Patna High Court
Amit Kumar SinghversusThe Union Of India and Ors
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
Holding
The termination was not supported by any proved notice or hearing, rendering the Tribunal’s award illegal; consequently, the award is quashed and the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Summary
The petitioner, Amit Kumar Singh, was appointed as Assistant Business Development Manager with Tata AIG Life Insurance in January 2008 and claimed his services were confirmed after six months. He alleges that his salary was stopped from September 2008 after being labelled an "absconder" without any notice, show‑cause letter, or termination order, and that he continued to be in service. The employer contended that his appointment was contractual, he was absent without permission from 15‑09‑2008, and that termination letters dated November 2008 and December 2009 were served, justifying dismissal under the appointment letter. The Industrial Tribunal upheld the termination, but the petitioner challenged the award, arguing violation of natural justice and lack of proof of service of any notice. The Patna High Court examined the record, found no evidence of any notice or hearing, held the termination unlawful, quashed the Tribunal’s award and ordered reinstatement with back wages and benefits.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination of the petitioner was effected in accordance with the procedural requirements of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
- Whether the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal is liable to be set aside for lack of evidence and violation of natural justice.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to reinstatement, continuity of service and payment of arrears of salary and other benefits.
- Whether the employer’s power under the appointment letter to terminate without notice is valid absent compliance with statutory due‑process.
Legislation cited
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — s. 10, 11, 11A, 12, 25B, 25F
- Shops and Establishments Act — s. 26
Subjects
- termination of service
- industrial dispute
- natural justice
- reinstatement
- award quashed
- employment law
- procedural fairness
- Industrial Tribunal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7804 of 2015
======================================================
Amit Kumar Singh Son of Anirudh Singh resident of Brahmpura, Sonarpatti,
P.O.- M.I.T. , P.S.- Brahmpura, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union Of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Government of India, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) New Delhi.
3. The Assistant Director, IR Imp-I Ministry of Labour, New Delhi,
4. The Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Patna.
5. The Assistant Labour Commissioner Central Patna.
6. The Senior Manager, Human Resources, TATA AIG Life Insurance
Company Ltd., 6th floor, Peninsula Tow
7. The Regional Sales Manager, Tata A.I.G. Life Insurance Company Ltd. ,
First Floor, Harihar, Chamber, Boring Road, Patna
8. The Branch Manager Sales, Tata AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd. , 2nd
Floor, Om Shanti Complex in front of Zila School, P.O. Ramna, District
Muzaffarpur
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Union of India : Mr. R.K.Sharma, C.G.C.
For Private Respondent : M/s Pratap,
Santosh Kumar, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 16-02-2026
1. The petitioner has filed the instant
application for the following relief(s):
“(i) For issuance of a writ in the
nature of 'Certiorari' for quashing the award
dated 12.09.2013, passed by the Presiding
Officer, Central Government, and Industrial
Tribunal No. (2) at Dhanbad in Reference No.
43 of 2012 and communicated to the in
petitioner vide Reference No. 43/2012/771
dated 03.04.2014, whereby and where under it
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
2/19
has been ordered that the action of the
management of Tata AIG Life Insurance
Committee Ltd. in termination of service of the
petitioner is quite legal, and justified and
hence the workman is not entitled to any relief
from any time except his any legal dues up to
the date of his termination.
(ii) For directing the concerned
respondents to allow the petitioner to
discharge his duties continuously and treat him
in service since the date of his
appointment/joining i.e. 02.01.2008.
iii) To hold that the petitioner is in
service all along and entitled to his salary and
other benefits.
(iv) To direct the respondents to
pay up to date due salary and other benefits to
the petitioner since September, 2008 to which
he is entitled.
(v) To direct the concerned
respondents to grant all other service benefits
which arises out of service jurisprudence and
for any other relief/releifs to which the
petitioner is entitled in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. The brief facts as culled out of the
petition are that the petitioner was appointed as
Assistant Business Development Manager by the
respondent–Management, Tata AIG Life Insurance
Company Ltd., vide appointment letter dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
3/19
26.12.2007 and joined into service on 02.01.2008
in Muzaffarpur Branch. After completion of six
months of satisfactory performance his services
was confirmed as per the terms of the
appointment and he became a permanent
employee. It is his specific case that he discharged
his duties diligently under the supervision of the
Branch Sales Manager and contributed towards the
enhancement of the company’s business. He was
getting salary regularly till August, 2008 but when
he did not receive his salary for the month of
September, 2008, he made inquiries and came to
know that he was shown as an “absconder” since
15.09.2008 by the Branch Manager, which was not
his knowledge and without any communication to
him.
