TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Temporary staff may be dismissed without inquiry but termination substance must be examined; Regulation 9(b) void under Arts.14,16(1),19(1)(g),21</h1> <h3>DELHI TRANSPORT CORPN. DTC Versus DTC. MAZDOOR CONGRESS</h3> The SC held that while temporary employees may be dismissed without inquiry, the substance of termination orders must be examined to prevent mala fide or ... Termination of employment - Principles of natural justice in Part of Article 14 - Constitutional validity of the right of the employer to terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any inquiry in certain circumstances by reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice - Applicability of the doctrine of reading down - violation of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. - principle of audi alteram partem - HELD THAT:- It is undoubtedly true as contended by Sri Bhasin, learned counsel for the intervener, that it is open to the authorities to terminate the services of a temporary employee without holding an enquiry. But in view of the match of law made, viz., that it is not the form of the action but the substance of the order is to be looked into, it is open to the Court to lift the veil and pierce the impugned action to find whether the impugned action is the foundation to impose punishment or is only a motive. A larger Bench of seven Judges of this Court in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, [1974 (8) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT] elaborately considered the question and laid down the rule in this regard. The play of fair play is to secure justice procedural as well as substantive. The substance of the order, the effect thereof is to be looked into. Whether no misconduct spurns the action or whether the services of a probationer is terminated without imputation of misconduct is the test. Termination simpliciter, either due to loss of confidence or unsuitability to the post may be a relevant factor to terminate the services of a probationer. But it must be hedged with a bonafide over-all consideration of the previous conduct without trained with either mala-fide or colourable exercise of power or for extraneous considerations. Such actions were upheld by this Court. The action must be done honestly with due care and prudence. In view of the march of law made by Art. 14, in particular after Maneka Gandhi's case [1978 (1) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT], it is too late in the day to contend that the competent authority would be vested with wide discretionary power without any proper guidelines or the procedure. The further contention that the preamble, the other rules and the circumstances could be taken aid of in reading down the provisions of the impugned rules or the regulations is also of no assistance when it is found that the legislative intention is unmistakably clear, unambiguous and specific. Thus considered, I have no hesitation to conclude that the impugned regulation 9(b) of the Regulations are arbitrary, unjust, unfair and unreasonable offending Arts. 14, 16(1), 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution. It is also opposite to the public policy and thereby is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act. 331. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Constitutional validity of the right of the employer to terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any inquiry.2. Whether Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 violates Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution.3. Applicability of the doctrine of reading down to save the regulation from unconstitutionality.Summary:1. Constitutional Validity of Termination Without Inquiry:The Supreme Court examined whether clauses permitting employers to terminate permanent employees by giving reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice, without holding any inquiry, are constitutionally valid. The Court emphasized that the right to livelihood is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 and that any procedure depriving someone of this right must be just, fair, and reasonable.2. Violation of Articles 14, 16, 19(1)(g), and 21:Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment & Service) Regulations, 1952 was scrutinized for its compliance with the Constitution. The Court held that this regulation, which allows termination without any reason or inquiry, confers arbitrary and unbridled power on the employer, violating the principles of natural justice and Articles 14, 16(1), 19(1)(g), and 21. The Court reiterated that public employment is a public property, and employees are entitled to security of tenure and protection against arbitrary termination.3. Doctrine of Reading Down:The Court discussed whether the regulation could be read down to imply that the power to terminate services should be exercised only under certain circumstances and for valid reasons. However, it concluded that the language of Regulation 9(b) is clear and unambiguous, and it is not permissible to read into it any limitations or conditions. The Court emphasized that the doctrine of reading down cannot be used to distort the clear intention of the legislature and that the regulation must be struck down as it stands.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that Regulation 9(b) is unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that any law or rule empowering an employer to terminate the services of a permanent employee must conform to the principles of natural justice and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
