Smt. Kusum Gupta Alias Kusum Bansal vs Haryana State Small Industries and Export Corpn., Chandigarh
- SCC(1986) 3 SCC 506
- AIRAIR 1986 SC 1905
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
1. Where an employer terminates the services of a temporary employee under a bye-law requiring termination by giving one month's notice or, in lieu thereof, payment of salary and allowances for one month, the employer is obliged to pay the salary and allowances simultaneously with the termination order; the employer cannot make such payment conditional upon the employee producing a "no dues certificate", since the certificate is the employer's responsibility to issue and the employer has superior knowledge of whether any amount is due from the employee. 2. An employer cannot withhold or delay payment of termination benefits (salary and allowances in lieu of notice) by taking advantage of its own failure to issue a "no dues certificate" to the employee.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
2. The services of Smt. Kusum Gupta, who was originally appointed as a clerk in the respondent Corporation on July 25, 1974, were terminated on August 7, 198C by an Office Order running as follows :
Office Order
The services of Mrs. Kusum Gupta working as Sales Assistant in Haryana Emporium, New Delhi are no longer required by the Corporation with immediate effect. She will be paid one month's pay plus allowances in lieu of notice period.
Sd/-
P.R. Kaushik Managing Director Dated 7.8.1980.
Endst. No. HIEC/Estt./6165
Copy forwarded for information and necessary action to :
1. General Manager, Marketing They are required to 2. Company Secretary issue no dues certificate 3. Controller of Accounts in favour of Mrs. 4. General Manager, Kusum Gupta, Sales New Delhi Emporium Asstt. immediate. 5. Mrs. Kusum Gupta, Sales Assistant,New Delhi Emporium, New Delhi.
General Manager for Managing Director"
It is admitted that the "one month's pay plus allowances in lieu of notice period" was never paid to the appellant. She filed a suit questioning the order terminating her services on the principal ground that she had not been paid "one month's pay plus allowances in lieu of the notice period" simultaneously with the order terminating her services. The suit was decreed by the trial court, but on appeal, the Additional District Judge reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
The appellant filed a second appeal to the High Court. The High Court while holding that one month's pay and allowances had to be paid along with the order terminating the appellant's services, nevertheless confirmed the decree of the appellate court on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to obtain the "No dues certificate" even by the time she appeared in the Trial Court. We are of the view that the judgment of the High Court is wholly unsustainable.
3. Bye-law No. 3.2(ii) which governs the situation is as follows :-
3.2 Termination of Service
The services of an employee of the Corporation may be terminated by the Appointing Authority:
(i) ...
(ii) in the case of temporary employees by giving one month's notice on either side or, in lieu thereof pay for the period the notice falls short of one month.
The bye-law is clear that the services of an employee could only be terminated by giving one month's notice or, in lieu of notice, by paying the salary, etc. for the period of one month. It would not be open to the employer to insist upon the production of 'no dues certificate' by the employee. In fact, We fail to see how the employer can insist upon the production of a 'no dues certificate' by the employee when the certificate has to be given by the employer. The employer is the person who is in the know of things whether any amount is due from the employee or not. The employer cannot certainly take advantage of his failure to give a certificate to the employee and claim that he was entitled to withhold the one month's pay and allowances payable in lieu of the one month's notice on the ground of non production of 'no dues certificate' by the employee. We have no hesitation in allowing this appeal. The judgment and decree of the High Court are set aside. The judgment and decree of the Trial Court are restored with costs throughout.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free