Seeking Advice: How to Fight an Unfair Termination After Court Case Delay?

Hi Sunil, I worked in the public sector on a term basis from 2000 to 2004. There were a total of 600 employees in our organization. Before the completion of our term, we filed a case with the labor court and high court for regularization, which was pending. However, on December 31, 2004, all 600 employees, including myself, were terminated by the company.

Since the case was pending, the company changed our employment terms, conducting interviews and hiring us on a purely contract basis. Unfortunately, my name was missing from the list of selected candidates. Despite my efforts to appeal to various senior management personnel, they refused to consider me, even though it was not my fault. They did mention that I would be considered for regular appointment when the high court's decision was made, as my name was on the list for the court case.

I patiently waited for the high court's decision, but when it finally came, I was surprised to discover that I had been listed as terminated.

I am seeking guidance on what steps to take to seek justice and obtain justification. The delay in this situation was due to the misleading information provided by the management.

I would appreciate your advice on the best course of action to pursue in this situation.

Thank you, Sunil

Dear Sunil,

First of all, during the court case related to any dispute, the company cannot terminate or take any action against those employees until the court issues a judgment.

Secondly, when a judgment or order is passed by the High Court, is it in your favor or the company's?

If you are saying that your name has been omitted from the list by the company, then it is their fault, and they should provide you with the same opportunities as they have provided to others.

Regards,
Tushar Swar

Seeking Guidance on Legal Action for Termination

The judgment given by the high court is in our favor, but the only fault I have committed is that when I was removed during the year 2005, and when all my colleagues were taken on contract and our case was ongoing in the labor court and high court, my name was included with all the employees.

I did not go to the labor court or high court to raise a complaint or file a separate case against this injustice of removing me. I thought that since my name was on the list of cases along with the original list of 600 employees, they would definitely call me. However, when the high court and labor judgment came, they showed to the court that I was terminated. This judgment came after 8 years, so I got delayed. Moreover, the management also told me when I approached them after my removal in 2005 that as my name was on the original list, I would be considered when the high court judgment came, but the opposite occurred.

Query on Filing a Delayed Case

Will the delay cause any restriction on my part since I got delayed if I file the case right now? Is there any judgment where the court has honored a delayed filing case? Kindly help me and direct me on the right way forward for obtaining appropriate and positive justice in my case of illegal termination.

Regards,
Sunil

I believe that you may still file the case. For more clarity, please seek advice from an advocate who specializes in labor matters. I think he may be the correct person who can assist you further.

Regards,
Tushar Swar

As an HR expert, what is your opinion from a legal point of view? If I file a case in the labor court, can I hope for a positive outcome? What is your opinion?

Regards,
Sunil

As an HR expert, you may have dealt with cases similar to mine many times in the past regarding delays in filing cases in labor court. Is there a chance of rejection by the labor court due to the delay in filing? What is your opinion, suggestion, or direction? I am looking forward to your valuable feedback.

Regards,
Sunil

Dear Sunil, Your description of the facts of the case is not clear. Therefore, please clarify the following:

Clarification on Employment Status

1. Had all the 600 people been employed on a fixed-term basis, and a dispute was pending before the Tribunal about that, how did the matter go to the High Court?

2. When the management terminated the service of all the workmen on 31-12-2014, where was the case pending - before the Tribunal or the High Court?

3. What do you mean by "the contradictory has occurred"? Was the High Court judgment in favor of the management?

Thank you.

Yes, all 600 employees were employed on a fixed-term basis, and a dispute was pending before the Tribunal. After we won the case in the labor court, the company appealed to the High Court, where we, the employees, also won the case.

Yes, when the management terminated the service of all the workmen on 31/12/2014, the case was pending before the Tribunal.

"Contradictory has occurred" means that after all 600 employees were removed, and our case was pending before the tribunal, the management decided to change the terms of our employment by hiring us purely on a contractual basis. For this purpose, they reinterviewed all of us, including me. Unfortunately, when the final list was released, my name was missing. I approached the management, but they did not listen to me. However, they promised to call me in the future. Since my name is on the case list, I will be considered when the High Court's order comes. When the High Court judgment was delivered, they presented to the court that I was terminated, which the court accepted without studying my case deeply, as there was no one who could represent me. The High Court ruled in favor of the employees.

Regards

Employment Termination and Legal Proceedings

Yes, all 600 employees were employed on a fixed-term basis, and a dispute was pending before the tribunal. After we won the case in the labor court, the company went to the high court, where we employees also won the case.

When the management terminated the service of all the workers on 31/04/2014, the case was still pending before the tribunal.

A contradictory situation arose when, after all 600 employees were removed and our case was pending before the tribunal, the management decided to change the terms of our employment by employing us purely on a contract basis. For this, they reinterviewed all of us, including me. Unfortunately, when the final list was released, my name was missing. I approached the management, but they did not listen to me. However, they promised to call me in the future. Additionally, as my name is on the case list, I should be considered when the high court order is issued. Yet, during the high court proceedings, it was shown that I was terminated, a claim the court accepted without delving deeply into my case as there was no one to represent me. Eventually, the case in the high court favored the employees.

