An employee found unsuitable for the job can be dismissed without notice during the probation period: Supreme Court
Contents News/Article Date: 10th September 2023
Relating to which Act: The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Penalty under the Act: Any person who instigates or incites others to take part in, or otherwise acts in furtherance of, a strike or lock-out which is illegal under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Applicable to which State: Whole of India
Type: Supreme Court Judgement – State of Punjab versus Jaswant Singh
Pertains to: Supreme Court bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice KV Vishwanathan It was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed a petition challenging the orders of the lower courts, holding that the dismissal of the probation constable (respondent) was illegal and he was entitled to all service benefits.
Relevance of this news: Karma Global is in the business of HR Services, Payroll, Outsourcing and Regulatory Compliances right from its inception in 2004 and since then, has brought in a lot of efficiencies and technological upgradations with experts on its roll, to ease the hassles of Payroll Processing, Temp Staffing, On-boarding, Employee Life Cycle, Statutory, Regulatory and Payroll compliances by providing customized solutions to all its elite clients.
Karma Global has set up its offices in UK, USA, UAE, Canada and South East Asia and is fully into providing solutions for workplace issues, employment law advice, immigration and negotiation, representation in employment tribunals and involvement in leading cases, addressing HR issues in line with Labour Laws, payroll, staffing and talent acquisition.
Karma Global is fully into regulatory compliances and its entire team is fully well versed with all labour laws including the employee’s compensation act in connection with court cases and legalities, it has an alliance with renowned Advocate Sundeep Puri & Associates.
In the current instance: The Supreme Court recently reiterated the distinction between simple termination and punitive termination. This distinction is important because if the order of termination is punitive in nature then it becomes mandatory to conduct an investigation following the procedure and the opportunity of being heard should be given. Failure to do so may render such termination illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
the court has State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh, (2004) relied upon, which emphasized that if an investigation or evaluation is conducted for the purpose of uncovering any misconduct by an employee and results in his/her dismissal then it is considered punitive in nature, whereas if it If termination focuses on evaluating the suitability of an employee for a specific job then termination is considered simple termination and not punitive termination.
Subject: Judgement – An employee found unsuitable for the job can be dismissed without notice during the probation period: Supreme Court
Appended is the complete news item
An employee found unsuitable for the job can be dismissed without notice during the probation period: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court recently reiterated the distinction between simple termination and punitive termination. This distinction is important because if the order of termination is punitive in nature then it becomes mandatory to conduct an investigation following the procedure and the opportunity to be heard should be given. Failure to do so may render such termination illegal and in violation of the principles of natural justice.
the court has State of Punjab vs. Balbir Singh, (2004) relied upon, which emphasized that if an investigation or evaluation is conducted for the purpose of uncovering any misconduct by an employee and results in his/her dismissal then it is considered punitive in nature, whereas if it If termination focuses on evaluating the suitability of an employee for a specific job then termination is considered simple termination and not punitive termination.
The court said,
“If any inquiry or assessment is conducted for the purpose of detecting any misconduct of the employee and his services are terminated for that reason, it will be punitive in nature. On the other hand, if the purpose of such investigation or assessment is to determine the suitability of an employee for a particular job then such termination will be done simply and will not be punitive in nature. This theory is based on Shah, J. (as he then was) as early as 1961 in the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das, (1961). It held that one must look into the “objective or object of the investigation” and should not consider termination as punitive merely because of a previous investigation. Whether it (order of termination) amounts to an order of dismissal depends on the nature of the investigation, if any.”
Supreme Court bench of Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice KV Vishwanathan It was hearing an appeal against a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, which had dismissed a petition challenging the orders of the lower courts, holding that the dismissal of the probation constable (respondent) was illegal and he was entitled to all service benefits. Was entitled to do.
The respondent was appointed as a constable and joined for duty on 12 November 1989. During his probation period, he remained absent without notice. The Superintendent of Police at the Training Center recommended his dismissal on the grounds that he was not likely to become an efficient police officer under Rule 12.21 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
The respondent challenged the order before the trial court, which held the discharge order to be illegal as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Subsequently, the First Appellate Court held that he was entitled to receive all the service benefits earned. Aggrieved by this, the state filed an appeal before the High Court, which was also rejected. Then, he approached the Supreme Court.
Further, the Supreme Court in the case of Sukhwinder Singh reiterated the principle that if an employee is found unsuitable during the probation period then the employer reserves the right to terminate his service without the need for a penal inquiry.
“If he is not found suitable for the post then the Master reserves the right to terminate his service without doing anything further during the probation period. Merely holding a preliminary inquiry where an explanation is sought from an employee will not render an otherwise harmless order of dismissal or termination from service punitive in nature. Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in holding that the absence of the respondent from duty was the basis for the order, which required the inquiry envisaged under Rule 16.24 of the Rules.”
It is, therefore, held that in our view all three Courts have wrongly interpreted Rule 12.21 of the PPR and decided the suit filed by the respondent. In the considered opinion of this Court, having regard to the contents of the order of dismissal, there is no ground for the misconduct alleged in the order and it amounts to simple termination of service of a Probation Constable.
The Court allowed the appeal in the light of the above and held that the approach taken by the High Court and the lower courts is completely wrong in law and deserves to be set aside.