Skip to main content

Dismissal – Termination. Granting Leave After Dismissal With Immediate Effect

Federal Labor Court, decision dated February 10, 2015 – 9 AZR 455/13
Facts of the case
The employee was employed since more than 20 years. The employer terminated the employment with immediate effect and additionally gave statutory notice of termination under due respect of the applicable notice period in case the dismissal with immediate effect may be invalid. Furthermore the letter of termination said: “In case that only the statutory notice of termination is effective, you are released from your duty to work with immediate effect, taking into account all leave and overtime claims.” The parties reached a settlement ending the employment 5 weeks after notice was given. Although this period would have sufficed to grant the entire leave, the employee claimed compensation for the leave. The Federal Labor Court sided with the plaintiff.
The decision
According to precedents set by the Federal Labor Court, it was possible so far to grant any remaining days of leave by releasing the employee from his duty to work during the notice period of an additional statutory notice of termination as a precautionary measure in the event that the immediate termination of the employee may be found to be invalid. The Federal Labor Court has now renounced this jurisdiction. In such cases leave can no longer be granted solely by an irrevocable release.
In order to satisfy claims for paid leave, it is now necessary that the employee is not only released from the obligation to work, but also receives the salary for the period or a clear statement that payment will be made in any case. The entitlement to leave aims to enable the employee to recuperate. This purpose can only be achieved, according to the Federal Labor Court, if the employee also has financial security by receiving an income during that period. The employee must therefore be sure to receive remuneration during the leave. Therefore he must receive the payment at the time of the dismissal or that payment must at least be confirmed without any reservation.
Practical tip
The decision applies to all employers. Previously used templates for extraordinary notices of termination must be adapted. If, the employer does not want to risk paying leave compensation on top of the salary for the contractual or statutory notice period despite release from work, after a labour court found the dismissal with immediate effect invalid, the employer has to state in the letter of termination that the employee will receive leave compensation without any reservation for at least the days of leave already incurred, otherwise there can be no fulfillment. The corresponding formulation could be: “In the unlikely event of the ineffectiveness of the immediate termination, we hereby irrevocably release you from the obligation of performing work for the period of the termination notice expressed in the alternative period of termination with immediate effect, taking into account all incurred vacation entitlements up to the point of submission of the termination as well as any other claims to compensatory leave. Your remuneration for the outstanding leave will be paid with the next salary.” If the immediate dismissal is overturned by the Labor Court, the leave compensation can be offset against the remuneration arrears.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

MACT - Permanent disability - calculate - compensation - Supreme Court - Part 2

1) C. K. Subramonia Iyer vs. T. Kunhikuttan Nair - AIR 1970 SC 376 2) R. D. Hattangadi vs. Pest Control (India) Ltd. - 1995 (1) SCC 551 3) Baker vs. Willoughby - 1970 AC 467 4) Arvind Kumar Mishra v. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. - 2010(10) SCALE 298 5) Yadava Kumar v. D.M., National Insurance Co. Ltd. - 2010 (8) SCALE 567) 5. The heads under which compensation is awarded in personal injury cases are the following : Pecuniary damages (Special Damages) (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure. (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising : (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries. (v) Loss of ...

Full & Final payment - No dues certificate - end of contract

Whether after the contract comes to an end by completion of the contract work and acceptance of the final bill in full and final satisfaction and after issuance a `No Due Certificate' by the contractor Supreme Court of India Supreme Court of India R.L. Kalathia & Co. vs State Of Gujarat on 14 January, 2011 Author: P Sathasivam Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3245 OF 2003 R.L. Kalathia & Co Appellant(s) Versus State of Gujarat .... Respondent(s) JUDGMENT P. Sathasivam, J. 1) This appeal is directed against the judgment and final order dated 07.10.2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Gujarat whereby the High Court set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.12.1982 passed by the Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar directing the State Government to pay a sum of Rs.2,27,758/- with costs and interest and dismissed the Civil Suit as well as cross objections filed by the a...

Private Colleges Cannot Withhold Student’s Certificates For Payment Of Amount

In a significant judgement, the , has held that private self financing Colleges cannot withhold certificates of students, for payment of amount. The practise of withholding the certificates, and non-issuance of transfer certificate to students, to coerce them into meeting unconscionable demands like paying entire course fee for leaving the course midway, or to force them to serve the institution after completion of course, etc is very rampant. In clear unambiguous terms, the Court has held that such practise is illegal and opposed to public policy. Often faced with the supreme bargaining position of the Colleges, the students often execute bonds authorising colleges to do so. But, such bonds have no validity in the eyes of law. It was held that :- “The agreements obtained by the College from petitioners authorising them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners cannot be accepted as an approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is unethical. Further, agreements of tha...