Termination of Employment and Industrial Dispute: Supreme Court’s Verdict on ONGC Case

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled on the prolonged legal battle concerning the termination of an employee of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (ONGC). The case, Anjana Mittal v. ONGC, delves into the complex aspects of employment termination, industrial disputes, and the applicability of labor laws to temporary employees.

Background of the Case

The appellant, Anjana Mittal, was appointed as a temporary Assistant Grade-III in ONGC in 1983. She worked in this position until 1986, availing herself of normal leaves during this period. However, from 1987 to 1993, she remained absent for 1,968 days over seven years. These absences were later sanctioned ex-post facto as medical leave.

In 1990, despite her absenteeism, she was promoted to Assistant Grade-II on a temporary basis. In 1992, ONGC constituted a Medical Board that found the duration of leave granted to her based on medical certificates to be disproportionate to the severity of her ailments. Subsequently, in 1994, ONGC issued a show-cause notice questioning her continued absence and eventually terminated her employment on July 1, 1994, with effect from December 1, 1993.

Legal Battle and Tribunal Decision

Mittal challenged her termination before the Allahabad High Court, which later transferred the case to the Uttarakhand High Court. In 2004, the High Court dismissed her petition, upholding the validity of her termination. She then filed a special appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which dismissed it on the grounds that she was a ‘workman’ and that the matter should be adjudicated as an industrial dispute.

Following this, in 2008, she referred the matter to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which ruled in her favor in 2017. The Tribunal held that:

• Her termination was illegal and void.
• She could not be treated as a temporary employee after serving for more than 11 years.
• ONGC was directed to reinstate her with full back wages and all consequential benefits.

High Court’s Decision

ONGC challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the Uttarakhand High Court, which upheld the finding that her termination was illegal. However, instead of granting full back wages, the High Court reduced it to 30% while maintaining her entitlement to all other consequential benefits.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Anjana Mittal)

Mittal’s counsel argued that:

• Having worked for more than 11 years, she should have been considered a permanent employee.
• The ONGC had sanctioned her leave, and thus, it could not be used as a ground for termination.
• The Tribunal had rightly granted her full back wages, and the High Court erred in reducing it to 30%.

Arguments by the Respondent (ONGC)

ONGC’s counsel contended that:

• Mittal was a temporary employee, and her excessive absenteeism justified her termination.
• Even though her leave had been sanctioned, the Medical Board found her medical certificates exaggerated.
• Granting full back wages would set a wrong precedent for employees with prolonged absenteeism.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justices Uday Umesh Lalit and Vineet Saran, upheld the High Court’s ruling that the termination was illegal. However, it further reduced the back wages from 30% to 10% while maintaining all other consequential benefits.

The Court observed:

“Though we are not interfering with the setting aside of the termination order, in the facts and circumstances of this case, justice would be served if the appellant is paid 10% back wages, along with reinstatement and all other consequential benefits.”

The Court reasoned that:

• Mittal had remained absent for nearly 5.4 out of the 7 years before termination, averaging 281 days per year.
• Even though her leave was sanctioned, habitual absenteeism affected ONGC’s workforce planning.
• She had delayed filing her industrial dispute case for 14 years, which affected her claim to back wages.

The Supreme Court also clarified that ONGC was not obligated to take work from her post-reinstatement and could instead compensate her with salary until her retirement in May 2020.

Key Takeaways

• Temporary Employees and Termination: An employee working for over 11 years cannot be terminated as a temporary staff member without proper legal proceedings.
• Role of Medical Boards: Organizations must ensure fairness in sanctioning medical leave while preventing misuse.
• Back Wages Considerations: Prolonged litigation and employee absenteeism can impact the quantum of back wages granted.
• Industrial Dispute Adjudication: Employees classified as ‘workmen’ must pursue remedies through labor courts rather than High Courts.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case reaffirms the importance of due process in employment termination while balancing fairness in awarding compensation. The judgment serves as a significant precedent for similar employment disputes, particularly concerning prolonged absenteeism and the rights of temporary employees.

Petitioner Name: Anjana Mittal.
Respondent Name: Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited.
Judgment By: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice Vineet Saran.
Place Of Incident: Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 30-07-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Anjana Mittal vs Oil and Natural Gas Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 30-07-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Pension and Gratuity
See all petitions in Workplace Harassment
See all petitions in Judgment by Uday Umesh Lalit
See all petitions in Judgment by Vineet Saran
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments July 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category