In a significant case, the Supreme Court recently upheld the termination of a Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) employee who failed to inform his employer about his absence from duty, in accordance with the LIC Staff Regulation, 1960.
The bench, consisting of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, ruled in favor of LIC’s appeal, overturning the High Court’s decision, which had directed the reinstatement of the employee. The employee had remained absent without notice and did not respond to several notices sent by LIC, prompting the company to take action.
The Supreme Court affirmed the employer’s right to terminate an employee for abandoning service, provided that reasonable attempts are made by the employer to contact the employee about their absence.
The employee in question, an Assistant Administrative Officer at LIC, had been absent since September 25, 1995, without notifying the company. LIC sent several notices (on October 6, November 6, and December 19, 1995) requesting the employee to resume his duties, but none were answered.
As a result, LIC terminated the employee’s service under Regulation 39(4)(iii) of the LIC Staff Regulation, 1960, citing abandonment of service. LIC argued that the employee’s willful absence for over 90 days without informing the company justified termination. However, the employee contested this decision, claiming that LIC had failed to conduct an inquiry or provide an opportunity for him to explain before his dismissal.
The High Court ruled in favor of the employee, stating that he had not been given a fair opportunity to respond. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion. The Court noted that the employee’s prolonged absence, lack of communication, and failure to disclose his new employment with the Food Corporation of India (FCI) justified LIC’s decision to terminate him. The Court found that the employee had concealed material facts about his employment with FCI, which further supported the termination.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the employee’s conduct could not be condoned, and since he was guilty of withholding information about his new job, he was not entitled to relief from the High Court. Therefore, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the reinstatement decision. The appeal was allowed, and the parties were instructed to bear their own costs.
