The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered GD Goenka School, Gurugram, to pay Rs 50 lakhs to a teacher couple who worked as physical education teachers and held that the school illegally terminated the couple and violated rules by not following proper procedure.
Facts:
In 2004, the Respondents (“couple”) were hired by the Appellant (“school”) to teach physical education. The school said that in 2015, parents and children complained about the disappointing performance of the Respondents. A notice was issued to the couple in this regard, but no one responded to the notice. Since no reply was received from the couple, their services were terminated with immediate effect.
The Couple approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner first and thereafter approached the District Judge. The proceedings before the Labour Court had been withdrawn during the pendency of the case before the District Judge.
Contentions of the Appellant:
It was argued that the contract related to personal service under Section 73 of the Contract Act, 1872, and that at the most what can be claimed was damages for payment of compensation. Further, it was submitted that as damages have already been paid, the Tribunal cannot impose reinstatement.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Respondents claimed that their termination was unlawful because they were not provided with the three months' notice as specified in their appointment letter. It was claimed that the attempt to change the Staff Regulations was against the appointment letter. The three children of the respondents were also stated to be studying in the school. The children were denied entry into the school and leaving certificates were issued to them, subjecting the Respondents to humiliation and embarrassment.
Observation of the Court:
It was observed that the Appellant did not mention any rules or regulations and procedures which were prescribed for termination of the services of the employees. Hence, an adverse inference could be drawn against the Appellant as by not coming forth with the procedure laid down, it has been proved that the Appellant has chosen not to follow its own rules.
It was noted that the prescribed procedure as per the Haryana School Education Act, 1995 was not followed by the Appellant while dispensing with the services of the Respondents.
The High Court further opined that reinstatement is a way to offer protection to helpless employees from the dominance of the employers. The objective of reinstatement is to put the person back in position along with necessary reliefs.
Noting that the order of termination was passed 7 years back and significant time has elapsed since then, the Bench decided to increase the compensation element instead of ordering for reinstatement.
The decision of the Court:
The Punjab and Haryana High Court accordingly dismissed the appeals and increased the compensation amount to be paid to the Respondents.
Case Title: M/s.GD Goenka School vs Parveen Singh Shekhawat and Ors
Case Number: LPA No. 389 and 390 of 2018 (O & M)
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia and Hon’ble Ms. Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan
Advocates for Appellant: Senior Advocate Akshay Bhan and Advocates Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Pawandeep Singh, and Amandeep Singh
Advocates for Respondents: Ms. Parveen Shekhawat and Mr. Ajay Singh Shekhawat,
(Respondents-in-person)
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
0 Comments