Perceived Unfairness Of ‘Hire & Fire’ Policy Substantially Diluted If Sufficient Notice Is Given To Employee To Respond To Charges
Case: Dr. Kausik Paul v. Seacom Skills University and Others
Coram: Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya
Case No.: WPA 13266 of 2021
Court Observation: “The perceived unfairness of a “hire and fire” policy or a clause of summary dismissal is substantially diluted where sufficient notice is given to the employee to respond to the charges made against the employee. Courts usually intervene and rectify a situation where a clear breach of the rules of natural justice is established on fact or where the notice of termination is opaque and indecipherable in failing to disclose reasons for the sudden dismissal.”
“The words “hire and fire” carry a sense of an inherent and abrupt injustice. The underlying imputation is one of summary dismissal without an opportunity of a meaningful say in the decision of dismissal. There are also several sectors where the persons are employed under the condition of a summary dismissal on the happening of certain events. In other spheres, these conditions may be seen as necessary for maintaining disciplinary standards and the competence levels of employees”
“The chain of correspondence indicates that not only was adequate notice given to the petitioner before the impugned letter of discontinuation but also that the petitioner acknowledged and accepted the charges of failure/ inadequacy of performance. The documents hence belie the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was an innocent victim of a “hire and fire” policy of the University in breach of the principles of natural justice. The documents also run contrary to the stand of the petitioner, namely, that the letter of discontinuation read with Clause 6 of the appointment letter violates the right to a fair hearing since the petitioner chose not to respond to the letter dated 11th June, 2021 by which the petitioner was given an opportunity to answer to the charges made against him.”
“There is admittedly no element of an unequal bargaining power between the petitioner and the respondent or any sense of the petitioner being in a position of comparative weakness which could have forced the petitioner to accept an unreasonable term in a contract. Moreover, the letter of appointment entails an unmistakable flavour of a contract of personal service between the petitioner and the University and the University being established by a statute does not diminish that flavour. Clause 6 of the terms under the appointment letter may also be seen as a facilitator for preserving the excellence of the University and to safeguard the interest of students.”
Previous Posts
Even If GOD Encroaches Upon Public Space, Will Order Its Removal: Madras High Court
Supreme Court Dismisses Banks Application To Recall Judgment Which Directed RBI To Disclose Loan Defaulters List, Inspection Reports Under RTI Download Judgement
Keywords
Perceived Unfairness, Hire & Fire Policy
