CURRENT LABOUR REPORTS
APRIL, 2002

Absorption - Appellant's circular to absorb daily wage workers to work charged establishments - Condition are completion of 500 days as daily wage worker on cut-off date and yet continuing in service - Respondent filed suit for such absorption which was decreed and confirmed in first appeal - High Court dismissed second appeal after rejecting the plea that in the circular there was no stipulation that the worker should be actually in service on the date of circular - Supreme Court allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to High Court for fresh consideration after observing that the Circular stipulated two conditions namely the concerned daily wage worker should not only put in 500 working days in service upto the cut-off date but should be actually in service on the date of circular and second condition cannot be ignored as done by the High Court.

Punjab State Electricity Board & Anr. v. Wazir Singh 2002 I CLR 1048 (S.C.).

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - S.14 - J.& K. Constitution - S.103 - Service dispute between Appellant and its employees - Whether Central Administrative Tribunal can entertain the dispute - Supreme Court held that appellant is an autonomous body registered under Societies Registration Act and controlled by Government of India and that being the position, the Administrative Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute in view of clause (iii) of S.14(1)(6).

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. Subhash Sharma etc. 2002 I CLR 1039 (S.C.).

Appointment - Post advertised for one vacancy only - In selection process, one T.D. Rolly and respondent No.1 were selected at Nos. 1 & 2 respectively - T.D. Rolly was appointed - After some time, he resigned the post - Respondent No.1 was appointed in his place under order of the High Court - Supreme Court set aside High Court's order after observing that the selection process was over on the appointment of T.D.Rolly and if he resigned fresh vacancy arises and steps for fresh selection have to be taken in accordance with recruitment rules.

Thrissur District Co-operative Bank Limited v. Delson Davis P. & Ors. 2002 I CLR 986 (S.C.).

Bihar Pension Rules - Rule 58 - Bihar Private Medical College (Taking over) Act, 1977 - Sections 3 and 6 - Respondents were employees of private medical college which was taken over by Government by above Act - Service rendered by respondents before take over was not counted for pension - Hence they filed writ petition in the High Court which is allowed and hence this appeal - While allowing the appeal it is held that there is no material to show that the management of private college was liable for pension to its employees and as the provisions of take over Act does not mention of giving any weightage of past service, respondents are not enti-tled to claim benefits of past service for calculation of pension.

State of Bihar v. S.A. Hassan & Anr. 2002 I CLR 1109 (S.C.).

Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 - Rule 5(2) Determination of seniority of District Judges appointed by direct recruitment from Board and those promoted from rank of Additional District Judge - In this petition, Supreme Court has held that seniority of a promotee District Judge would reckon from the date of his promotion as District Judge and in case of direct recruit, the seniority would be from the date from which he is appointed as District Judge after the completion of the period of probation of two years and not from the initial appointment to work as Additional District Judge.

Maharashtra State Judicial Service Association & Ors. v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay and Ors. 2002 I CLR 979 (S.C.).

Bombay Judicial Service Recruitment Rules, 1956 - Rule 5(v)(3)(ii) - Petitioner, Judge of City Civil Court was appointed with effect from 5-6-1995 on probation of one year - His probation was extended for two years and then for one year which ended on 4-6-1999 - His service came to be terminated by notification/order dt. 28-3-2000- Petitioner claims that he was confirmed employee - Rejecting the submission, it is held that Rules do not provide maximum period during which confirmation should take place and that Rule 5(v)(3)(ii) clearly provides that until probationer is expressly confirmed, service of probationer is terminable.

Subhash Raghuvir Jaiswal v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1062 (Bom.H.C.).

Cadre and Ex-cadre - In Haryana Veterinary Service Class I - Cadre not defined in the Rules - In the absence of such definition in the Rules, the normal connotation would apply and therefore cadre would ordinarily mean the strength of a service or a part of service so determined by the Government constituting the post therein.

Ran Singh Malik v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2002 I CLR 871 (S.C.).

Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts.14, 16 - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16 - Removal from service after 20 years on the charge of wilful absence from duty - The petitioner Sirajuddin, a police constable removed from service (vide order dt. 9-8-1986), as found guilty of misconduct of wilful absence from duty, in the departmental enquiry - In this writ, he challenged the impugned order of his removal from service - Pending the petition he died and his legal representatives are brought on record - Held that he being heart patient, having undergone heart operation, the reason of his absence was justified and sufficient - He developed post operative complications and ultimately died at the age of 45 years - The Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered the length of his service - Thus held that imposition of penalty was disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct - It also amounts to violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution - Moreover with the period of his absence itself being regularized, the said misconduct could not survive - The punishment of dismissal modified to stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect - Widow and children are entitled to benefits of pension etc.

