Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between Anjana Mittal (appellant) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (respondent) regarding the termination of her services. The appellant was appointed as a temporary Assistant Grade III in 1983. Between 1987 and 1993, she remained absent for 1968 days, which was ex post facto sanctioned as medical leave. In 1990, she was promoted to temporary Assistant Grade II. A Medical Board in 1992 found that the leave granted based on her medical certificates was disproportionate to the severity of ailments. In 1994, after a show cause notice and unsatisfactory reply, her services were terminated w.e.f. 01.12.1993 under Regulation 24 of the 1975 Regulations, which applies to temporary employees. The appellant challenged the termination by filing a writ petition in 2001, which was dismissed in 2004. A special appeal was dismissed in 2006 on maintainability grounds, holding she was a workman. She then approached the Labour Court in 2008, which in 2018 held the termination illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The respondent's writ petition was partly allowed by the High Court, which upheld the illegality of termination but reduced back wages to 30%. Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that termination was illegal, as the appellant had served over eleven years and could not be treated as temporary, and termination without inquiry was invalid. However, considering her habitual absenteeism (1968 days absence in seven years, average 281 days/year) and the 14-year delay in approaching the Labour Court, the Court reduced back wages to 10% of what would have been payable. The Court ordered reinstatement but directed that the respondent need not provide work; instead, the appellant would be paid salary from the date of judgment until her superannuation in May 2020. Both appeals were disposed of with these modifications.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Temporary Employee - Regulation 24 of Terms and Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulation, 1975 - Employee with over eleven years of service cannot be treated as temporary - Termination under Regulation 24 held illegal - High Court's finding upheld that termination without inquiry is invalid (Paras 9-10). B) Service Law - Back Wages - Habitual Absentee - Employee remained absent for 1968 days in seven years (average 281 days/year) - Medical Board found leave disproportionate to ailments - Despite regularization of leave, conduct relevant for back wages - 10% back wages awarded instead of 30% by High Court (Paras 11-13). C) Industrial Dispute - Delay in Reference - Employee approached Labour Court after 14 years due to pursuing wrong forum - Delay condoned but considered in reducing back wages (Para 12). D) Service Law - Reinstatement without Work - Employee nearing retirement - Reinstatement ordered but employer not obliged to provide work - Salary to be paid from date of judgment till superannuation (Para 13).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the appellant under Regulation 24 of the 1975 Regulations was justified; and what quantum of back wages should be awarded considering the appellant's habitual absence and delay in approaching the Labour Court.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that termination was illegal, but modified the back wages from 30% to 10% of full back wages. The appellant is to be reinstated but the respondent is not obliged to provide work; instead, the appellant shall be paid salary from the date of judgment till her superannuation in May 2020. Both appeals disposed of with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Termination of temporary employee
- Regulation 24 of 1975 Regulations
- Back wages for habitual absentee
- Delay in approaching Labour Court
- Reinstatement without work
