nAn employee challenged his dismissal in the Bombay High Court, questioning the managing director’s authority to fire him. The court upheld his claim and ordered that he be reinstated since it did not deem the order of dismissal legal, although it had subsequently been ratified by the board of directors of the company. The court felt that such an order could not be sanctioned with retrospective effect. The company appealed against the order in the Supreme Court, which set aside the order of reinstatement. Ratification meant giving validity to an act that had already been done. The apex court held that as the employee’s dismissal was ratified by the board, it meant that the dismissal was validated and legal (Maharashtra State Mining Corporation vs Sunil).
The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal awarded compensation to a man who was paralysed after a road accident but the insurance company challenged the award in court. The company claimed that since the neurosurgeon who had issued the permanent disability certificate could not be examined in court, the certificate was not valid. The Gujarat High Court held that since the Motor Vehicles Act was a beneficial legislation, there was no need to follow strict rules of evidence. Although the doctor was not available to support his diagnosis, the certificate could not be disregarded. Therefore, depriving the victim of compensation would be unjustified (United India Insurance Company vs Udaysinnh C. Thakor).
A bank employee was suspended, pending disciplinary action, for misbehaving with seniors. A criminal case was also lodged against him for abusing the branch manager. The court acquitted him of criminal charges in 1988 whereupon the bank sacked him. The employee challenged the dismissal in court, claiming that as no disciplinary action had been initiated against him for two years, the bank had overlooked his misconduct. The Supreme Court rejected his argument, stating that just because the bank did not take any disciplinary action against him while the criminal case was going on, it did not mean that it had consciously forgiven his misconduct (P.D. Agarwal vs State Bank of India & others).