LI Network
Published on: 29 September 2023 at 16:59 IST
The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that reinstatement does not come into play when an individual is gainfully employed. This assertion came in a case involving a limited company engaged in the production and sale of diesel generators, with the respondent serving as a Supervisor.
Reinstatement refers to the action of giving someone back a position they have lost. The respondent’s probationary period had been extended several times on compassionate grounds. However, following the final extension, the respondent failed to secure alternative employment, and the company requested the return of its No Objection Certificates (NOCs). In response, the respondent claimed that his services had been terminated.
The matter was then brought before the Labour Court, which ruled in favor of the respondent, ordering the petitioner company to reinstate him with continuous service and benefits, albeit without back wages. The petitioner contested this decision through a writ petition.
A Bench presided over by Justice Jyoti Mulimani emphasized that “the law is well settled that if a person is gainfully employed, the question of reinstatement does not arise. That apart, it is not in dispute that the respondent was on probation period and his service was not confirmed. Hence, the question of reinstatement does not arise.”
The Court acknowledged that the respondent held the position of a “Supervisor,” and the terms of his appointment permitted termination during the probationary period without notice or cause. Notably, the respondent’s probationary period had been extended on multiple occasions.
The Court elaborated, stating, “It is not in dispute that the respondent was appointed as a Supervisor but, he was paid a salary of more than Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) per month. Hence, in view of Section 2(S)(iv) of the I.D Act, he cannot be considered as the workman. Furthermore, a perusal of the Writ Papers would reveal that certain documents are filed to show that the respondent is gainfully employed.”
The Court stressed that when an individual is gainfully employed, the concept of reinstatement does not apply. Additionally, since the respondent’s probation had not been confirmed, there was no valid basis for reinstatement.
Consequently, the Court granted the writ petition, overturning the Labor Court’s decision.
Case Title: M/S. Powerica Limited (DTA Unit) v. Manjunath Pattar, [2023:KHC:33603
