June 2024 | Cllra

June 2024 S.C. Judgements

ANAND PRAKASH MANI TRIPATHI V. STATE OF U.P.

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).
6118 OF 2024

Facts: 14 candidates were appointed to government posts in the undivided district of Gorakhpur. However, after the district was bifurcated, the services of the appellants were terminated. Challenging the termination order, writ petitions were filed before the Allahabad High Court which passed interim orders allowing the appellants to work. After this, a single-judge bench of the HC quashed the termination order, directing the appellants to be regularized with all consequential benefits, which was set aside by a division bench of the HC, against which an appeal was filed before the SC.

Judgment: The SC observed that the appellants had worked for 30 to 40 years in the post, and thus it would be unreasonable and unfair to deny them post-retiral benefits or terminal dues. The SC restored the order passed by the Single Bench and granted the appellants all consequential benefits. The Court also directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to ensure that these benefits, as also ordered by the Single-judge bench, are given to the appellants within two months.

NITIN MITTAL V. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ANR.

SLP(C) NO. 13333 OF 2024

Facts: In 2022, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh had invited applications from eligible judges for promotion and appointment as an ADJ. Since the petitioner secured the second rank, he was not appointed to the post. In 2023, another vacancy arose due to the elevation of a sitting district judge, and thus the petitioner made a representation to the HC for consideration of his candidature from the existing merit list, contending that the vacancy had arisen on account of elevation which was an anticipated vacancy and thus should be considered part of the previous recruitment year. The HC dismissed the petition, after which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Judgment: The Supreme Court interpreted Rule 5(A) of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2004,and clarified that vacancies due to elevation are not included in the anticipated vacancies and thus cannot be filled from the select list. It held that only vacancies due to retirement or temporary vacancies were to be filled from the select list. The Court reiterated that a wait list cannot be used as a reservoir to fill unadvertised vacancies arising after the recruitment process has ended. It stated that once the notified vacancy is filled, the process is complete, and the wait list cannot be used for subsequent vacancies.

May 2024 H.C. Judgements

MADRAS HIGH COURT

Rita Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2024:RJ-JP:18460 - Fixing of a cut-off date for recruitment processes falls in the domain of the employer, and such a uniform cut-off date could not be relaxed for certain applicants.
Poonam Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2024:RJ-JP:16849 - Government employees do not have a fundamental protection to continue serving at a desired location as administrative concerns supersedes familial convenience.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Shri Patil Samgonda Namgonda v. State of Maharashtra, 2024:BHC-AS:23120 - An employee's conduct while filing petitions does not automatically imply the abandonment of claim for reinstatement in service.
Shri Shripad Dwarkanath Gupte & Ors. v. Union Of India, WP No. 2763 of 2023 - Employees accepting promotions on grade wise basis without protest are estopped from challenging the same.
Kalpana and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, WP No. 3701 of 2022 - Substituting the legal representative of a deceased employee by another legal representative for compassionate appointment is lawful.
Rajiv Bansal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., WP No. 1014 of 2023 - Withholding of salary or emoluments does not fall within the ambit of the offense of cheating.
The Chief Officer, Pen Municipal Council & Ors. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Ors., WP (C). No. 4129 of 2009 - Regularization of services cannot be claimed merely based on long-term continuance of employment as this does not create any inherent right to regularization.
Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr. v. The Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr., WP No. 8744 of 2015- Birth of a first child before joining the service is not a bar for availing maternity leave after joining service under the AAI regulations.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Sri Kunal Chandra Sen v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 3618 of 2016 - The state cannot use public interest and accountability as an excuse to indefinitely delay the release of employees' pensions.
Smt. Tara Devi & Anr. v. Bank of India & Ors., WPA 19235 of 2021 - In case an employee is untraceable for more than seven years and their death is presumed, the terminal benefits should be extended to the heirs of the employee.

TRIPURA HIGH COURT

Bina Rani Paul & Ors v. State of Tripura & Ors. WP(C) No. 624 of 2023 - Anganwadi Centres fall within the ambit of “establishment” under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and thus Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers are entitled to gratuity benefits

KERALA HIGH COURT

Jomon Sebastian & Ors. v. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors. WP(C) No. 13067 & 13978 of 2023 - Regulatory bodies cannot misinterpret judgments to wrongfully deny registration to the permanent employees.