Jamila & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan, 2002 I CLR 994 (Raj.H.C.).

Art.30(1)- Petitioner Institution is established by religious minority viz. Roman Catholic Community - It is held in this case, that merely because institute imparts education to the needs of deaf and mutes of all castes and creed, its right being a minority religious institution to administer educational institution, is not taken away.

Bombay Institution for Deaf and Mutes & Anr. v. Department of Social Welfare, Pune & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1071 (Bom.H.C.).

Art. 30(1) & 16 - Petitioner seeks a direction to respondents not to apply the Government Resolutions dt. 27-3-1991 and 23-3-1994 providing for reservation to scheduled caste and scheduled tribes in employment of staff - It is held that a direction to minority educational institution to have reservation in the appointment of staff teachers is definitely a serious encroachment upon the right of the minority institution under Art.30(1) in administering the minority educational institutions and such direction cannot be upheld.

Bombay Institution for Deaf and Mutes & Anr. v. Department of Social Welfare, Pune & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1071 (Bom.H.C.).

Arts. 217, 226 - Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946, S.10(4) - Advocates Act 1961, S.2(g), 16 - Question in these two writ petitions - Whether Advocates practising in District Court/ Labour or Industrial Court are eligible to be appointed as Member, Industrial Court? - Whether such advocates can be described as advocates of the High Court? - In response to the advertisement for recruitment to the post of `Member, Industrial Court' Gujarat, issued by the respondent, the petitioners - practising advocates for more than ten years, applied but were informed by the respondent that they were not eligible to be considered for the post of `Member, Industrial Tribunal' - Hence these writ petitions - Held that (i) there is no distinction between advocates actually practising in the High Court and advocates practising in Courts subordinate to the High Court - (ii) Since petitioners are enrolled as advocates with the State Bar Council they are eligible to be appointed as Member of the Industrial Court/Tribunal - Stand taken by the respondent, not tenable.

Kaushik Kantilal Trivedi v. Secretary, Gujarat Public Service Commission, 2002 I CLR 1022 (Guj.H.C.).

Art.226 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - S.14 - Dispute between the parties regarding service matter - Respondent filing writ petition in High Court - Appellant's application to transfer the same to Central Administrative Tribunal was rejected by High Court - In this appeal, Supreme Court following the ratio in the case of L. Chandra Kumar 1997 I CLR 778 (SC) held that Administrative Tribunals Act applies to whole India including J.&K. and as such writ petition is transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & Anr. v. Subhash Sharma etc. 2002 I CLR 1039 (S.C.).

Art.226 - CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, Rule 37 - Pro rata pension, claim for - Respondent No.1 having joined as Accounts Clerk in Jammu Divn. of CPWD in 1947, worked there upto 30-9-1961 - His services transferred to ONGC as a Junior Accountant - Retired from ONGC on 30-6-1984- Petitioners re- fused to grant respondent No.1 prorata pension and other retirement benefits for his service of more than 10 years with CPWD on the ground that he had not put in 10 years service as permanent employee - OA filed by respondent No.1 before Central Administrative Tribunal, allowed - Hence this writ petition - Held that no such plea was taken before the Tribunal - On facts also the said contention of petitioner before the Tribunal - On facts also the said contention of petitioner, not tenable.

Union of India & Ors. v. O.P. Sharma & Anr. 2002 I CLR 1088 (Del.H.C.).

Art. 226 - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948, Sec.1(4)- ESI Contributions not paid by the petitioner for a period from 1983 to 1995 - No recovery proceedings initiated by respondent No. 2 ESI Authorities till March 1999 - After issuing notices, ESI authorities initiated recovery proceedings- Hence this writ petition to stop the process of recovery till the disposal of its exemption application, to be filed u/s.1(4) of the ESI Act, which could be decided by the State Govt - Union of workers supported the case of the petitioner - Held that this being in utter disregard to the ESI provisions shown for 12 years, be regarded as act of recklessness on the part of the petitioner - the matter is in a peculiar administrative sphere, where the Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction - Writ Court cannot be a requester - Balance of convenience does not show that writ petition should be entertained - On facts and on law, no relief can be granted.

