(1.) The judgment of the court was delivered by Varghese Kalliath, J.- This appeal raises difficult and complex questions as to the right of an employer to terminate the services of a permanent employee without holding any enquiry in certain circumstances by giving reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice. In regard to similar situation, there are good guidelines afforded by very considered judgments of the Supreme Court and this court in respect of services under State or any instrumentality of the State. As regards private employments, the right hitherto recognised is stemmed from master and servant relationship or an, employer employee relationship. Of course, as regards private employments, law has intervened and enacted certain statutes which have given substantial rights to certain employees coming within the statutory framework of different statutes of the State and the Centre. There is a grey area where there is no statute which can be applied in regard to the procedure to be followed in the matter of termination of an employee before his due date of retirement, even though he is a permanent, employee and working in a well established concern, say for example as in this case a scheduled bank where all the rights and liabilities of the employer and employee generate from the terms of the contract of service.
(2.) In this context, in this case, a question which was very much spotlighted by counsel for the appellant is that though there is a contract of service in the form of Officers Service Code of the defendant/bank, the important and crucial term of the contract which is decisive for the resolution of the controversy involved in this case is an unenforceable term or a term which can be called a void term, since it is opposed to public policy. The action of termination of service of the plaintiff challenged in the suit is taken under a provision of the contract of service, viz., Officers Service Code, Ext. A-6. The provision under Ext. A-6 under which action is taken is attacked as a void term. Further it was said that a meaningful interpretation of the crucial provision in Ext. A-6 read along with the other provisions in Ext. A-6 would satisfy the court that the requirements under that provision also have not been complied with and ' the court has got an obligation to see at least whether there is breach of contract between the parties to the contract and on that score whether the plaintiff/appellant before us is entitled to damages.
(3.) What we have said is only a basis of the cosmorama on which very many complicated and complex ancillary questions have been raised and lengthy arguments have been advanced by counsel for the appellant and respondent. As illustrative we would say that it was argued that the principles laid down in regard to the provisions in a rule, regulation, bye law or enactment providing for termination of services of a permanent employee of a State or an instrumentality of State on giving simply one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof without recording any reason therefore in the order of termination is arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and in violation of audi alteram partern rule and so constitutionally invalid and void and that the same principle as laid down by the Supreme Court is applicable in regard to the services involved in this case.
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN