Illegal Termination Violating Natural Justice Mandates Reinstatement, Not Mere Compensation: Calcutta HC
Calcutta Excessive Courtroom: A single choose bench consisting of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury put aside a labour court docket’s order that denied reinstatement to a bus driver, regardless of discovering his termination to be unlawful. The court docket held that when termination violates rules of pure justice, reinstatement needs to be awarded as a substitute of mere compensation.
Background
C Chitambaram labored as a every day rated bus driver for the Directorate of Transport from 2008. His tenure was prolonged with out interruption till 2015. Nevertheless, in 2014, he was accused of pilfering over 20L of HSD oil from a govt bus. An FIR was filed and he was arrested.
Following his launch on bail, he approached his employer to resume work. Regardless of a number of written representations, the Directorate refused to let him be part of. In July 2015, a present trigger discover was issued in opposition to Chitambaram, referring to the FIR and the arrest as amounting to ‘critical misconduct’. Chitambaram replied, and acknowledged that the case in opposition to him was mere retaliation by two senior officers, for a criticism he made earlier that accused them of pilferage. Regardless of this, in October 2015, the directorate issued an order terminating his companies retrospectively from the date of his arrest.
Nevertheless, in 2018, Chitambaram was acquitted of all prices. Subsequently, Chitambaram demanded to be reinstated and a conciliation continuing was initiated. Nevertheless, the proceedings failed. Following this, the suitable govt referred the matter to the labour court docket to determine whether or not Chitambaram could possibly be reinstated put up his acquittal. Nevertheless, the labour court docket held that although the termination was unlawful, he was solely entitled to compensation for psychological harassment. Aggrieved, he filed a writ petition difficult the labour court docket’s order.
Arguments
Chitamabaram argued that the labour court docket had rightly discovered the termination to be unlawful underneath Sections 25B and 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”), however it erred in not ordering reinstatement. Counting on Ramani Mohan Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Second Industrial Tribunal (W.P. No. 955 of 1980), he argued that when the retrenchment violates Part 25F, reinstatement is a pure consequence. Additional, he cited Surendra Kumar Verma v. CGIT (Civil Attraction Nos. 632-635 of 1980), to argue that the exceptions to reinstatement should not relevant right here. He argued that the labour court docket wrongly denied him any reduction, though he labored constantly for years.
Then again, the employer restricted their argument to the jurisdiction of the labour court docket. They argued that the reference made by the suitable govt solely involved reinstatement, and never the legality of the termination. Thus, they argued that the labour court docket couldn’t have determined that concern. Counting on Municipal Company of Delhi v. Sandeep Yadav, 2024:DHC:4704, they submitted that the labour court docket went past the scope of its reference by declaring the termination unlawful.
Courtroom’s Reasoning
The court docket mentioned whether or not first, the Labour court docket had the jurisdiction to look at the legality of termination, and second, whether or not it ought to have ordered reinstatement after discovering the termination to be unlawful.
On the scope of reference, the court docket held that the labour court docket was not confined to a literal studying of the referral query. The court docket defined that the demand for reinstatement was immediately associated to the legitimacy of the termination. Thus, the court docket held, that figuring out whether or not the termination was justified, is implicit in assessing the demand for reinstatement. Consequently, the court docket dominated that the labour court docket had jurisdiction to determine on the legality of termination.
Additional, the court docket famous that there have been a number of procedural lapses within the proceedings carried out earlier than Chitambaram’s termination: the important thing witness assertion was recorded in his absence, there was no alternative to cross look at, and no probability was given to steer proof. The court docket discovered that the termination was primarily based solely on an FIR, and there was no departmental enquiry carried out even after his acquittal. This, the court docket held, violated rules of pure justice.
Additional, the court docket famous that after the termination was discovered to violate pure justice rules, the labour court docket was required to grant full reduction together with reinstatement. Citing Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (Civil Attraction No. 6767 of 2013), the court docket dominated that whereas again wages is probably not automated, reinstatement ought to ordinarily comply with when the termination is discovered unlawful.
Thus, the court docket held that whereas Chitambaram had no proper to again wages, he was entitled to reinstatement. Consequently, the court docket allowed the writ petition and put aside the labour court docket’s order.
Date determined: 16 June 2025
Impartial Quotation: WPA 862 of 2022 & WPA 938 of 2022
Counsel for Shri C. Chitambaram: Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar
Counsel for the Directorate of Transport: Mr. Tulsi Lall
