In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court addressed the termination of hostel-mess workers employed by Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan Vidyashram School, operated under the Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan educational trust. The court found that these employees were dismissed without adhering to the mandated procedures outlined in the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989. It emphasized that the decision to close the hostel mess during the COVID-19 pandemic did not equate to the abolition of the workers' posts, thereby rendering their termination unlawful.
Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand, presiding over the case, scrutinized the circumstances leading to the termination. The school management had decided to close the hostel and mess facilities due to the pandemic, resulting in the dismissal of the staff assigned there. However, the court noted that the termination orders did not indicate that the positions held by the respondents were abolished. Furthermore, the appointment letters of the affected employees designated them as Class-IV staff within the school, not specifically tied to the hostel mess. This distinction was crucial, as it suggested that their roles within the institution remained intact despite the temporary closure of certain facilities.
The court underscored the necessity of following due process as stipulated in Section 18 of the 1989 Act and Rule 39 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grant-in-Aid and Service Conditions etc.) Rules, 1993. These provisions require that any termination of an employee from a recognized institution must be preceded by a departmental inquiry and obtain prior permission from the Director of Education. In this case, the school management failed to adhere to these statutory requirements, leading the court to deem the termination orders invalid.
Regarding the issue of back wages, the court referred to established legal principles indicating that reinstatement does not automatically entitle an employee to full back wages. The burden lies on the employee to demonstrate that they were not gainfully employed during the period of termination. In this instance, the respondents were unable to provide evidence of unemployment during the intervening period. Consequently, the court denied their claim for 50% back wages, aligning with precedents set by higher courts, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Phool Chand.
This judgment highlights the critical importance of adhering to procedural safeguards when terminating employees, even amidst unprecedented situations like a global pandemic. It reinforces the principle that organizational decisions, such as closing certain facilities, do not inherently justify bypassing established legal procedures for employee termination. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies that while reinstatement is a remedy for unlawful termination, it does not inherently confer the right to back wages without substantiating unemployment during the period of dismissal.
In summary, the Rajasthan High Court's decision serves as a reminder to educational institutions and other organizations to meticulously follow statutory procedures when considering employee termination. It also delineates the nuanced approach courts may take in awarding back wages, emphasizing the necessity for employees to provide concrete evidence of unemployment to claim such compensation. This balanced approach seeks to uphold the rights of employees while recognizing the operational challenges faced by employers, especially during extraordinary circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.