DELHI HIGH COURT

Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd v. Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, W.P.(C) No. 567 of 2004 - The definition of wages under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cannot be used to calculate bonus under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
Central Council of Homoeopathy v. Vijay Singh - The Central Council of Homoeopathy falls within the definition of “Industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
Revd. John H. Caleb v. Diocese of Delhi-CNI and Ors. - A personal right of action, arising due to holding of a nonhereditary office, dies with the death of the person concerned and is not transferable or heritable

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Dr. Mohanmeet Khosla v. Panjab University, Chandigarh & Ors., 2024:PHHC:07 - Interpreting the Calendar Volume III of Panjab University, the High Court observed that irrespective of the stature as junior or senior teacher, all teaching employees regardless of status have to be given a chance to lead their department on a rotational basis.
Lovepreet Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., CWP-1005-2024 - It is the absolute discretion of the State to prepare a waiting list in a selection process and the Court cannot ask to prepare the same.
Taravanti v. State of Haryana & Ors., CWP-12398-2024 - If excess amount is accepted by the pensioner with due knowledge, then objecting to the recovery of the excess amount is not permissible.

J&K HIGH COURT

. Mohammad Yousuf Bhat v. Union Of India, SWP No. 2232 of 2013 - The denial of leave to attend an ailing mother cannot be grounds to leave duty without permission.
Mst. Raja & Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors. SWP No. 2237 of 2014 - After an employee retires, it is not permissible to recover excess payments made to them due to a mistaken interpretation of rule

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Sanjay Kumar & Ors. v. District Basic Education Officer, Jaunpur & Ors., WP - A No. 23843 of 2018 - Under the U.P. Recognised Basic School Rules (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978 an employee shall be considered to be in service and entitled to his pay if no adverse action or order of termination is issued against him.
State of UP & Ors. v. Geeta Rani W/O Late Man Singh (Head Constable Civil Police), Special Appeal Defective No. 380 of 2024 - Person seeking compassionate appointment can't be given a second chance to qualify the physical efficiency test after having failed once.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

M. R. Nagarajan v. The Syndicate Bank & Ors., WA No. 1337 Of 2015 (S-DE) - Factors like period of service, the number and nature of promotions, the shortness of the period remaining for superannuation etc. should be considered while awarding punishment to an employee.
Shri G. Ramesh. v. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd., W.P. (C). No. 36199 of 2014 - Absence without leave constitutes misconduct in industrial employment and justifies disciplinary punishment.
Uemsha T. N. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, WP No. 19588 of 2023 - Employees cannot be granted permanent status if their employment was through outsourcing contracts that were not meant to establish permanent positions.
H. Channaiah v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath & Ors., WP No. 5016 of 2024 (S-R) - Leave encashment are not discretionary benefits but as legal rights enforceable under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Vijaya Bank v. M. Ravindra Shetty, WA No. 7791 of 2003 - The opinion given by the Central Vigilance Commission to a disciplinary authority need not be shared with the delinquent employee of a bank.
Workmen Of BEML & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. WP No. 573 of 2024 - The Court kept in abeyance a recruitment notification issued by BEML calling for recruitment in view of the right of contractual workers to fill the vacancies rather than external candidates.

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Shanti Devi v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. WP(S) No. 3987 of 2021 - Pensionary benefits and gratuity cannot be withheld during pendency of criminal proceedings against employees.

MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT

Smti. Uttora G. Sangma v. The State of Meghalaya & Ors., WP(C) No. 82 of 2023 - The Court considered a resignation by a teacher as a voluntary retirement, in view of her 33 years of service, thus entitling her to benefit from pensions and other entitlements.

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Puvvada Venkata Mohana Murali Krishna Murthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department, WP No. 4861 of 2018 - Cooperative credit societies have complete autonomy in fixing the age of superannuation, the power of which belongs to the society’s managing board and not the government

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

Abhimanyu Rathor v. The Registrar General, HP High Court & Ors. - A writ petition against the office bearers of the Bar Association is not maintainable, since it falls in the realm of private law

PATNA HIGH COURT

Jai Jai Ram Roy v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No.16108 of 2023 - Withholding of pension and other benefits of a retired employee was unlawful in absence of any pending departmental proceedings against the retired employee, under the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950

May 2024 International Cases

Mr. V. Taneja v. Phoenix Whirlpools Ltd. (UK)

[2024] EAT 65 (United Kingdom)

Court: Watford Employment Tribunal, United Kingdom

Facts: The claimant, an employee of the respondent, was collecting his manager in his car when a dispute between the two broke out. The respondent allegedly repeatedly referred to the plaintiff as “Vikesh” rather than his name “Vivek” even after being told multiple times. Following this misnaming, an argument broke out and subsequently, the claimant was dismissed from service. The claimant contended a case of racial harassment and violation of his dignity.

