https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189660 The court upheld Regulation 16.14 as not arbitrary and within the competence of management, finding it did not violate Article 14. It clarified that a 15-day notice sufficed for unauthorized absence and active politics, not three months. The Managing Director had authority to terminate, and the order was supported by valid grounds despite procedural lapses. The retrospective application of the amended regulation was deemed illegal, leading to the invalidation of the termination order. Sharma's termination was set aside, entitling them to back-wages with adjustments. Civil Appeal 3154/85 was allowed, while Civil Appeal 3155/85 was dismissed. en-us Wed, 19 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 16 Jan 2017 17:30:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189660 The court upheld Regulation 16.14 as not arbitrary and within the competence of management, finding it did not violate Article 14. It clarified that a 15-day notice sufficed for unauthorized absence and active politics, not three months. The Managing Director had authority to terminate, and the order was supported by valid grounds despite procedural lapses. The retrospective application of the amended regulation was deemed illegal, leading to the invalidation of the termination order. Sharma's termination was set aside, entitling them to back-wages with adjustments. Civil Appeal 3154/85 was allowed, while Civil Appeal 3155/85 was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 19 Jul 1989 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189660