Through this analysis, we will try to understand the civil relief that can be claimed by an employee in the case of wrongful termination of his/her employment by his/her employer. This analysis will provide an in-depth assimilation of the conditions which govern the grant of any such relief by the Hon’ble court. It will also highlight the steps that need to be followed by the employers so as to avoid a wrongful termination in India. Lastly, with the help of the various cases cited in the judgement of this particular case, this analysis will explain the premise necessary for the granting of compensation to any such employee who claims the same on the grounds of wrongful termination by the employer.
Civil Suit for Wrongful termination in India (Mr. K. S. Ganapathy Vs. McCann Ericksson (India) Ltd.)
Also Read- Labour Court Case Wrongful Termination G4 Security Services
Facts
The plaintiff in the present case under study has filed the suit for declaration of dismissal as wrongful and for award of damages for wrongful dismissal under order VII rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The facts of the case arise from the employment of the plaintiff-herein with the defendant. The plaintiff was the employee of the defendant no.1 and was discharging his duties as the Media Controller and was entrusted with the duties of managing the media slots of the clients which included accurate raising of the estimates to the clients, ensuring that the activities happened as per plan etc. The plaintiff had joined the services of the defendant no.1 in the year 1986 as Media Typist and was promoted to the post of Media Controller in the year 2000. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was promoted from time to time due to his sincerity, good work etc. The services of the plaintiff was terminated vide the terminating letter dated 30.10.2001 when his salary was Rs.31,800/-. According to the plaintiff his services were terminated wrongfully. By way of the present suit the plaintiff has sought a decree for declaration that his dismissal by the defendant no.1 be declared as wrongful, illegal and arbitrary. The plaintiff has also sought damages of Rs.25 Lakhs with interest @ 18%.
The defendant filed written statement. It is stated that the plaintiff was employed with the defendant no:1 until 30-10-2001 and thereafter the defendant no:1 was constrained to terminate the services of the plaintiff for gross acts of insubordination and dereliction of duty committed by him. It is further stated that prior to 30-10-2001 the plaintiff was working with the defendant no:1 on the terms of employment mutually accepted by the plaintiff and the defendant no:1. It is submitted that the plaintiff has alleged that his termination was wrongful while concealing the causes that triggered the termination. It is further submitted that services of the plaintiff was terminated on account of his lackadaisical attitude towards work, which cannot be said to be either wrongful or illegal. It is submitted that plaintiff was not vigilant enough in carrying out the tasks assigned to him and his professional conduct was not found to be up to the mark on several occasions. The version of the defendant is that the plaintiff who had worked efficiently till the year 2000 was given promotions etc. However, when the plaintiff was promoted to the post of Media Manager, he could not cope up with the work and also caused losses to the company.
Also Read- Jbt Teacher’s Termination Order Stayed by Cat Tribunal
Issues Involved
(i) Whether the termination of the plaintiff by the 1st defendant company was illegal / wrongful?
(ii) Whether the termination of the services of the plaintiff has caused a stigma to the plaintiff as alleged by him?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages on account of wrongful termination ? If yes how much?
(iv) Relief.
Cite Judgments Quoted on Settled Law
- Vaish Degree College, Shamli & Ors. v. Lakshminarayan and Ors. (AIR 1976 SC 888)- The Supreme Court in this case had held that, a contract for personal service could-not be enforced specifically by the court.
- Pearlite Liners Pvt. Ltd vs Manorama Sirsi (2004) 3 CS No. 380/2017–The Supreme Court had held that in the cases of contracts for personal services, all the functionings in such a contract are to be governed by the contract between the parties.
- Tejinder Kaur v. State of Punjab and another (CWP No.8120 of 2016)- In this case the Hon’ble Court held that under certain special circumstances, departmental enquiry or audi altrum partem could be exempted, as an exception.
- Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan & Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 657– In this case the Supreme Court held that the contracts for private services are very different from the contracts for public services. It also held that public policy principles or administrative law principles do not apply to private employment.
Also Read- wrongful termination of employment – Indian Kanoon
Shri Satya Narain Garg through his legal heirs Vs. DCM Limited and Ors. in RFA No.556/2002– In this case the Hon’ble Delhi highcourt held that in cases where the employers find their employees to not be up-to-the-mark, in those cases the employers have the right to terminate the contract for that employees personal services, given that the fact that the employee has been warned about the same.
- Shri Naresh Kumar V. Shri Hiroshi Maniwa & Ors – In this case the Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that, In cases where the employee is terminated, in those cases the employee is only entitled to the compensation in the form of salary for his service period and no other form of compensation or relief.
- S. Shetty Vs. Bharat Nidhi Ltd., AIR 1958 SC 12– In this case the supreme court had held that even if there is a illegal termination of an employee even then the employee is only entitled to the salary of the service period.
Also Read- Illegal Termination in India
Findings of Court
In this particular case under study, the Hon’ble Court held that the termination of the plaintiff was not a wrongful termination, as it had been done under the aegis of the contract signed between the plaintiff and the defendant that entailed that various clauses governing the conditions of employment. As this particular contract was that of personal services and the termination was done in accordance to that contract, alongside that fact that the plaintiff was sent several mails warning him about his behavior, the Hon’ble Court held that the termination was not wrongful and that the an employee can be removed from service due to reasons of lack in performance. As the termination of the contract was not wrongful, and the reasons given by the employers during such termination were not of a grave nature, the Hon’ble court held that this could not form a reason for the plaintiff not getting employment elsewhere. Lastly the Hon’ble court held that as the termination was not wrongful, the plaintiff is not entitled to any kind of compensation or relief for the same. Therefore, it can be said that in all of the four issues raised, the Hon’ble court gave the judgment in the favour of the defendant.
Also Read- Retrenchment Case Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar
Conclusion
In conclusion, we can say that, a contract for personal services is considered to be very different from a contract for public services. In the cases where a contract for personal services is rightly terminated, the subject manner falls beyond the scope of the courts. If an employer follows the terms of the contract with an employee and terminates his or her contract on the grounds of lack of performance as an employee then such a termination is said to be a rightful termination and therefore cannot be considered as wrongful. The internal enquiry before the termination of an employee is not a compulsory measure and in specific cases this step can be skipped. In cases where the termination of an employee is wrongful, the employee is entitled to compensation only extending to the salary for the service period and no other form of compensation or relief. Lastly, in cases where the termination of the employee is not wrongful, the employee is not entitled to any compensation or relief.
Also Read- Dr Sarbjit Singh vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh
For case specific advice, please contact Chandigarh Administrative Tribunal/Service Matter/Labour and Service/CAT/Legal Aid/Administrative/Senior/Service Employment Lawyers Advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur etc
More on 99888-17966.
