Case Title: Prakash S. Hande Versus Hindustan Lever Limited
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6125 OF 2007
Decided on: 25th APRIL 2024.
Quorum: HON’BLE JUSTICE ANDEEP V. MARNE
Facts of the case
From June 1, 1987, to January 21, 19981, Prakash S. Hande worked as a Clerk/Steno-Typist at Hindustan Lever Limited. Without a formal job contract or letter of appointment, he asserts that he has been working in a permanent position. Hande claims that on January 22, 1998, his services were terminated informally without following the required legal procedures
Issues
1. Whether Prakash S. Hande accrued the 240 days of service in multiple years necessary to be eligible for permanent employee status?
2. Whether Prakash S. Hande’s employment terminated without according to the legal due process?
3. Whether Prakash S. Hande qualified for full back pay upon reinstatement as of January 22, 1998?
Legal Provisions
Article 226 gives the High Courts the authority to give orders, directives, or writs to any person or authority, including the government, within their territorial jurisdiction. These writs may take the form of prohibition, quo warranto, habeas corpus, mandamus, or certiorari. These writs are intended to protect and uphold the rights guaranteed by the Fundamental Rights, which are contained in Part III of the Constitution. Article 227 gives the High Courts the authority to superintend over all courts and tribunals operating within the jurisdictional boundaries of the territory they have jurisdiction over. The High Courts have the supervisory authority to step in when procedures in subordinate courts or tribunals do not follow
Appellant’s Contentions
The appellant may argue that the terms of employment and applicable labor laws were broken by his termination, which occurred without cause and without a valid explanation. He can contend that he should have been granted permanent status and all related advantages, but that he was not. The appellant may claim that the termination procedure did not adhere to the legal requirements for due process, such as the requirement for a fair hearing and written notice. Hande may be able to obtain benefits from the alleged illegal termination, including back pay, reinstatement, or compensation.
Respondent’s Contentions
Hindustan Lever Limited can contend that Prakash S. Hande was not eligible for the benefits of a permanent employee as he was hired on a temporary basis and was aware of the terms of his contract. The employer may argue that any layoffs were implemented in accordance with the law and the provisions of the employment agreement. The respondent may claim that the company’s policies and performance were the basis for all employment choices, including termination. Prakash S. Hande might have been denied reinstatement or back pay because he failed the exams required for permanent employment, according to Hindustan Lever Limited.
Court Analysis and Judgement
The Bombay High Court ruled that the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that they completed 240 days of employment in any given calendar year. The petitioner claimed in court that he was fired without following the proper procedures after working as a clerk/steno-typist from June 1, 1987, until January 21, 1998. The petitioner’s reference had previously been rejected by the Labour Court, but the respondent company was still free to extend an employment offer to him if he passed eligibility requirements. The petitioner must demonstrate that they have completed the required number of service days in order to be eligible for benefits under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 according to the High Court, which supported this ruling. This ruling emphasizes the significance of documentary proof in disputes pertaining to employment and the duties associated with preserving and presenting such evidence for both employers and employees.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace
