Regarding dismissal of job if convicted from any court
madan satpathy
(Querist) 30 March 2018
This query is : Resolved
Sir/Madam
I was convicted by the lower court (JMFC) U/s – 498A and 4 DP Act. After that I go for the appeal to the appellate court (District court) and the appellate court accept my appeal with suspended the order of conviction till conclusion of the said appeal as per sec 389 of CrPc.
Further inform you that, I am working in a private company under worker grade.
I want to know that
1. During pendency of the appeal, and while the appellate court suspended the order of tried court, as per LAW can any employer still have any right to dismiss from job?
2. If possible please provide me the section/s of Labour law/ factory Act which is applicable in this matter.
kindly share your views
Guest
(Expert) 30 March 2018
Government Or Private companies can not dismiss an Employee on the grounds of 498 A Pending..
Guest
(Expert) 30 March 2018
Refer the Judgement of Central Administrative Tribunal Lucknow - on 12th day of Sep 2012 Pronounced By Honorable Justice Mr Alok Kumar Singh and Honorable Member S.P.Singh in the Case of Vinit Kumar VS Union of India thro secretary
Guest
(Expert) 31 March 2018
Thanks Advocate Mr.Siddharth Jain
R.Ramachandran
(Expert) 01 April 2018
1. Did the Private Company cite the reason of Sec. 498A case against you for the dismissal?
2. If so, they are completely in the wrong,
3. Whether the dismissal order was passed before the Stay granted by the higher court? or After the stay was granted by the higher court?
4. If it was before the stay granted by the higher court, then you can make a representation stating that the conviction order has been stayed by the higher court and therefore to reconsider and take back the dismissal order. If they do not take back the dismissal order, then approach appropriate Court.
5. The decision of the Lucknow Bench of the Central Admv. Tribunal in OA No. 331/2011 titled "Vineet Kumar (not vinit kumar) vs. Union of India and others" decided on 12.9.2012 has no application for the present case. In the case of Vineet Kumar, the candidate Vineet Kumar appeared in the examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission and stood at No. 10 in the select list and second amongst the OBC category candidates.
In spite of this, he was not given the appointment on the ground that he has misled the SCC regarding his involvement in the criminal case.
At the time of submission of forms in response to the advertisement , no criminal case was pending against the applicant.
But subsequently in a matrimonial case between his elder brother and elder brother's wife, the entire family was roped in including the applicant Vineet Kumar. Vineet Kumar was enlarged on bail subsequently.
In the Attestation Form submitted by Vineet Kumar, he answered all the questions correctly including about the criminal case and he also gave complete description of the criminal case at the foot of the point No. 12. At no point of time, he concealed any thing either from the prospective employer CBI or from the Staff Selection Commission.
It is against this background, that the Central Administrative Tribunal, after surveying a host of decisions, inter-alia held as under:
Thus in the case before us, firstly there is no concealment at all in respect of involvement in the criminal case. Admittedly the applicant had furnished all the required information with all the particulars. Therefore, the show cause notice in respect of alleged concealment was ab-anitio wrong and against the record and when this fact was specifically pointed out in the reply it was not dealt with at all in the impugned order. Instead the impugned order was passed on a new ground i.e. merely on the ground of involvement in a criminal case, though it has been nowhere provided either in any law or in the Manual of CBI (Admn.) or in the conditions of the relevant advertisement that candidature or selection can be cancelled on this ground.
The result, the Central Admv. Tribunal quashed the order whereby the candidature of the Applicant Vineet Kumar was cancelled by the authorities.
The above case of Vineet Kumar is distinguishable on facts from the present case.
Guest
(Expert) 01 April 2018
Quite an irrelevant academic query in the absence of some very vital information, whether the case relates to you and also you are dismissed by your Government or private organization.
Asking for sections of labour law and factory act very clearly suggests that yours is merely an academic query, not a real problem. Question arises, if you had a lawyer, who fought your case with JMFC and filed appeal also, why he is not helping you and what for you intend to know only the sections of laws?
Guest
(Expert) 08 July 2018
After all, with his very first two posts of advice to the querist, Mr. NJS Rajkumar has proved himself merely as a quack. Before advice on dismissal and reference to a CAT judgment, he should have known that the judgment does not relate to dismissal, rather about rejection of candidature for selection for initial appointment on some job.
When Mr. NJS Rajkumar does not have even some commonsense to distinguish between 'dismissal from service' and 'rejection of candidature for selection for initial appointment' to some post, any body can guess that he did not know the related law. He merely misguided the querist with his wrong advice.
Guest
(Expert) 08 July 2018
Simillar to NJS Rajkumar, Ms. Usha Kapoor has also proved herself as a quack, when she agreed with Mr. NJS Rajkumar. On agreement with Mr. NJS Rajkumar, without verification of the facts, she simply revealed that she does not have any knowledge about the service regulations.
