‘No right to claim 3 year leave’: Delhi High Court upholds woman’s job termination after brain tumour surgery

‘Misplaced claim’

• The submission of the former director claiming that an employee can be granted leave for a continuous period of three years is completely “misplaced”.
• Mallik, who was having a private employment with Gandhi Smarak Sangrahalaya Samiti for a fixed term of five years, certainly cannot be entitled to claim leave for three years.
• It has to be borne in mind that she was holding the post of a director, and her prolonged absence would have affected the functioning of the said society.
• Since the contract was for a fixed term of five years, the said society could not be reasonably expected to continue sanctioning medical leave to the former director.
• She worked at the said position from September, 2010 till January, 2013, after which she developed serious health complications.

• The high court noted that the former director underwent emergency surgery for a brain tumour on January 31, 2013.
• Following the surgery, she sought three months’ medical leave from February 1 to April 30, 2013, which was granted subject to payment of 50% honorarium.
• Subsequently, she sought further leave from May to July 2013, which was also granted without honorarium.
• However, when Mallik applied for another extension from August to October 2013, the request was declined, and she was relieved from her duties on August 1, 2013.
• Even in terms of relevant rules concerning her employment, an employee is only entitled to a maximum of 90 days’ medical leave in case of a serious illness, upon production of a certificate from a medical practitioner, but clearly, Mallik had exceeded this limit.

‘Appointment, treatment and termination from service’

• Mallik, appointed as director of the registered society in September 2010, was getting an honorarium of Rs 30,000 per month.
• She was 57-years-old at the time of her appointment and worked at the said post till January, 2013.
• Before her selection, Mallik was working as the deputy director at Rajender Bhawan Trust.
• She was diagnosed with a brain tumour and had to undergo an emergency surgery on January 31, 2013. The surgery resulted in certain complications, and she was hospitalised.
• On February 18, 2013, she applied for three months’ medical leave from February 2013 to April, 2013.
• The same was sanctioned in March 2013, subject to receiving 50 per cent of the “honorarium”.
• Since the medical treatment of the former director continued, she was advised to rest in bed.
• Accordingly, she applied for extension of her medical leave from May 2013 to July 2013, which was accepted by the museum without any honorarium.
• On July 10, 2013, she applied for further extension of her medical leave from August, 2013 till October, 2013. This request was declined, and she was relieved from her duties as Director.
• Subsequently, she filed a suit before the trial court, citing her termination as illegal and arbitrary and also sought a sum of Rs 12.50 lakh towards damages and compensation.
• The trial court held that the museum is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and not a statutory body in the 2018 order.
• Therefore, her employment would be governed by the terms of her appointment letter.
• She was awarded compensation of Rs 90,000 for a period of three months from the date of termination of employment.
• Aggrieved by the same, she moved the Delhi High Court.

‘Entitled to compensation’

• Appearing for Mallik, advocate Pankaj Gupta argued that since the appointment of his client was for a fixed term of 5 years and there was no stipulation for prior termination, her termination was illegal.
• He also emphasised that Mallik is entitled to compensation for the remaining period of her engagement.
• It was further mentioned that Mallik’s leave was already sanctioned till September 15, 2013, by the then chairman, and therefore, the termination of the engagement during the subsistence of the said period is bad in law.

‘Lawful termination’

• Representing the museum, advocate Rahul Shukla submitted before the Delhi High Court that the appointing authority in respect of Mallik was the chairman and the relieving letter was also issued by him.
• The trial court has correctly applied the service rules in terms of which the said society is required to give three months’ notice to her before terminating her services.

• Shukla also pointed out that the trial court has awarded compensation to Mallik in lieu of the three months’ notice period, which was accepted by the said society.
• It is wrong to contend that a fixed-term employment contract cannot be terminated earlier.
• Shukla informed the Delhi High Court that if sufficient cause is shown, the said employment can be terminated and it would be lawful.