MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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