Ramu, an industrial worker was removed from employment without serving any notice. Ramu disputed this as unfair dismissal. Decide.

1. Whether removal of Ramu from employment is valid? NO

2. Whether such removal amounts to unfair dismissal? YES

Section 2A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Dismissal of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, employers are required to give in writing one month's notice or payment in lieu of such notice in order to lawfully terminate the employment of permanent monthly paid workers.

Application:

This problem is related to the Unfair dismissal of an employee without any notice. The main Statute which regulate termination of employment are the Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders) Act, (IESA) 1946, and the Industrial , Disputes Act, 1947.

Notice and prior procedural safeguards

Under the IESA, 1946, the employers are required to give in writing one month's notice or payment in lieu of such notice in order to lawfully terminate the employment of permanent monthly paid workers. As per Section 13 of the Model Standing Orders (MSO), the two week notice is required for workers paid on other basis. Notice is not required either for probationers, badlis or temporary workers.

As per Section 13 (2) of the MSO, notice is not required for workers found guilty of serious misconduct such as would constitute summary dismissal. In case of dismissal on disciplinary grounds, the worker must be given an opportunity of explaining the charges of misconduct alleged against him or her.

Workmen of Hindustan Steels Ltd. Vs. Hindustan Stell Ltd. and Others, (1985) 2 SCR 428 and Francis Corallie Vs. Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, it has been observed that the matters relating to employment include the right to continue in service till the employee reaches superannuation or his service is duly terminated in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Constitution or the Rules made under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or the Statutory provision or the Rules.

Conclusion:

In the instant problem, the removal of Ramu from employment is illegal because notice has not been served.