Judgment: The tribunal upheld the claim of racial harassment, stating that the action of misnaming the claimant was unwanted conduct with the effect of violating the claimant’s dignity. It accepted the claimant had an emotional connection to his name, as it held a special significance in his language. The tribunal held that though this was not a case of direct harassment or racial prejudice, the fact that the respondent did not take the time and effort to ensure he was not offensive to the claimant violated the Equality Act, 2010.

Conclusion: The tribunal directed for compensation for emotional and mental stress caused to the claimant.

Taylor’s Services Ltd v HMRC

[2024] EAT 102 (UK)

Court: Employment Appellate Tribunal, United Kingdom

Facts: The appellants employed “zero-hour” workers - a type of contractual labour in which the employer is not obliged to provide any minimum working hours and the worker is not obliged to accept any work offered. These workers had to travel to various farms across the country to provide poultry services, and were collected from their homes by the employer’s minibus. The respondent authorities issued a notice to the employer for underpayment of the national minimum wage, asserting that the time workers spent traveling to and from their homes should be included at the minimum wage rate.

Judgment: The Tribunal held that the time spent solely on travel is not considered “time work” under the National Minimum Wage Regulations, 2015 of the UK. Thus, unless actual work is performed during the travel, it does not classify as “work”. It clarified that the requirement for workers to travel using the employer’s transportation does not transform the travel time into work time. The tribunal allowed the appeal and dismissed the authorities notice of minimum wage payments.

Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney

No. 23-367 (SCOTUS, 13 June 2023) (USA)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Facts: Several Starbucks employees announced plans to unionize and invited a local news crew to promote their efforts. Starbucks then fired several employees engaged in the media event. The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a complaint against Starbucks alleging unfair labour practices and sought to reinstate the workers back into service, which was allowed by the lower courts. Starbucks, aggrieved, sought an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Judgment: The Supreme Court articulated a four-factor test for ordering injunctions for reinstating workmen. This test requires a plaintiff to make a clear showing that they are likely to succeed on the merits, that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of interim relief, that the balance of probabilities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest. In the present matter, the Court remanded the case back to the lower courts for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

The stricter test enunciated by the US Supreme Court might make it harder for federal agencies to intervene on behalf of workers for injunctions for reinstatement and hinder the government’s ability to intervene in unionization disputes.

Fair Work Ombudsman v 85 Degrees Coffee Australia Pty Ltd

[2024] FCA

Court: Federal Court of Australia

Facts: The respondent was a franchisor which was made responsible for the contravening conduct of eight of its franchisees for breaching appropriate employment laws, including failing to pay their employees.

Judgment: The Court held that though the franchisor did not directly underpay the workers, it was still legally liable as a responsible franchisor entity, as it was aware that its franchises were committing illegal contraventions and should have taken due diligence and reasonable steps to prevent this from occurring.

Conclusion: The Court directed for compensation to be paid to the employees and thus held that franchisors are under a legal obligation to ensure their franchisees are committed to fair working standards.

Lattouf v. ABC (Australia)

[2024] FWC 1441

Court: Fair Work Commission of Australia

Facts: The petitioner was employed by the respondents as an on-air radio host, but later the employer received complaints about the petitioner due to the latter’s public opinions on the Israel-Palestine war, and was thus told to keep a low-profile. Subsequently, the petitioner shared a post on Instagram sharing some controversial opinions on the same topic, and was told not to come to work any longer but given the pay for her full engagement. The respondent contended that the post breached the directions given to the employee by them, and that she was a casual employee and thus was not subject to the relevant labour laws.

Judgment: The Court held that even casual employees have access to the unfair dismissal regime. If they can demonstrate that they were terminated at the employer’s initiative. They held that the employment relationship is more than just a contract, but must include the context in which the relationship operated, the conduct of the parties during the relationship and the circumstances in which the employment ended. Thus, the Court observed that though the employee had never used the word “termination” to end the employment and the employee was given full pay, the respondent’s actions understood in context would be enough to constitute termination. The Court used the analogy that it was sufficient to find that the respondent had “loaded the gun” and it was not necessary to also find it “pulled the trigger”.

Conclusion: The Court held that the casual employee was “terminated” and rejected the respondent’s jurisdictional claim, thus allowing the petitioner to raise claims as to being unfairly dismissed.