No Disciplinary Proceeding Required For Termination Of Non-Permanent Employee Of University Who Committed Gross Misconduct: MP HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, while setting aside the order passed by a labour court, has observed that universities or educational institutions are not required to conduct disciplinary proceedings for gross and wrongful misconduct by non-permanent employees.
The Petitioner-university challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Ujjain which reinstated the Respondent in the services with 50% back wages.
The Bench of Justice Anil Verma observed, “From perusal of the award passed by Labour court it appears that services of respondent have been terminated by petitioner on the basis that work was not found satisfactory and she has committed gross and wrongful misconduct. The respondent was not permanent employee, therefore, there is no requirement for conducting any disciplinary action against her.”
Advocate Yash Tiwari appeared for the Petitioner whereas Advocate Mahesh Kumar Choudhary appeared for the Respondents.
The question for consideration before the Court was, firstly, whether the Respondent had worked in the university for more than 240 days in a year and, secondly, whether the Respondent was terminated for gross and wrongful misconduct.
The Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad vs. Anil Kumar Mishra (2005) and said, “The Court has held that completion of 240 days of work does not import the right to regularize under Industrial Act. It merely imposes certain obligations on the employer at the time of termination of service. This citation is completely applicable in the instant case. The same citation has been followed by Hon'ble Apex court in case of Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. (supra)…The Coordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Sunil Kumar vs. MP Road Transport Corporation Bairagarh reported in 1980 JLJ 561 it has been held as under:- "The management did not give any charge sheet to the petitioner. The orders of termination did not refer to any misconduct and no stigma was cast on the petitioners. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that orders of termination were not founded on misconduct but amounted to discharge simpliciter of the petitioners under Standing Order 11(b) for unsatisfactory work and loss of confidence."
Accordingly, the Court was of the opinion that the Labour Court did not consider the aspects and the work of Respondent was not found satisfactory and she lost confidence. Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Maharishi Panini Sanskrit Evam Vedic University v. Kumari Rajani Verma
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Yash Tiwari
Respondent: Advocate Mahesh Kumar Choudhary