D K Yadav v.

J M A
Industries
Facts of the case
• The appellant, a worker at the respondent
company, was terminated from employment by the
respondent company on the grounds that he had
wilfully absented himself from duty for more than
five days without leave or prior information of
intimation or previous permission of the
management.
• The company relied on clause 13(2) (iv) of the
Certified Standing Order in support of its action.
• Clause 13(2)(iv) of the certified Standing Orders
permits the employer to strike off from the muster
rolls the name of a worker who has not returned
within eight calendar days from the expiry of his
leave originally granted or subsequently extended as
the case may be.

• If he does not explain to the satisfaction of the

management the reasons for his absence or his
inability to return on the expiry of the leave, such a
worker would be deemed to have automatically
abandoned his service and lost his lien on his
appointment.
• But the appellant contended that despite his
reporting to duty every day he was not allowed to
join duty without assigning any reason.
Issues
• whether the said termination was violative of
principles of natural justice?
• whether the abandonment would amount to
retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947?
• whether the termination would be deemed
legitimate without compliance with the prescribed
mandatory pre-conditions under Section 25-F of
the Act
 Legal Reasoning
• The principle reasoning employed by the court was
that Certified Standing Orders have a statutory force
which does not expressly exclude the application of
the principles of natural justice.
• There can be no distinction between a quasi-judicial
function and an administrative function for the
purpose of principles of natural justice.
• It stated that a particular statute or statutory rules or
orders having statutory flavour can be excluded from
the application of the principles of natural justice
expressly or by necessary implication.
• The rules of natural justice would apply unless the
employer should justify its exclusion on given special
and exceptional exigencies.
• The court stated that an administrative order with
civil consequences must be made in consistency
with the principles of natural justice.
• It further held that the person concerned must be
informed of the case, the evidence in support
thereof supplied, and must be given a fair
opportunity to meet the case before an adverse
decision is taken.
Decision
• The action of the respondent was found to be in
violative of the principles of natural justice.
• The certified standing orders have statutory force
and don't exclude the application of this principle.
The right to life includes the right to livelihood.
• The power to terminate the service of an employee
in accordance with just, fai and reasonable
procedure . Hence the action of the respondent is
held to be arbitrary, fanciful and oppressive