3. The petitioner asserts that no show
cause notice, or termination letter was ever issued
to him. According to him, he signed the attendance
register till 29.09.2008. Thereafter, the system of
putting attendance was allegedly discontinued.
Despite his readiness to work, his salary was
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
4/19
withheld from September, 2008 onwards. Though
he continued in service he was not paid and later
terminated, which is impermissible in law.
4. The petitioner further submits that
he made several representations to the authorities
and also issued a legal notice dated 01.09.2010
seeking reinstatement and for payment of arrears
of his salary. As there was no action, he
approached the labour authorities. Conciliation
proceedings were initiated but failed. Thereafter, in
exercise of powers under Section 10 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Central
Government referred the said dispute for
adjudication to the Central Government Industrial
Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad. Before the Tribunal, the
petitioner specifically pleaded that he had not
been issued any order of termination or suspension
and that he was prevented from discharging his
duties without authority of law. He contended that
he had completed continuous service within the
meaning of Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes
Act, 1947 and that any retrenchment or
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
5/19
termination without compliance of Section 25F of
the Act was illegal. It was also urged that even
under Section 26 of the Shops and Establishments
Act, an employee who had completed six months
of service could not be terminated without
following the prescribed procedure.
5. According to the petitioner, the
management failed to produce any material to
show that he was guilty of any misconduct or that
any disciplinary proceeding had been initiated and
no document was brought on record. It was
argued that the Tribunal, without appreciating the
pleadings and evidence adduced by the petitioner,
mechanically accepted the stand of the
management and upheld the termination on the
basis of certain clauses in the appointment letter,
thereby committing an error apparent on the face
of the record.
6. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the impugned award is
wholly unsustainable in law and the finding of the
Tribunal were perverse and unsupported by
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
6/19
material on record. In absence of any written
order, the conclusion arrived by the Tribunal that
the services of the petitioner were lawfully
terminated was contrary to settled principles of
service jurisprudence.
7. It is further submitted that even
assuming that there was any misconduct or
unauthorized absence, on the part of petitioner,
the management was under a legal obligation to
follow the principles of natural justice. Admittedly,
show cause notice was not issued and no
opportunity of hearing was afforded to the
petitioner prior to the alleged termination. The
management could not have exercised any
discretionary power in an arbitrary manner, so as
to deprive the petitioner of his livelihood without
due process of law.
8. The Learned counsel emphasizes
that the power of the employer is not absolute and
must be exercised within the four corners of law.
The management cannot be given absolute power
to terminate a person without at least giving
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
7/19
opportunity to defend himself. In the present case,
there is no iota of evidence to demonstrate that
the petitioner was negligent towards his duty or is
guilty of any misconduct, or had remained on
unauthorized leave and prayed to allow the Writ
petition.
9. A counter affidavit was filed on
behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. The Learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
Nos. 1 to 5, submits that the impugned award
dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2,
Dhanbad in Reference No. 43 of 2012 is legal and
does not call for any interference.
10. It is contended that the Tribunal has
considered the entire factual matrix, the pleadings
of the parties, and the materials brought on record,
and has passed the award strictly in accordance
with the powers conferred under Section 11 and
Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It
is submitted that this Court, while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
8/19
India, ought not reappreciate the evidence or sit in
appeal over the findings of fact, recorded by the
Tribunal.
11. The Learned counsel submits that
the Central Government was the appropriate
Government in relation to the establishment in
question. The conciliation proceedings were
conducted in terms of Section 12 of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947. Since the dispute could not be
resolved amicably, a report of failure of
conciliation was submitted to the Ministry of
Labour, Government of India. The dispute was,
thereafter, for adjudication before the Industrial
Tribunal in accordance with law.
12. It is further submitted that the
petitioner was absent from duty for a prolonged
period, without any intimation to the management.
