Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Prakash s/o Makdu Patil, was employed as a permanent employee with the Abhay Yuva Kalyan Kendra Sanchelit Women's College, Dhule. He was terminated from service without any departmental inquiry. Aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the University and College Tribunal, which set aside the termination and ordered his reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The respondents (the college management) challenged the Tribunal's order before the High Court in Writ Petition No. 4211/2005. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the appellant had abandoned service and that the termination was justified. The appellant then filed the present Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench. The Division Bench examined the facts and found that the appellant had been terminated without any inquiry, which was illegal. The court noted that the appellant had reported for duty but was not allowed to join, and there was no evidence of abandonment. The court held that the burden to prove abandonment lies on the employer, which was not discharged. The court also held that the normal rule is that upon reinstatement, the employee is entitled to full back wages unless there are exceptional circumstances. Since the appellant was willing to work but was prevented by the respondents, and there was no evidence of gainful employment elsewhere, the court granted full back wages. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Single Judge, and restored the order of the Tribunal directing reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Permanent Employee - Illegal Termination - Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, Section 5 - The appellant, a permanent employee of a college run by the respondent trust, was terminated without holding any departmental inquiry. The University and College Tribunal set aside the termination and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. The Single Judge of the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the termination was justified as the appellant had abandoned service. The Division Bench reversed the Single Judge's order, holding that the termination without inquiry was illegal and that the appellant had not abandoned service. The court restored the Tribunal's order of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Abandonment of Service - Burden of Proof - The burden to prove abandonment of service lies on the employer. In the absence of any evidence of intention to abandon, mere absence from duty does not constitute abandonment. The appellant had reported for duty and was not allowed to join, which does not amount to abandonment. (Paras 5-7) C) Service Law - Back Wages - Reinstatement - The normal rule is that upon reinstatement, the employee is entitled to full back wages unless there are exceptional circumstances. The appellant was willing to work but was prevented by the respondents, and there was no evidence of gainful employment elsewhere. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to full back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the appellant employee by the respondents was legal and justified, and whether the appellant is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order of Single Judge set aside. Order of University and College Tribunal restored. Appellant entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from date of termination till reinstatement.
Law Points
- Termination of a permanent employee without holding a proper departmental inquiry is illegal
- Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages is the appropriate remedy for illegal termination
- The University and College Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding illegal termination of employees of affiliated colleges
- The principle of 'no work no pay' is not applicable when the employee is willing to work but prevented by the employer
