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>Supreme Court: Employee Rights Upheld, Unfair Termination Rule Unconstitutional</h1> <h3>DELHI TRANSPORT CORPN. DTC Versus DTC. MAZDOOR CONGRESS</h3> The Supreme Court held that Regulation 9(b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority Regulations, allowing termination of permanent employees without ... - 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 