The respondent–management had issued letter to
the petitioner regarding his long and unauthorized
absence from his duties and requested him to
rejoin his duties. The management had also taken
note of his negligent conduct, unsatisfactory
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
9/19
performance and unprofessional behaviour. It is
contended that despite such communications, the
petitioner failed to resume duty, and therefore his
services were terminated in accordance with the
terms and conditions of his appointment. In view of
such findings, the question of continuity in service
or payment of salary for the alleged period does
not arise.
13. It is further contended that the
Tribunal is vested with wide powers under Section
11A of the Industrial Disputes Act to examine the
legality and justification of an order of discharge or
dismissal and to grant appropriate relief, including
reinstatement, if it finds the action of the employer
to be unjustified. In the present case, after
evaluating the evidence and submissions, the
Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
termination was justified.
14. The Learned counsel emphasizes
that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the
petitioner during the adjudication proceedings. The
award has been passed, after considering the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
10/19
pleadings, documents and arguments advanced by
the parties. The writ petition, according to the
respondents, merely seeks reappreciation of facts
which have already been duly examined and
decided by the competent Tribunal and prayed to
dismiss the Writ petition as it is devoid of merits.
15. A counter affidavit was also filed on
behalf of the respondent Nos. 6 to 8.
16. It is submitted that the petitioner
has not approached this Court with clean hands
and has suppressed material facts relating to his
conduct and the terms of his engagement. It is
contended that the petitioner was appointed vide
letter dated 26.12.2007 as Assistant Business
Development Manager purely contractual basis
subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in
the appointment letter along with Annexure-I
(Compensation Summary Sheet). His engagement
was performance based on sales incentives, as per
the policies of the Company.
17. The Learned counsel specifically
denies the assertion that the petitioner has
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
11/19
became a permanent employee. The appointment
was contractual and was governed strictly by the
terms and conditions contained in the appointment
letter. The relationship between the parties was
regulated by those contractual stipulations.
18. It is contended that the petitioner’s
performance was unsatisfactory and
unprofessional. The petitioner continued
unauthorized absence from duty without
permission from 15.09.2008. The Company, upon
noticing his prolonged unauthorized absence,
issued letters dated 20.11.2008 and 29.11.2008
calling him to rejoin his duties. Despite such
communications, the petitioner neither joined the
service nor furnished any satisfactory explanation
for his absence.
19. It is further submitted that the
unauthorized absence and negligent conduct of
the petitioner amounted to persistent breach of the
terms and conditions of appointment, particularly
under paragraph 13 (a) to (d) of the appointment
letter. Under the said Clauses, the management
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
12/19
was vested with discretionary power to terminate
the services of the employee forthwith, without
prior notice, in case of misconduct, negligence, or
failure to comply with instructions and directions of
the Company.
20. The Learned counsel submits that
when no response was received from the petitioner
despite repeated communications, the
management was left with no option but to take a
decision to terminate his services. Accordingly, by
letter dated 09.12.2009, the petitioner was
informed about the termination.
21. It is further argued that the
petitioner, after absconding from duty, cannot
claim salary for the said period, for which he did
not discharge any work. Payment of salary to an
employee who remained absent without
authorization is not sustainable in law. The claim of
continuity of service is also denied on the ground
that his engagement was contractual and was
terminated in accordance with the agreed terms.
22. The Learned counsel submits that
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
13/19
the petitioner woke up after a considerable lapse of
time and initiated proceedings before the labour
authorities. The respondents, however,
participated in the proceedings and placed
relevant documents before the Tribunal. The
Learned Tribunal, after examining the materials
and considering the arguments advanced, has
given a reasoned finding that the termination was
lawful and justified.
23. It is thus submitted that the award
of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality or
procedural irregularity warranting interference by
this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction and,
therefore, prayed to dismiss the writ petition as
devoid of merit.
24. In rejoinder to the counter affidavit
filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 to 8, the
Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated
and supplemented the stand taken in the writ
petition.
25. The respondents have attempted to
distort the fact as well as the true purport of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
14/19
appointment letter dated 26.12.2007. The
respondents relied upon Clause 13 (a) to (d) of the
appointment letter.
26. The Learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that the petitioner has
categorically denied receiving any letters dated
20.11.2008 and 29.11.2008, and also the
termination letter dated 09.12.2009. It is asserted
that none of these letters were served upon the
petitioner.
