Employee Not Estopped From Challenging Terms & Conditions Of Employment If It Violates Statutory Requirement: SC

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

• The appeal in the case of Somesh Thapliyal Vs. Vice Chancellor, H.N.B. Garhwal University, was filed by associate and assistant professors appointed by the H.N.B. Garhwal University.
• The selection process was as provided under the Uttar Pradesh State Universities Act 1973. Their employment was substantive in nature this meant they didn’t have the benefits of a permanent employee.
• Some of the provisions incorporated in the offer of appointment were in contravention to the statutory scheme of the Act of 1973. The appellants were in need of a job, and had no option but to accept the terms of the university.
• The appellants remained under the bonafide belief that as their substantive appointment will be made permanent, immediately after the permanent posts are sanctioned. However, this did not occur, the university initiated a fresh selection process for the permanent posts.
• They contested the arbitrary nature of the terms of employment by filing a Writ petition under Article 226. The process of selection was questioned and so were provisions that were present in their letter of appointment.
• The Division Bench of the High Court after taking note of the submissions, dismissed the writ petition.

OBSERVATIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT

• The court observed that an “employer is always in a dominating position” and can dictate the terms of the employment. The employee is not in a position to complain about the arbitrariness in the terms and conditions of employment. Further the court noted that if an employee questions the terms and conditions of employment, it could cost them their job.
• The employer holds the bargaining power and the employee is left with no option but to accept the conditions dictated by them.
• Further, it was declared by the court that an employee can challenge the conditions of employment if “it not in conformity with the statutory requirement under the law and he is not estopped from questioning at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved.”

ORDER OF SUPREME COURT

• The court stated that since the teachers had undergone the process of selection provided in the 1973 Act, their substantive appointment may be made permanent independent of the earlier temporary or permanent nature of the position.
• The teachers were entitled to claim their permanent sanctioned post, and were entitled to pay scale and other notional consequential benefits admissible to a regularly appointed teacher.

What do you think of the issue? Share your views in the comments.