Termination Without Disciplinary Inquiry and Compensation unlawful, Pay 25 Lakhs : Bombay High Court
The employer-employee connection was determined by the court using the six standards outlined in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. (2014). Termination Without Disciplinary Inquiry and Compensation is unlawful, Pay 25 Lakhs To Driver: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently directed Mumbai’s Renaissance Hotel and Convention Centre to pay Rs. 25 lakhs as lump sum compensation for a former driver’s termination without disciplinary inquiry and retrenchment compensation.
Since the driver’s first appointment (termination) was with the hotel and the hotel had the power to fire and discipline him, Justice Sandeep V. Marne ruled that the hotel and the driver had an employer-employee relationship even though the contractor paying for the driver’s transportation services did not pay the driver’s salary.
“It is clear that except for the test of actual payment of salary, all other tests prescribed by the Apex Court in Balwant Rai Saluja are satisfied in the present case. In my view, therefore, no serious error can be traced in the finding recorded by the Labour Court that there existed an employer-employee relationship between the hotel and the worker,” the court observed.
The employer-employee connection was determined by the court using the six standards outlined in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India Ltd. (2014). It stated that the original appointment, salary payment, dismissal authority, disciplinary action, length of employment, and degree of supervision are among the pertinent factors.
The “Renaissance Mumbai Hotel & Convention Centre” is run by Chalet Hotels Ltd. It hires outside contractors to provide its clients with transportation services. Bhikan Laxman Deokar (termination), the laborer, was the driver for these conveyance services.
According to Deokar, the hotel hired him directly at first, and he worked directly for them until February 3, 2003, at which point he was employed by a number of contractors. It was argued that the current disagreement resulted from contractor M/s. Orix Auto Infrastructure Services Ltd. terminating his services.
In Mumbai, Deokar’s plea for reinstatement with continuity and back salaries was referred to the Labour Court by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Conciliation. When the Labour Court delivered its ruling, it reframed the questions and added one about whether there was an employer-employee connection with the hotel. The Labour Court ordered the employer to restore Deokar with continuity and pay him 50% of his back earnings on January 29, 2019, setting aside the December 28, 2010, termination order.
Through the current writ action, Chalet Hotels Ltd. contested the award, claiming that Deokar was never a direct employee of the hotel. It argued that the reference only applied to Orix, the contractor that fired the employee. In an additional writ petition, Deokar (termination) demanded his full return of pay.
Chalet Hotels contended that the Labour Court’s investigation of the employer-employee relationship was beyond its purview. Based on the hotel’s denial of any employer-employee relationship in a written declaration, the court concluded that the Labour Court correctly framed the question of whether Chalet Hotels and Deokar were employers and employees.
The court stated that the Reference was not limited to Contractor-Orix alone, but rather was directed against both the hotel and Orix. It was observed that Deokar asserted he was employed by the hotel and that the hotel had terminated his employment. The Labour Court did not go beyond the parameters of the referral, the court concluded.
The court observed that Deokar passed the continuity of service test because he continued to work for the hotel without interruption in spite of changes in contractors. The hotel made Deokar’s original appointment rather than the contractor.
The court determined that the hotel’s warning letters throughout the worker’s contractual employment indicated disciplinary action, supervision, and control over the worker’s behavior. Thus, it stated, all other standards set forth by the Apex Court are satisfied, with the exception of the test of real salary payment.
In order to establish an employer-employee relationship between Deokar and the hotel, the court also took into account the non-registration of the agreement with the contractor and the non-issuance of a license, but these were not the only considerations.
Here, the court made it clear that its decision is grounded on the facts of the particular case and does not mean that every worker for different contractors will start working directly for the hotel.
But in light of Deokar’s admission that he was paid for his work as a Badli driver, the court decided that 100% of Deokar’s back pay was not justified. Given the shady nature of the parties’ connection and the passage of thirteen years, the court granted Deokar a lump sum settlement of Rs. 25,00,000 as a complete and final settlement.
Read more HR news like this on PropleManager.co.in
Value our content… contribute towards our growth. Even a small contribution per month would be of great help to us. Since our establishment, we have been serving the industry through daily news and updates.
Our content is free for all, and we plan to keep it that way
Support the People Manager. Pay Here (All it takes is a minute)
- SBI General Insurance announces Naveen Chandra Jha as the new Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer - June 26, 2024
- Karnataka HC declines to Quash FIR against Man for writing Woman’s Mobile Number in toilet as ‘Call Girl’ - June 25, 2024
- Government extends leave benefits to surrogate mothers and adoptive parents employed by them - June 25, 2024