Regards

Tribunal and High Court Award Details

The tribunal, in its award, directed the corporation to prioritize taking all term-based employees on a regular basis before recruiting from the open market. However, the high court slightly modified the tribunal's award by stating that these term-based employees are eligible for regular appointment since they were appointed after following all the recruitment procedures, similar to regular appointments, and against the 840 regular permanent vacancies. The only difference is that they were initially taken on a term basis.

The high court further modified the award by permanently restraining the respondent (corporation) from recruiting or making any appointments from the open market to any Class III and Class IV posts until all the term-based employees are granted regular appointments.

The concerned workmen involved in these cases are not required to undergo any more recruitment examinations since they have been appointed after following the necessary procedures and have been working with the corporation since then.

The respondent corporation shall treat the concerned workmen as regular employees with effect from January 24, 2005, or the date of the first reissuance of the appointment order, as applicable.

The tribunal's direction not to import recruitment from the open market or invite fresh applications for regular posts unless term appointees are given regular appointments for Class III and IV posts is quashed and set aside.

It shall be open to the respondent corporation to initiate recruitment action for remaining vacancies, if any, after the absorption of concerned workmen from the open market.

Is there any time limit for filing a case in the labor court? There is a case in which the Supreme Court has given its verdict dated December 2010, stating that delay is not a basis for rejecting any case by the labor court or high court. It should delve into the merits of the case and provide justice to the laborer who is the victim. Below is a portion of the verdict.

Is this verdict still valid today so that I can submit it to the court if it states that I am delayed?

No Time Limit for Reference of Disputes to the Labor Court

The Industrial Disputes Act does not prescribe any time limit for referring a dispute to the labor court, as stated by the Supreme Court in its judgment, Kuldeep Singh vs Instrument Design Development Centre. In this case, the employee was terminated without notice or compensation. He approached the Haryana government, which then referred the dispute to the labor court. The labor court dismissed the worker's petition, citing that he approached the government nearly six years after the termination. The high court upheld this decision. However, when the case reached the Supreme Court, it took a favorable view. The Supreme Court emphasized that the Act permits the government to refer the dispute at any time. The crucial factor is whether a genuine dispute exists, rather than the timing of its submission. If the state government acknowledges the presence of a dispute, the labor court must assess it based on its merits. In this particular case, the laborer presented his case before various authorities during the period between the termination and the reference to the labor court.

Regards,
Sunil

Dear Sunil, Sorry for my extremely inordinate delay. As I told you over the phone, I am still of the opinion that you can approach the High Court again. The matter was already decided by the court in your favor, and the recruitment process conducted by the management, along with its failure to include your name in the selection list, has now become fruitless. I recommend consulting a senior counsel well-versed in labor and writ matters.

Thank you.

Certainly! Here is the corrected version of the text:

---

Sir,

Are you there? I am writing to ask some doubts about my case, which we already discussed. Please find attached herewith the High Court order regarding the reinstatement of 577 employees.

---

If you have any further questions or need additional assistance, feel free to ask.

Sir,

Can an employer conduct an inquiry of an employee without issuing a show cause notice, charge sheet, or memo? What is the procedure within the organization for conducting an inquiry? Can an employee be terminated without conducting a proper inquiry, after conducting an informal inquiry, or without issuing a termination letter?

Kindly help.

Sunil

Verbal vs. Written Termination

You mentioned that termination can be either in writing or verbal. But how can an employer terminate an employee verbally? If the employee was recruited through a public advertisement and selected based on the organization's recruitment and selection procedure in accordance with principles outlined in Articles 14, 16, and 309, termination in this manner goes against the principles of natural justice. Termination should be in writing, especially if the conduct is very serious.

I have actually been a victim of a similar case as described above. I was recruited via a public advertisement as per the explanation provided.

Regards,
[Username]

Appointment, as well as termination or any activity of a company, should be in writing. However, if a company terminates your service verbally, i.e. if you are just told that "your service is no longer required" or "don't come from tomorrow," then also it amounts to termination. Termination, whether in writing or oral, if invalid in law, can be challenged before the court.

Check out my blog at www.labourlawhub.com.

Verbal Termination in Public Sector Oil Companies

Verbal termination, as you mentioned, such as being told, "your service is no longer required" or "don't come from tomorrow," also constitutes termination. I believe this type of termination is not applicable to employees in public sector oil companies. It is more common for contract employees or third-party contract employees.

For employees like myself, who were employed through a public advertisement, selected, and recruited according to the principles/policies of the organization, as well as in alignment with Articles 14, 16, and 309 of the Constitution of India, and provided with all facilities on par with regular employees, including medical benefits for oneself and family, having worked for 4.5 years, in my opinion, this type of verbal termination is invalid, irrelevant, and illogical in the context of this recruitment.

Thank you.

Verbal Termination in Public Sector Employment

Verbal termination, as you mentioned, such as being told, "your service is no longer required" or "don't come from tomorrow," also constitutes termination. I believe this type of termination is not applicable to employees in public sector oil companies. It is more suitable for contract employees or third-party contractors. Employees like myself, who were hired through a public advertisement, selected, and recruited based on the principles/policies of the organization and in accordance with Article 14, 16, and 309 of the Constitution of India, should not be subject to verbal termination. The organization provides all necessary facilities on par with regular employees, including medical benefits for both self and family. Having worked for 4.5 years, I feel that verbal termination is irrelevant and illogical for employees recruited in this manner.

Thank you.