Case Title: Nimmy Rose James v. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors.
Summary
The Kerala High Court has ruled that principles of natural justice must be inferred from statutes, even without explicit provisions granting parties an opportunity to present their case. The ruling was made in a case involving a woman who was terminated without a personal hearing at Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC). The termination order was issued without providing the petitioner with a hearing opportunity, violating the principle of natural justice. The petitioner, a Development Officer, sought a statutory appeal against the termination order, but was denied due to the Covid-19 pandemic and maternity leave. Standing Counsel for LIC, S. Easwaran, argued that the statute regulating appeals does not provide a personal hearing for parties before the issuance of an order.
About the case
A ruling rendered by the Kerala High Court on Tuesday established that principles of natural justice must be inferred from statutes, even in the absence of explicit provisions granting parties an opportunity to present their case. Justice Murali Purushothaman, while granting a petition filed by a woman whose employment was terminated without a personal hearing, ruled that the termination order in question contravened the principle of natural justice. “Since it is not contested that Ext.P14 (Zonal Manager’s order) was issued without providing the petitioner with a hearing opportunity, I conclude that the order violates principles of natural justice.
Natural justice must be inferred from a statute that is silent on the provision of a personal hearing opportunity for the affected individual, especially when the decision pertains to unfavorable civil consequences of termination of service. Development Officer at Life Insurance Corporation of India, the petitioner is. The Senior Divisional Manager issued a directive for her dismissal in November 2021. The termination shall be effective three months after the date of order receipt, in accordance with the Life Insurance Corporation of India Development Officers (Revision of Certain Terms and Conditions of Service Rules) 2009. The petitioner unsuccessfully sought a statutory appeal against the termination order before the Zonal Manager in December. She approached the court in distress over the same matter. Advocate Binoy Vasudevan, who represented the petitioner, contended that she was unable to submit the mandatory premium for the evaluation period on account of the circumstances precipitated by the Covid-19 pandemic and the maternity leave she took.
Consequently, it was argued that the termination order was issued hastily and without consideration, in complete disdain for the principles of natural justice, given that she was not afforded an opportunity to present her case prior to its passage. Moreover, without contemplating these factors and without listening to the petitioner, the Zonal Officer had denied her appeal, he continued. In contrast, Standing Counsel for LIC S. Easwaran argued that the statute regulating the consideration of appeals makes no provision for a personal hearing of the parties prior to the issuance of an order in the appeal.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s termination without opportunity for a hearing was not in dispute. Both her appeal and her testimony were not considered prior to their dismissal. In light of the foregoing, the judge determined that the issuance of such an order contravened principles of natural justice. Subsequently, the Zonal Manager was instructed to reassess the petitioner’s appeal subsequent to providing the petitioner with a chance to present their case and issue a reasoned order within a period of eight weeks. Permitting the petitioner to continue in service pending this action.
