Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Notice of Dismissal.—(1) No employer shall dispense with the services of an employee who has been in his continuous employment for not less than three months, without giving such person at least one month’s notice in writing or wages in lieu of such notice: Provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employee are dispensed with for misconduct, after giving him an opportunity to explain the charge or charges alleged against him in writing. (2) No employee who has put in three months’ continuous service shall terminate his employment unless he has given to his employer a notice of at least one month, in writing. In case he fails to give one month’s notice he will be released from his employment on payment of an amount equal to one month’s pay. (3) In any case instituted for a contravention of the provision of sub-section (1), if a Magistrate is satisfied that an employee had been dismissed without any reasonable cause or discharged without proper notice or pay in lieu of notice, the Magistrate may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, award, in addition to one month’s salary compensation to the employee as follows: (a) Where immediately before his discharge or dismissal, the employee was in receipt of a salary not exceeding Rs. 100 per month, such amount of compensation not exceeding his month’s salary, as the Magistrate may direct; (b) Where immediately before his dismissal or discharge, the employee was in receipt of a salary exceeding hundred rupees per mensem, such amount of compensation not exceeding hundred rupees as the Magistrate may direct. (4) The amount payable as compensation under this section shall be in addition to any fine payable under section 40. (5) No person who has been awarded compensation under this section shall be at liberty to bring a civil suit in respect of the same claim. COMMENTS (a) Applicability of section 30 The protection of the provisions of the section is available to all persons who fall within the definition of the term “employee” as given in section 2(7) of the Act and who have put in three months’ continuous services. In the absence of any standing orders or any contract between the employer and the contesting respondent containing any particular terms or conditions, the conditions of service of the employee relating to his employment in an establishment at Delhi are covered by section 30(1) of Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954; Goodlass Nerolac Paints (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner, Delhi, 1967 (14) FJR 115: 1967 I LLJ 545: 30 FJR 442. The payment of wages in lieu of notice is one of the modes by which the service of an employee can be terminated, the other mode being the giving of at least one month’s notice in writing. Under the mandatory provision of section 30 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954, the service of an employee who has put in more than three months’ continuous service cannot be terminated without giving him at least one month’s notice in writing or one month’s wages in lieu of such notice except where the termination of service is for misconduct. Therefore, where an employee has worked for one day more than the three months stipulated in the section, he will be entitled to one month’s notice or one month’s salary in lieu thereof; Ram Prakash Sablok v. Mahesh Chander, 1973 (43) FJR 239 (Del HC). (b) Notice or wages in lieu thereof under section 30—When to be given? A plain reading of section 30 of the Act would make it clear that whereas the notice of one month under sub-section (1) is for the benefit of the employee, the notice under sub- section (2) is for the benefit of the employer. If an employer gives the notice under sub- section (1), it is open to the employee to quit the service even before the expiry of the period of one month. Similarly, where the notice is given under sub-section (2), it is open to the employer to dispense with the services of the employee even before the expiry of the period of one month. It is not necessary for the employer to wait for the full period of one month before dispensing with services, just as it is not necessary for an employee who has received notice under sub-section (1) to wait for the full period of one month before quitting the services of the employer. For example, when the employee served a notice of one month on the employer on 17-7- 1968 tendering his resignation to be effective from 16th August, 1968 and the employer accepted the same on 23-7-1968 with immediate effect, then the employee cannot insist on continuing in service till the expiry of the notice of one month on 16th August, 1968; Dass Studios v. R.K. Baweja, Labour Court, Delhi, 1972 (1) ILR 856 (Del HC). One month’s notice or wages in lieu thereof is necessary in case the employees is having more than three months’ service under section 30 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act. This will be applicable even if an employee has completed only one day more than three months; Ramprakash Sablok v. Mahesh Chandra, (1973) 43 FJR 239: 1973 1 LLN 339 (Del. HC) (A case under section 39 of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act decided by the Delhi High Court).When the services of an employee are terminated by payment of one month’s wages in lieu of notice, his services come to an end on the date on which he is terminated. On the other hand, if he had been given one month’s notice and on the expiry of the one month his services are terminated, his services would come to an end only after the notice period; May and Baker (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, 1961 (2) FLR 594: (1961) 1LLJ 94 (SC): AIR 1967 SC 678: 20 FJR