27. It is further submitted that the
respondents have failed to produce the said letters
either before the conciliation authority, before the
Tribunal, or even before this Court. It is pointed out
that the written statement filed before the
Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-
Conciliation Officer, Patna, do not support with
letters addressed by the respondents. The
petitioner submits that there is no material on
record, to establish that the said letters ever
issued or served. In absence of proof of service,
the plea of unauthorized absence and lawful
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
15/19
termination is unsustainable.
28. Heard the Learned counsel for the
petitioner and the Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents. Perused the pleadings
of the parties, the materials brought on record and
the impugned award dated 12.09.2013 passed by
the Presiding Officer, Central Government
Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad in Reference No.
43 of 2012.
29. The petitioner has assailed the
award whereby the Tribunal has held that the
action of the management in terminating the
services of the petitioner was legal and justified
and that he was not entitled to any relief except
his legal dues up to the date of termination.
30. The case of the petitioner is that he
was appointed as Assistant Business Development
Manager vide appointment letter dated 26.12.2007
and joined on 02.01.2008. According to him, after
completion of six months of satisfactory service,his
service was confirmed. It is his specific stand that
he continued to perform his duties and had signed
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
16/19
the attendance register up to 29.09.2008. He
asserts that no show cause notice, suspension
order or termination letter was ever issued to him
and that he was orally treated as an absconder
without any communication. His salary was
stopped from September, 2008. He contends that
in absence of any written order of termination, he
continued in service in the eye of law.
31. On the other hand, the respondents
have contended that the petitioner’s appointment
was contractual and performance-based. It is their
case that the petitioner absented himself from
duty from 15.09.2008 without permission and that
letters dated 20.11.2008 and 29.11.2008 were
issued calling upon him to rejoin duty. It is further
stated that due to unauthorized absence and
unsatisfactory performance, his services were
terminated vide letter dated 09.12.2009 in terms
of Clause 13 of the appointment letter. The
Tribunal, upon appreciation of the materials,
upheld the action of the management.
32. Upon consideration of the rival
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
17/19
submissions and the materials on record, this Court
finds that the core issue is whether the termination
of the petitioner was effected in accordance with
law and whether the Tribunal was justified in
holding the same to be legal and justified?
33. From the records placed before this
Court, it appears that no termination letter was
brought on record to demonstrate that the services
of the petitioner were terminated by a written
order duly communicated to him. The alleged
letters dated 20.11.2008, 29.11.2008 and
09.12.2009, which form the very foundation of the
respondents’ case, have not been satisfactorily
proved to have been served upon the petitioner.
There is no material to indicate the mode and
manner of service of the said letters.
34. It is well settled that even where
the terms of appointment confer certain powers
upon the employer, such power cannot be
exercised arbitrarily. An order of termination must
be preceded by the principles of natural justice. In
the present case, there is no material on record to
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
18/19
show that any show cause notice or opportunity of
hearing was afforded to the petitioner before
terminating his employment.
35. The Tribunal, while upholding the
termination, has relied primarily upon the terms
and conditions of the appointment letter without
examining whether due process of law was
followed and whether the alleged letters were duly
served. In absence of proof of service of notice or
termination order, the conclusion that the
termination was legal and justified cannot be
sustained.
36. This Court is conscious of the
limited scope of interference under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in matters arising out of
awards passed by Industrial Tribunals. However,
where the finding is based on no evidence or
where material aspects have not been considered,
interference is warranted.
37. In the facts and circumstances of
the present case, this Court is of the considered
view that the impugned award dated 12.09.2013
Patna High Court CWJC No.7804 of 2015 dt.16-02-2026
19/19
suffers from legal infirmity and cannot be
sustained.
38. Accordingly, the impugned award
dated 12.09.2013 passed by the Presiding Officer,
Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2,
Dhanbad in Reference No. 43 of 2012 is hereby
quashed and set aside.
39. The writ petition is allowed. The
petitioner shall be entitled to reinstatement in
service with continuity of service. He shall also be
entitled to all consequential benefits in accordance
with law. The respondents are directed to pass
appropriate orders within a reasonable period,
preferably within twelve weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order.
40. Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
shall stands disposed of.
(G. Anupama Chakravarthy, J)
Spd/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 20.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…