Termination Without Enquiry Invalid Even if Employee Did Not Join Transfer Post: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Labour Tribunal’s Order

“Discharge That Stigmatizes Employee’s Career Without Domestic Enquiry Violates Natural Justice”— In a decisive judgment upholding the principles of natural justice in employment law, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed Writ challenging the reinstatement order passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam. The Court affirmed that termination of service without conducting a domestic enquiry is illegal, particularly when the termination carries a stigma and affects the employee's career.

“When the discharge is stigmatic, then order of discharge cannot be passed unless adequate opportunity of being heard to the concerned employee is given.”

“Natural Justice Not an Empty Form—Denial Vitiates Termination”

The case involved an employee, M.B. Rajkumar, who had joined the company in 1993 and was transferred from Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh) to Davanagere (Karnataka) in 2001. The employee challenged the transfer on personal and language-related grounds and filed a civil suit. After legal attempts failed, he did not join the transferred location and was terminated in 2002.

The Labour Court, while allowing I.D. No. 9 of 2005, held: “The termination of service is illegal and invalid... no enquiry had been conducted prior to the termination.”

The company challenged this before the High Court, but the Single Judge upheld the Labour Court's ruling. On further appeal, the Division Bench reiterated:

“Discharging an employee simpliciter stigmatizes his whole career, and he was required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing before terminating his services.

“Employer Cannot Justify Termination Without Proving Misconduct Through Evidence”

The High Court noted that although the company argued it could justify dismissal even without prior enquiry, it neither conducted an enquiry nor led any evidence before the Tribunal to prove misconduct.

“The management only presented Exhibits M1 to M5 during cross-examination of WW-1 by consent, without offering any oral evidence.”

Relying on Shankar Chaudhary v. Britannia Biscuits Co. Ltd. and Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. v. Ludh Budh Singh, the Court held: “The obligation to lead evidence to establish an allegation made by a party is on the party making the allegation.”

Thus, the company’s failure to prove its allegations before the Tribunal was fatal.

“Transfer Order Not Malafide, But Termination Still Invalid Without Inquiry”

While rejecting allegations that the transfer order itself was malafide, the Court clarified that the core issue was the illegality of termination due to absence of inquiry and denial of opportunity.

“Even if we consider the arguments presented by the company to be valid, the Company has remained unrepresented... and offered no oral evidence.”

Further, citing State of Uttarakhand v. Sureshwati (2021), the Court reiterated: “Before imposing a punishment, an employer is expected to conduct a proper inquiry... and such inquiry should not be an empty formality.”

Upholding both the Labour Court’s and Single Judge’s findings, the High Court concluded that the termination was illegal and devoid of procedural fairness. The employee was thus entitled to reinstatement without back wages, as directed earlier.

“The findings of the Industrial Tribunal, which are confirmed in Writ Petition, do not suffer from the vice of perversity.”

Accordingly, Writ Appeal No. 1269 of 2023 was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Date of Judgment: 7 May 2025