Allegations In Matrimonial Disputes Must Be Specific And Supported By Foundation Facts To Avoid Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Supreme Court Modifies Sentence To Period Already Undergone Citing Medical Condition And Expression Of Remorse Qualification Of '10+2 System' Cannot Be Equated With Other Certifications Absent An Equivalence Clause: Supreme Court Essential Qualifications In Recruitment Cannot Be Diluted Or Subject To Judicial Equivalence: Supreme Court Court Has Discretion To Decide Genuineness Of Signature By Comparison; Not Essential To Invoke Expert Opinion In All Cases: Supreme Court Civil Disputes Cannot Be Converted Into Criminal Offences To Recover Money: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 420 IPC Taxing Authorities Must Classify Goods Based On Form At Time Of Sale, Not End Use: Supreme Court Suit For Declaration Of Status Must Seek Consequential Relief To Avoid Bar Of Proviso: Allahabad High Court Illegal Detention | Police Failure To Maintain CCTV Footage Invokes Adverse Presumption Under Sec 119 BSA Against State: Allahabad High Court Section 138 NI Act | Accused Rebuts Presumption By Proving Intimation Of Misplaced Cheque To Bank And Lack Of Documentation For Alleged Settlement: Andhra Pradesh High Court Garnishee Proceedings Under CPC | Disputed Debt Cannot Be Summarily Adjudicated Without Leading Evidence: Bombay High Court Criminal Procedure (Identification) Act 2022 | Magistrate’s Power Under Section 5 To Direct DNA Profiling Is Not Conditional Upon Consent: Calcutta High Court Conviction Based On 'Assumption And Presumption' Cannot Be Sustained: Bombay High Court Acquits Husband Limitation Act | Suit For Specific Performance Must Be Filed Within Reasonable Time Even If No Date For Performance Is Fixed: Delhi High Court Enrolment As Advocate | Bar Council Must Consider 'Equivalent Qualifications' Under Rule 4(a) Rules Of Legal Education: Karnataka High Court Section 482 BNSS | Pre-Arrest Bail Is Not A Matter Of Course; Must Show Special Case For Invoking Extraordinary Jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Hindu Succession Act | A Co-parcener Cannot Alienate Entire Property; Non-Impleaded Legal Heir Not Bound By Previous Decree: Madras High Court Purchaser During Pendency Of Suit Bound By Compromise Decree, Cannot Treat It As Void In Collateral Proceedings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 23 Rule 1-A CPC | In Partition Suits, Defendants Asserting A Share Can Seek Transposition If Original Plaintiffs Withdraw: Patna High Court Section 69 BNS | Suppression Of Subsisting Marriage Or Live-In Relationship During Marriage Proposal Constitutes 'Deceitful Means': Kerala High Court Anticipatory Bail | Mere Apprehension Of Investigating Agency Is Insufficient To Deny Bail Without Demonstrating Necessity Of Custodial Interrogation: Telangana High Court Income Tax Evasion | Criminal Prosecution Under Section 276C IT Act Cannot Sustain Once Foundation Assessment Order Is Set Aside: Punjab & Haryana High Court Election Petition Must Be Presented By Petitioner In Person, Non-Compliance Renders It Liable To Summary Dismissal: Supreme Court Absence Of Recovery Or Evidence Of Stolen Property Precludes Conviction Under Section 394 IPC: Supreme Court

Termination of Services in Complete Violation of Statutory Provisions – High Court Upholds Tribunal’s Decision on Wrongful Termination

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Punjab and Haryana, led by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Vashisth, upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court II, Faridabad, confirming the wrongful termination of Mr. Mahabir Singh, a former employee of M/s Prompt Security Services. This ruling affirmed the Tribunal’s findings that the termination was “in complete violation of the statutory provisions” of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, leading to a significant modification in the awarded compensation.

Central to the dispute was the interpretation of Sections 10(1) and 33-C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Tribunal had initially ordered reinstatement with 25% back wages for Mr. Singh following his wrongful termination after a lengthy medical leave.

Mr. Singh had served as a Field Worker from April 1, 2005, until his disputed termination on September 30, 2012, after returning from medical leave with a fitness certificate but being denied reentry to his workplace. The management argued that Mr. Singh had voluntarily abandoned his job, a claim that was refuted based on the evidence presented.

Justice Vashisth’s judgment underscored several key observations from the Tribunal’s proceedings:

Admissions and Evidence: The tribunal highlighted admissions by management and the lack of credible defense regarding the alleged job abandonment.

Post-Termination Employment: The fact that Mr. Singh found lower-paying employment post-termination influenced the tribunal’s decision on the extent of back wages.

Decision: The High Court, modifying the Tribunal’s award, granted Mr. Singh a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 3,30,000 instead of reinstatement, considering factors such as his age, employment status post-termination, and the management’s conduct during his medical leave.

Date of Decision: May 01, 2024

M/s Prompt Security Services vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Faridabad and Another

Latest Legal News