ground To Deny Protection: Allahabad High Court Connivance Can’t Be Washed Away by Exoneration: P&H High Court Upholds Penalty on Forest Guard Despite Enquiry Clean Chit Disciplinary Authority Cannot Override Enquiry Officer’s Clean Chit Without Hearing the Employee: Madhya Pradesh High Court Remands Termination for Procedural Lapse Appointment Secured by Misstating Marks Is Void Ab Initio; Human Error No Excuse Where Advantage Gained: Allahabad High Court Appeal Maintainable Despite Modified MACT Award — Kerala High Court Clarifies Scope of Appellate Review in Motor Accident Claims Signature Alone Doesn’t Prove Debt: Kerala High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Bounce Case, Rejects Blanket Presumption Under Section 139 NI Act

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

26 November 2024 12:09 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
 

Latest Legal News