Loading...

Day: 25 February 2025

Pregnant Woman Dismissed with ‘Jazz Hands’ Emoji: UK Employment Tribunal Awards £93,616.74

Posted on by Lawful Talks

Judge Gary Smart of The UK Employment Tribunal, recently upheld the claims of pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal of one Ms. Paula Milushka and awarded her £93,616.74 (approx Rs.1 Crore) in compensation for being wrongfully dismissed by her line Manager through a text message containing a jazz hands emoji while she was on pregnancy-related sick leave.

According to the Employment Tribunal’s ruling, Paula Miluska was dismissed by Ammar Kabir, her boss, who sent her a deliberately ambiguous message while she was on leave for pregnancy related illness, stating that the company was facing financial difficulties and required an employee who could be physically present in the office.

Paula Miluska, an investment consultant, who commenced her employment at Roman Property Group in March 2022, requested that she be allowed to work remotely due to severe morning sickness which she characterised as “horrendous” to her line manager Kabir in a text message.

Text messages between the two concluded with a notification of her termination and a “jazz hands emoji” depicting a smiling face with two palms facing outside.

According to the tribunal, when Ms. Miluska had to leave work early due to worsening nausea she informed Kabir, via message.

The next day, she sent another message explaining that her midwife had advised her to work from home temporarily, as the following two weeks were expected to be the peak period for pregnancy-related nausea due to hormonal changes. She also inquired about the requirement for a health and safety assessment upon her return to work, seeking clarification on the process.

The tribunal judge noted that no further text messages were exchanged between them until November 26, when Mr. Kabir inquired about Ms. Miluska’s well-being.

The following evening, Kabir responded to Ms. Miluska, inquiring whether she could work a few days the following week with a reduced schedule, finishing at 4 p.m. to relieve her of excessive strain. According to the Birmingham Employment Tribunal, his request was not deemed inappropriate, as he was preparing to go on a holiday.

In response, Ms. Miluska informed him that she had planned to request the week off instead due to severe illness, having retched multiple times that day. She expressed concern that if her condition did not improve within the next few days, she might require hospitalization. She further stated that she was unable to work from home, let alone commute to the office. Apologizing for her inability to support the company at that time, she conveyed feelings of guilt.

Kabir did not respond to Ms. Miluska’s message until December 1, at which point he informed her that the company needed to recruit an employee who could be physically present in the office due to increasing workloads. He emphasized that the decision was not intended to be personal and was driven by the company’s operational difficulties. Additionally, he stated that he would personally explore alternative employment opportunities for her and encouraged her to contact him once her health improved.

A reproduction of messages exchanged between Kabir and Milushka are highlighted : “Romaan said he’s going to clear the days you did so up until the 21st that will be with you today. Hope to see you soon. We’ve got a lot of catching up to do outside of work [‘jazz hands’ emoji].”

In response to the above message, Miluska expressed confusion regarding the situation, emphasizing that she had been working remotely as agreed since disclosing her pregnancy, despite experiencing severe maternity-related illness. She noted that she had successfully secured another allocation while enduring the peak of morning sickness and questioned why she was being dismissed under such circumstances.

Employment Judge Garry Smart determined that it was objectively clear from the message that the employment relationship was being terminated. Ms. Miluska received no further salary from December 1 onward. However, Kabir argued that she had not been formally dismissed. The tribunal however rejected his claim, ruling in favor of Ms. Miluska upholding her claims of pregnancy discrimination and unfair dismissal. She was awarded a sum of £93,616.74 by way of compensation by the UK employment tribunal.

Tap here for the official website article

LPG Dealership Lost Over Late Lease Deed: HC Refuses Relief!

Posted on by Sanika Kale

The Rajasthan High Court, recently ruled on a case concerning the allotment of LPG distributorship, emphasizing that the retrospective effect of a registered document under Section 47 of the Registration Act cannot override procedural requirements. The Jaipur division bench, comprising Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Kuldeep Mathur made it clear that while a registered lease deed operates from the date of execution, it cannot be used to bypass a stipulated deadline for submission of documents.

The legal question arose when a candidate for LPG distributorship was denied consideration due to his failure to submit a registered lease deed within the timeframe prescribed in the selection manual and advertisement.

The appellant, contesting a single judge’s earlier decision, argued that as per Section 47 of the Registration Act, a lease deed, though registered belatedly; should be deemed effective from its execution date.The Section 47 states that a registered document takes effect from the date on which it would have originally operated if registration were not required.

However, the court reiterated that this principle applies between the concerned parties and in certain third-party situations but cannot be stretched to negate the necessity of submitting a lease deed that had already been registered by the deadline.

The appellant had initially challenged a notice dated December 28, 2023, which required him to provide a registered Power of Attorney by May 24, 2023. Further, he contested the February 6, 2024, order that disqualified him due to the late registration of his lease deed, executed on March 23, 2023, but registered after the cut-off date of May 24, 2023.

BPCL defended its decision, stating that per the 'Manual for Selection of LPG Distributorship,' all land-related documents had to be registered before the last date for application submission. Moreover, BPCL contended that a Power of Attorney required compulsory registration under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act and that a lease deed registered post-deadline was invalid for selection purposes.

While the single judge did not accept BPCL’s argument regarding the necessity of registering a Power of Attorney, the judge upheld that a lease deed remains ineffective until registration, and its later registration does not circumvent the requirement to submit it on time. The division bench concurred, asserting that procedural mandates in public selection processes must be strictly adhered to.

While presenting arguments, Supreme Court’s ruling in Raman Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority was cited. Referring to which the bench reiterated, “An executive authority must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged and it must scrupulously observe those standards on pain of invalidation of an act in violation of them.” Additionally, referencing the Privy Council's decision in Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, the court underscored, “Where power is given to do a thing in a certain way, it had to be done in that way only, or not at all, and other methods of performance were forbidden.”

In conclusion, the court upheld that BPCL’s adherence to selection guidelines was justified and in public interest, the court refused to interfere with the single judge’s ruling. The appeal was dismissed, with the bench emphasizing that raising an arguable point does not warrant the court’s inherent powers to be exercised arbitrarily.

Case Title: Abhishek Agrawal v Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited & Anr.

Advocates For Appellants: Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Mr. Aniket Tater

Advocate For Respondents: Ms. Abhilasha Bora