ANJANA MITTAL versus OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 353 · Decided: 30-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
353
ANJANA MITTAL
v.
OIL AND NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED
(Civil Appeal No.5937 of 2019)
JULY 30, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND VINEET SARAN, JJ.]
Labour Laws:
Termination of service – In terms of Regulation 24 of Terms
and Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations, 1975
(Service Regulations of respondent- Corporation) – On the ground
of her continued absence – Initially the employee/workman resorted
to Writ jurisdiction for challenging the termination order – Petition
having been dismissed on the ground of maintainability, raised the
dispute before Labour Court – Labour Court held the termination
as illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages – In writ
petition, order of the Labour Court was upheld so far as finding on
termination order, but instead of full back wages granted back wages
only to the extent of 30% – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held:
Termination of the employee/workman in terms of Regulation 24,
treating her as a temporary employee was not justified in law – The
absence having been regularized,  the same could not be the ground
for termination – However, the facts of the case show that the
employee was a habitual absentee – Therefore, ends of justice would
be met if the employee is paid 10% of back wages alongwith benefit
of reinstatement – Considering her conduct, since the employer
would not be obliged to take work from her, therefore, in lieu of
reinstatement, she may be paid salary from the present day till the
date of her superannuation (i.e. from July 30, 2019 till May 2020).
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.  High Court has rightly held that the termination
of the appellant in terms of Regulation 24 of the Terms and
Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations 1975 ,
treating the appellant as a temporary employee, was not justified
in law and thus could not be sustained, as she had been in
employment for over eleven years. [Para 9] [357-G-H]
[2019]  10 S.C.R. 353
   353
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
354
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
2. The finding of the High Court, that in a case of termination,
formal domestic enquiry is not required is misconceived, is also
correct, as the order of termination has serious civil consequences
to an employee, and thus such termination should not be without
following the process of law and holding an inquiry.  The High
Court has also rightly held that since the period of absence was
regularized by the Management by converting the same as period
of leave, and as  such the same could not be the ground for
termination. [Para 10] [358-B-C]
3.  Even if it is taken that the appellant was not temporary
but deemed to be permanent, yet an employee who remained
absent from duty for such long periods, averaging to over 281
days in a year, continuously for seven years, would not be entitled
to any substantial back wages. The Medical Board constituted
by the Corporation also found that the period of leave granted on
the basis of many of the medical certificates submitted by the
appellant was disproportionate to the severity of the ailments.
[Para 11] [358-E-F]
4.  Even though the said absence was converted as leave
(which was ex-post facto granted in her favour) yet the fact remains
that she was a habitual absentee, which would be a material fact
while considering the question of payment of back wages to her.
[Para 12] [359-B]
5.  The ends of justice would be met if the appellant is paid
10% back wages, along with the benefit of reinstatement and all
other consequential benefits. Considering the conduct of the
appellant, the respondent-Corporation would not be obliged to
take work from her, and in lieu thereof she may be paid her salary
from date of the present judgment till the date of her
superannuation,  i.e. May 2020. Thus, the appellant may be treated
as reinstated but may not be required to work in the Organisation
of respondent-Corporation. [Para 13] [359-C-D]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.5937 of
2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.06.2018 of the High Court
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 3015 of 2017
With
Civil Appeal No. 5938 of 2019.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
355
P. S. Patwalia, J. P. Cama, Sr. Advs., Ms. Meena Chaudhary
Sharma, Dhruv Sheoran,  Ms. Harshika Verma, Ms. Natasha Dalmia,
Sudhir Mendiratta, Abhishek Puri, Yasharth Misra, Surbhi Gupta, V.
Sidharth, Manan Gambhir, P. N. Puri, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VINEET SARAN, J.
1. Leave 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.