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>Limitation of Art. 311 on Suspension of Temporary Employees; Discrimination Must Be Proven for Employment Termination.</h1> <h3>Union of India Versus Pandurang Kashinath More</h3> The Supreme Court held that Art. 311 of the Constitution does not apply to suspension of temporary employees and that the refusal to pay subsistence ... - Issues:1. Violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution regarding suspension and termination of service.2. Violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution due to arbitrary termination of service.Issue 1: Violation of Art. 311 of the Constitution regarding suspension and termination of service:The respondent, a temporary employee, was suspended and later terminated from service by the appellant. The respondent contended that the orders of suspension and termination violated Art. 311 of the Constitution as he was not given a proper opportunity to show cause. The trial Court held that as a temporary employee, the termination was in accordance with the contract, and Art. 311 did not apply. The High Court affirmed this finding. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that Art. 311 does not concern suspension from service. The refusal to pay subsistence allowance during suspension did not indicate termination as punishment.Issue 2: Violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution due to arbitrary termination of service:The respondent claimed that the termination of service violated Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution as he was arbitrarily picked out and sacked. The High Court found that the appellant's failure to deny this allegation in the written statement amounted to an admission. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that the pleadings did not contain a sufficient allegation of discrimination. The Court emphasized that specific details of discrimination must be provided in the pleading. As the respondent failed to establish discrimination through evidence, the Supreme Court held that no violation of Art. 16 occurred. The appeal was allowed, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the trial Court's decree was restored, with no order as to costs.This judgment clarifies the application of constitutional provisions regarding suspension and termination of service for temporary employees and the necessity of specific allegations and evidence to prove arbitrary discrimination in employment termination cases under the Constitution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
