Employers can’t evade legal obligations by merely incorporating unfavourable conditions: HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that employers cannot evade legal obligations by merely incorporating unfavourable conditions in the orders they pass. Justice Aman Chaudhary also made it clear that an employer, by virtue of its position of authority, was required to adhere to legal mandates and ensure the rights of employees were upheld.

Court’s observation

An employer inherently holds a position of authority; therefore, mere inclusion of an unfavourable condition in its orders does not bar the petitioners from laying claim to their legal rights, there being no estoppel against law.

Justice Chaudhary asserted: “An employer inherently holds a position of authority; therefore, mere inclusion of an unfavourable condition in its orders does not bar the petitioners from laying claim to their legal rights, there being no estoppel against law.” The ruling came during the hearing of a petition where an employee challenged an order perceived to infringe upon his statutory entitlements.

Referring to the duties of a model employer, Justice Chaudhary observed he “exemplifies the pinnacle of excellence in human resource management, fostering a positive and dynamic professional setting, not just prioritising the well-being of its employees but making tracks for organisational success buttressed by an engaged and motivated workforce”.

The judgment is significant as it indicates that employees' legal rights remain inviolable, irrespective of contractual or organisational stipulations imposed unilaterally by the employers. Referring to the facts of the case, Justice Chaudhary observed during the course of hearing that the petitioner, who retired on October 31, 2001, was promoted as Additional Inspector-General of Prisons on May 4, 2000, albeit in his own pay scale due to the pendency of a chargesheet, which was later dropped. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post on a regular basis on June 19, 2001. But he was not granted the corresponding pay scale for the intervening period despite evidence supporting his claim, including a letter from the Director-General of Prisons recommending the pay scale effective May 18, 2000.

Justice Chaudhary observed the petitioner served in full capacity as the Additional Inspector-General of Prisons, shouldering additional responsibilities of the chief probation officer and handling pending court cases.

“It is no longer res integra that an employee, who is assigned to officiate in a role that entails duties and responsibilities of greater magnitude than those of his substantive position, is rightfully entitled to the remuneration associated with the higher grade officiating post by virtue of consistent judicial rulings on the controversy at hand. Ruefully, he was still not compensated at the enhanced rate for performing the duties of the post, despite his case being covered on all fours by judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court,” Justice Chaudhary asserted.

The court added an employee entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of higher position was entitled “to the remuneration in line with the charge so bestowed”.