On 28 August, 2024, the Supreme Court made an important decision about employee rights. In the ruling the Court highlighted that even a contractual worker cannot be fired for alleged misconduct without following fair procedures.
This decision came from a case where Brijesh Kumar, a contract employee of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC), had his services terminated on 30 January, 2016, without a proper inquiry or a chance to defend himself. His termination was based on allegations of misconduct, including carrying passengers without tickets and transporting extra luggage without booking.
However, the Supreme Court found that the termination was unjust as no formal inquiry was held. Additionally, Kumar wasn’t even given a show-cause notice or the report that accused him of the misconduct.
Ruling in favour of Kumar, the Court stated that his termination was unlawful because he was a permanent employee appointed under compassionate grounds. Kumar’s father, who was a regular conductor with UPSRTC, passed away in 2003, and he was later hired on a contract basis in 2012 under a special policy that gave preference to the children of deceased employees.
The High Court believed that since Kumar was appointed due to his father’s death, he should be treated as a permanent employee, and any termination should follow proper disciplinary procedures. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that Kumar was not actually hired under the Dying in Harness Rules (the compassionate appointment rules) but under a 2012 policy that offered preferential contractual appointments. This meant that while his appointment was based on special consideration, it was still a contract job, not a permanent one.
Despite this, the Supreme Court emphasised that even contract employees cannot be dismissed without following natural justice. This means that before someone is fired, they should be given a fair opportunity to explain their side of the story, and a proper inquiry should be conducted. Since these procedures were not followed in Kumar’s case, the court found his termination unlawful.
