0

The Delhi High Court upholds the decision to terminate the services of a professor suspected of ‘harboring’ stray dogs on the National Judicial Academy campus.

Blog ,

Title: DR. GEETA OBEROI v. NATIONAL JUDICIAL ACADEMY
Date of decision: 30.06.2023

+ W.P.(C) 8487/2023, CM APPL. 32341/2023, CM APPL. 32343/2023, CM APPL. 32342/2023

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

Introduction

The High Court of Delhi upheld the dismissal of Dr Geeta Oberoi, a contractual lecturer at the National Judicial Academy in Bhopal, based on a show cause notice given to her in 2021 for “encouraging and harboring” stray canines on campus.

Justice Jasmeet Singh denied the professor’s petition, which challenged the Academy’s Director’s show reason notice given on February 012021, as well as the Executive Committee’s order terminating her employment on May 13. The Executive Committee was made up of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, who also serves as the Academy’s Chairperson, Justice M R Shah, Justice KM Joseph, and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul.

Facts of the case

According to the Committee’s resolution, the agenda item was to make an appropriate decision on the show cause notice issued to Prof. Oberoi.

The Committee observed that, despite the fact that the professor’s contract expired on August 7, 2021, the then-Executive Committee opted to keep her services on hold until further directives.

As a result, it was decided that “the current Executive Committee has resolved that Prof Geeta Oberoi will continue in service until 30 June 2023 and no further.” It is also decided that she may keep her official residence until July 31, 2023.”

In 2021, the professor provided an interim as well as a thorough response to the show cause notice. She had also written to the Executive Committee requesting a personal hearing.

Senior Advocate Anand Grover, who represented the professor, argued that, while the appointment’s nomenclature was contractual, it was similar to a regular appointment because it was made in response to an advertisement for a professor vacancy, which was followed by an interview. He also said that the claims of feeding stray dogs were not “grave misconduct.”

ASG Balbir Singh, on the other hand, said that the professor was a contractual employee whose last term of employment expired on August 7, 2021, and that she had no current contract.

Courts analysis and decision

It was also claimed that the Executive Committee passed a resolution indicating that the employment should be retained until the proper decision on the show cause notice was made when the contract of service was still in effect. He went on to say that the professor’s reliance on the resolution was irrelevant because the contract had expired. In dismissing the petition, Justice Singh stated that after the professor’s term of service expired, compliance with the resolution became irrelevant owing to the contract’s expiration.

In dismissing the petition, Justice Singh stated that after the professor’s contract of service expired on August 7, 2021, and was not renewed, she could no longer rely on the terms and conditions. Rejecting the professor’s claim that her appointment was comparable to regular scheduling, the court stated that her dismissal was not stigmatic nor vengeful because it was due to the expiration of the contract of employment.

Judgment- click here to review the judgment

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Anushka Satwani

0

Karnataka High Court: Employment Contracts Shouldn’t Overwhelm Commercial Courts

Blog ,

Karnataka High Court

Sanjay Kumar v Elior India.

Bench- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.2584 OF 2023 (GM – RES)

Decided On 02-06-2023

Facts of the case-

The petitioner, who was initially employed by Elior India Food Services LLP (referred to as “the firm”), later became a partner and minor partner in the firm with a specific share. Due to certain actions and omissions on the part of the petitioner, the firm initiated an inquiry by issuing a charge sheet on 10-05-2022. 

In response to these proceedings, the petitioner filed a Commercial Arbitration Application (Com.AA.No.88 of 2021) invoking Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, before the Commercial Court on 13-05-2021, based on an arbitration clause in the employment agreement.

While the Section 9 application was pending, the petitioner was terminated from service by the firm. On 08-06-2021, the petitioner invoked arbitration under Section 21 of the Act and issued a notice to the firm. However, the application under Section 9 filed before the Commercial Court was dismissed during the Section 21 proceedings. 

The petitioner then filed a commercial appeal (Com.A.P.No.161 of 2021) before the Court, but it was also dismissed by a Division Bench on 22-10-2021, affirming the order of the lower Court. The petitioner did not challenge this dismissal by the Division Bench.

As per the arbitration clause in the Employment Agreement, a three-member Arbitral Tribunal was constituted. The first hearing of the Arbitral Tribunal took place on 08-12-2021, during which the parties were represented, and the Tribunal directed the completion of pleadings. On 15-12-2022, the Arbitral Tribunal issued an order in response to the claimant’s application under Section 17 of the Act. 

In response to this order, the firm filed a Commercial Miscellaneous Application (Commercial M.A.No.1 of 2023) before the Commercial Court, and the petitioner filed objections, claiming that the Commercial Court lacked jurisdiction.

The Commercial Court, in its order dated 30-01-2023, directed the petitioner’s counsel to provide a copy of the objections filed and decided to hear the matter on both jurisdiction and merits, scheduling it for 01-02-2023. This order, which determined that the matter would be heard on both jurisdiction and merits, prompted the petitioner to approach the present Court with the current petition.

 

Relevant Provision

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Related to
Sec. 9 Interim measures, etc. by Court.
Sec. 21 Commencement of arbitral proceedings.

 

Judgement

The Court delivered a judgment stating that a pure and simple employment contract cannot be considered a commercial dispute merely by labeling it as a provision of services. Justice M Nagaprasanna emphasized that if every employment agreement is treated as a commercial dispute, it would overwhelm the commercial courts and result in an excessive influx of litigation. Such an outcome would defeat the purpose for which commercial courts were established.

The Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Limited v KS Infraspace LLP, which held that issues unrelated to commercial disputes should not be entertained by commercial courts solely on the basis of their high value and the desire for swift resolution.

The Court further clarified that even if a party mistakenly invokes the wrong jurisdiction and the concerned court makes a determination without any objections from the parties, such jurisdiction does not become binding in subsequent proceedings.

Based on the aforementioned analysis, the High Court concluded that the dispute between the parties in the present case did not qualify as a commercial dispute as defined under Section 2(1)(c)(xviii) of the Act. Therefore, the commercial court should not have entertained the dispute.

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA

Click here to view judgment

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”