Disposed

Sri S Raghunathan v. Union of India

Karnataka HC25 Jan 2021WA/481/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ appeal challenging the termination of an appellant from his contract position with NESL. The Court held that for designated contract employees, the employer's power to terminate without an enquiry for non-performance is valid under the appointment letter.

What did the court decide?

The termination of the appellant's services cannot be interfered with; the appeal is disposed of without any direction for reinstatement or inquiry.

Sri S Raghunathan Vs Union of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶8

WRIT APPEAL No.481/2020 (S-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI S. RAGHUNATHAN S/O. SRI T.E. SRINIVASARAGHAVAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.C2, SRI THEERTHA APARTMENTS, NO.53/15, 4^TH MAIN, BETWEEN 17^TH AND 18^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU - 560 055 EX-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NESL, HAVING ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AT 5^TH FLOOR, NO.86, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. ... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SRI S. PARTHASARATHI, ADVOCATE (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE))

¶12

AND:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶14

NATIONAL E-GOVERNANCE SERVICES LTD., (NESL), (A UNION GOVERNMENT COMPANY) ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, THE ESTATE BUILDING 003A, GF, 121 DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CEO: SRI S. RAMANN, IA AND AS (email: [email protected])

¶15

¶16

M/S. NESL ASSET DATA LTD., (NADL) (WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARY OF RESPONDENT NO.1 - NESL) THE ESTATE BUILDING 003A, GF, 121 DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY: SRI S. RAMANN, IA AND AS, DIRECTOR, NADL. (email: [email protected])

¶17

INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA (IBBI) MAYUR BHAVAN, 7^TH FLOOR, SHANKAR MARUTHI CANNAUGHAT CIRCUS, NEW DELHI - 110 001 REPRESENTED BY CHAIRPERSON, IBBI. (email: [email protected])

¶18

CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, DEPT. OF NON BANKING SUPERVISION RESERVE BANK OF INDIA (RBI), CENTRAL OFFICE, MINT ST., FORT, MUMBAI - 400 001. (email: [email protected])

¶19

COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA, OFFICE OF CAG, DDU MARG, NEW DELHI - 110 124. (email: [email protected]) ... RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT. ANUPAMA HEGDE, CGC FOR R-1 (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE))

¶21

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03/07/2020 IN WRIT PETITION NO.31899/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ILLEGAL TERMINATION LETTER DATED 25/03/2019 OF 2^ND RESPONDENT AND REINSTATE THE APPELLANT TO HIS EARLIER POST IN 2^ND RESPONDENT; ALONG WITH THE CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS OF CONTINUITY IN SERVICE, BACK WAGES, ETC., IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THIS WRIT APPEAL BE ALLOWED.

¶22

¶23

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, NAGARATHNA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

The appellant herein was the petitioner in W.P.No.31899/2019. The said writ petition was dismissed

¶26

by the learned single Judge on 03/07/2020. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this appeal.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant herein drew our attention to the appointment letter dated 30/08/2016 and the termination order dated 25/03/2019 at Annexures - "A" and "J" respectively and contended that the reason assigned for termination is on account of nonperformance which has caused prejudice and injustice to the appellant. If, indeed, the same was true, it ought to have been established by holding an enquiry against the appellant herein. In the absence of any enquiry, the appellant herein has straight away been terminated from the service. That the appellant was appointed on contract basis for a period of five years from 30/08/2016 to 30/08/2021. Instead, on 25/03/2019, without holding any enquiry, the appellant was simply terminated from his services. The appellant, being aggrieved, challenged the order of termination (Annexure - J) in the said writ

¶28

¶29

petition. Learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

¶30

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the matter calls for interference and the impugned order may be set aside and a direction may be issued for reinstatement of the appellant so that respondent No.2 could hold an enquiry into the allegation against the appellant herein.

¶31

Learned counsel for respondent No.1/Union of India who appeared on advance notice submitted that the impugned order would not call for any interference. The appeal is devoid of any merit and the same may be dismissed.

¶32

We have considered the submission of learned

¶33

counsel for the appellant in light of the order passed by the learned single Judge and the order of appointment as well as the order of termination of the appellant. The relevant clauses of the appointment letter dated 30/08/2016 read as under:

¶34

"1. You are appointed for a period of 5 years from the date of joining the services of the company.

¶35

x x x

¶36

¶37

Notwithstanding anything contained herein, the company may determine your service by giving three months notice or three months gross emoluments' thereof.

¶38

You are also required to give three months notice in the event of resignation from the services of the company."

¶39

On perusal of the same it is noted that, as per clause 8, which begins with a non-obstante clause, respondent No.2 has the power to determine the services of the appellant after giving three months notice or three months gross emoluments thereof. Correspondingly, the appellant also could resign after giving three months notice.

¶40

Respondent No.2 terminated the services of the appellant on 25.03.2019. The grievance of the appellant is that even without holding any enquiry, the services of the appellant have been simply terminated which is erroneous. However, we find that the services of the appellant in respondent No.2/company was on contract basis. He was not a permanent employee of the company. Secondly, we also hold that clause 8 enabled respondent No.2/company to terminate the services of the appellant. Merely because in the order of termination it has been stated that the determination of the services of the

¶41

¶42

appellant was on account of non-performance, it would not imply that the same was on allegation resulting in misconduct which would call for an enquiry. In the circumstances, we deem it proper to dispose of the appeal by observing that the termination of the appellant cannot be interfered with by this Court.

¶43

Further, we observe that the termination of the appellant from respondent No.2/company is not stigmatic and would not come in the way of the appellant seeking employment in any other organisation or entity.

¶44

By observing the above, we do not think that respondent No.2 has been prejudiced in anyway. Hence, no notice has been issued to respondent No.2/company.

¶45

7. Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

Sri S Raghunathan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S Raghunathan v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Ca a S Vishnu Bharath Vs State of Karnataka

Samarpana (Cultural and Social Service Organisation) Vs the Chief Secretary

Sri Mallikarjuna M M Vs Smt Nagashree

Sri. Manoj Naik Vs Manohar Nagappa Naik

M/S Thematics Infotech Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Commissioner

Sri Vinayaka Education Society (Regd) Vs the Government of Karnataka