Labour Law Case: Nepal Insurance vs. Labour Court, Writ No: 3625 (2061 B.S)
Case: Writ of Certiorari
Plaintiff/Applicant: Nepal Insurance Company
Defendant/Respondent: Labour Court including Balmukunda Basnet
Writ Number: 3625
This case is related to unfair dismissal by the Managing Director of the Insurance Company.
Facts of the Case:
Balmukunda Basnet, one of the officers of the Nepal Insurance Company was dismissed by Managing Director (MD) on the basis of his false educational certificate submitted to the company for the purpose of his promotion. Mr. Basnet filed the case in the Labour Court and the Court nullified the decision of dismissal and ordered that his post is reinstated.
Then, the Petitioner which is the insurance company moved to the Supreme Court against the decision of the Labour Court. The petitioner claimed the following points:
- There is no jurisdiction of the Labour Court over this issue
- This enterprise is partially (51%) owned by the Government (Nepal Bank Limited) so the Labour Act is not applicable here.
- Basnet is dismissed because of his submission of a false certificate for his promotion therefore the decision of the labour court must be quashed.
Legal Issues:
- Whether the Labour Court has the jurisdiction over this issue or not?
- Whether the Labour Act is applicable to the insurance company or not?
Different Courts Decision:
Labour Court:
The Labour Court nullified the decision of dismissal and ordered that his post is reinstated.
Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the insurance company. The Anti Corruption body and Higher Secondary Educational Council have proved that the education certificate is not a false one. According to the Labour Act, every worker has the right to knock on the door of the Labour Office over the decision of the management. The Labour Court has jurisdiction over this matter and there is no doubt that the Insurance Company falls under the Section 2 of the Labour Act. It is an enterprise.
Section 88 of the Labour Act 2048 states, “With respect to the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the Enterprises owned wholly or partially by the Government of Nepal, the provisions of the Rules or Bylaws relating to the terms and conditions of services of the concerned Enterprises shall apply and in respect of workers thereof the provisions of this Act shall apply.” So any enterprise with 51% investment by the government (in this case Nepal Bank Limited) does not mean that the enterprise has the same status of the Nepal Bank Limited.
Thus the writ petition was quashed.
