RAJNEESH KHAJURIA versus M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR.

RAJNEESH KHAJURIA versus M/S. WOCKHARDT LTD. & ANR.

The termination letter was validly issued and identified by the employer's witness and does not become bogus merely because the employee did not receive it; the appellant failed to prove mala fide in the transfer (no malice in fact or law shown and the transfer was within the contractual power of transfer); and the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to decide termination issues falling under Item 1 of Schedule IV which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Parties
Appellant: Rajneesh Khajuria; Respondent: M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. & Anr.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
15 January 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Labour Practices, Transfer of Employee, Termination of Employment, Mala Fide, Industrial Court Jurisdiction, Labour Court Jurisdiction
Labour Law Administrative Law Jurisdiction Unfair Labour Practices Transfer of Employee Termination of Employment Mala Fide Industrial Court Jurisdiction +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajneesh Khajuria

Appellant

M/s. Wockhardt Ltd. & Anr.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employee can dispute the termination dated 15 April 2005 as not real or bona fide because he did not receive it
  2. 2 Whether the employee can challenge his transfer as an unfair labour practice under Item 3 of Schedule IV without impleading the person alleged to have acted mala fide
  3. 3 Whether malice in law can be inferred in the matter of transfer of an employee as unfair labour practice

Ratio Decidendi

The termination letter was validly issued and identified by the employer's witness and does not become bogus merely because the employee did not receive it; the appellant failed to prove mala fide in the transfer (no malice in fact or law shown and the transfer was within the contractual power of transfer); and the Industrial Court lacked jurisdiction to decide termination issues falling under Item 1 of Schedule IV which are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the High Court order affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order of the High Court dated 21.01.2014 affirmed