Everett (India) Private Ltd. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1034 (Cal.H.C.).

Art.226 - Held that High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition.

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Sri Khogen Bouri & Ors. 2002 I CLR 884 (Cal.H.C.).

Art. 226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.11-A- Scope Respondent No.2, being found guilty of misconduct (i.e. threatening co-workers not to attend the Mill) was dismissed from service - In the industrial dispute raised by him, Labour Court held termination to be illegal and invalid and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service along with 50% of back wages - Hence this writ petition by the Management, challenging the impugned award passed by the Labour Court - Held that S.11-A of the I.D. Act has left the discretion in the Labour Court to examine the quantum of punishment imposed by the Management - unless any perverse or shockingly unreasonable view is taken by the management, the High Court will not exercise its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution as if an appellate authority- In the instant case the conduct of 2nd respondent is also not absolutely without any blame- No infirmity in the Award passed by the Labour Court - as such denial of 50% of back wages is justified.

Management of Kongarar Spinners Ltd., Pethappampatti, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District, represented by its Managing Director v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and Anr. 2002 I CLR 905 (Mad.H.C.).

Art. 226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.33 - Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, Rule 61 - Petitioner No. 1 is a registered Union and petitioner No. 2,3 are its office bearers - Petitioners No.2,3 have been terminated - In the conciliation, the Conciliation and Labour Officer declined to `declare' petitioners Nos. 2,3 as protected workers - Instead declared three members of the associations, whose names were forwarded by the Management - Held in the writ petition that Management cannot propose the names of protected workers - Petitioners 2 and 3 shall be deemed as protected workers - In this case grave miscarriage of justice has occurred - Petitioner No. 2 & 3 shall be deemed as protected workers - and are entitled to be reinstated.

Sunder Lal Jain Hospital Karamchari Union (Regd.) v. Govt. of Delhi & Ors. 2002 I CLR 943 (Del.H.C.).

Art. 226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -S.10(3) - Petitioner declared lock-out - Govt. in its exercise of powers u/s.10 of the I.D. Act, prohibited the lock-out in the company - Govt. made a reference to the Industrial Tribunal only on the issue of entitlement of wages to the workmen, but not the question of existence or propriety of lock-out - In this Writ Petition the Company challenged the legality of the Terms of Reference - Held that (i) order prohibiting lock-out, cannot be sustained, (ii) dispute pertained not only to payment of wages, as invoked u/s.10(3) of the Act, by the Government; (iii) order of reference as well as prohibitory order quashed.

Cimmco Birla Limited v. State of Delhi & Ors. 2002 I CLR 936 (Del.H.C.).

Art. 226 - Non- exhaustion of alternative remedies by the respondent - Held that departmental enquiry in the instant case, not held with due compliance with the principles of natural justice - Writ cannot be thrown out on the ground of non- exhaustion of an alternative remedy - Writ petition is maintainable - chargesheet and enquiry proceeding and order of dismissal, quashed.

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Sri Khogen Bouri & Ors. 2002 I CLR 884 (Cal.H.C.).

Art. 311 - Punishment - On conclusion of a departmental enquiry against the petitioner, punishment of reduction of pay for 2 years and withholding of salary except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, was awarded - In this writ, the petitioner challenged the validity of the impugned order of punishment - Held that in the instant case, major charges No. 1 & 2 levelled against him, not proved - Imposition of major punishment by way of reduction of pay, is too harsh and seems to have been passed without application of mind - Hence set aside.

Ahmed Sher v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 I CLR 916 (Jhar.H.C.).

Contempt of Court - In pending proceeding, petitioner Prof. Nini Gulla gave a writing stating that she wanted to move Supreme Court on ground of bias - She also stated that it was surprising that Court took up matter for final hearing of contempt petition- In view of the allegation of `bias' against Hon. Judge Kochar J. show cause for contempt was issued to her and she filed reply denying Contempt of Court - After hearing her, High Court held petitioner guilty of committing Contempt of Court and sentenced her to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-.

Nini Gulla (Prof. Ms.) v. Vishwanath Poddar & Ors. 2002 I CLR 849 (Bom.H.C.).

Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition ) Act, 1970 - Sec.10(c) Notification dt. 8.9.1994 - Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 226, 227 - Petitioners- Appellants, working through the contractor - Respondent No. 2, claimed that they have been performing the work of a permanent nature since many years and are entitled to be regularized and for permanency benefits and in view of the above mentioned Notification, contract labour is prohibited in the categories in which they are working - Writ petition dismissed by Learned Single Judge - In this Writ Appeal, held that (i) Here the disputed question is whether appellants are Boiler-Operators or Plant Assistants Class II - disputed question of facts cannot be gone into in the writ petitions and can be decided only in an industrial dispute before industrial adjudication; (ii) it would not be desirable for this Court sitting as a Court of Appeal over the decision in a writ petition under Art. 226/227, to pass any order against Respondent No. 2, which is not amenable to writ jurisdiction; (iii) this is not a fit case to pass any order continuing interim relief against 2nd respondent.

V.K. Mansuri and others v. O.N.G.C. Ltd. & Ors. 2002 I CLR 863 (Guj.H.C.).

S.10(1) - Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Consequent upon the notification dated 8-9-1994 under S.10 of the Act, the contract labour in the posts of boiler operators, attendants, helpers and peons was prohibited, these appellants, by writ petition, claimed that they be treated as employees of respondent ONGC - Single Judge held in their favour but division bench held that there are some disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in writ petition and the same require investigation by Industrial Tribunal - In this appeal, Supreme Court held that the decision in the case of Steel Authority's case 2001 III CLR 349, would be applicable on all fours and the directions of the High Court be complied with having regard to the decision in Steel Authority's case.

Nitinkumar Nathalal Joshi & Ors. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1113 (S.C.).

Disciplinary proceeding - Chargesheet given to petitioner for unauthorised absence - His service terminated after enquiry in which according to the petitioner, he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself - Hence this petition wherein the High Court held, on consideration of facts, that there was violation of principles of natural justice and thus on that count impugned action is not justified and is quashed with liberty to proceed afresh after giving petitioner adequate opportunity to defend himself.

Constable No. 2306 Civil Police, Budaun v. Senior Superintendent of Police, Agra & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1082 (All.H.C.).

Corporation Bank Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1982 - Regulation 6(18) - Disciplinary Authority disagreed with findings of not guilty recorded by Enquiry Officer, held petitioner guilty and dismissed petitioner from service - Appellate Authority confirmed the same - Hence this petition alleging breach of principles of natural justice and non-compliance of Reg. 6(18) - Held: Following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra AIR 1988 SC 2713, it is held that dismissal order is vitiated as petitioner was not given an opportunity when Disciplinary Authority disagreed with Enquiry Officer and also because of non-observation of Reg. 6(18) under which Enquiry Officer was required to hear the petitioner before submitting report - The respondent may continue the enquiry from the stage of completion of management evidence during enquiry.

Gopalkrishna Vaman Kamath v. The Corporation Bank 2002 I CLR 1005 (Bom.H.C.).

Misconduct of theft of small articles such as two bottles of oil, dhania powder, paneer and eight samosas from canteen - Punishment of dismissal is assailed as out of proportion - Held: Committing theft of articles owned by ones own company is a grave misconduct and dismissal from service is adequate punishment.

Kamal Sahdev Karna v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. 2002 I CLR 1008 (Bom.H.C.).

Petitioner holds post of Material Manager in respondent Corporation - He was charged with misconduct of theft and after enquiry, he is dismissed from service - He filed this writ petition assailing the order on the ground of non-observance of principles of natural justice in not examining two material witnesses - High Court held non- examination of two named witnesses has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner and on consideration of evidence no perversity is noticed in the findings recorded by the authorities below.

Kamal Sahdev Karna v. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. 1008 (Bom.H.C.).

Respondent, Assistant Engineer, was given chargesheet for misconduct in respect of irregularities committed by him which resulted in unauthorised extra construction of irrigation canal - Enquiry Officer held the charge proved and as a consequence punishment was imposed - In writ petition, High Court set aside the punishment on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice because of non- supply of documents - In this appeal, Supreme Court held that documents were duly supplied and High Court erred in holding that there was violation of principles of natural justice.

State of U.P. and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Mangalik 2002 I CLR 1101 (S.C.).

Discrimination - Superannuation - N.G.Ranga Agricultural University (Conditions of Service) Regulations 1965, Regulation 33(b)(i) - Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 14 - Validity of this particular Regulation is challenged in this writ petition, as it prescribes different age of superannuation for teachers and other employees (i.e. non-teaching staff) - Held that classification made in the impugned Regulation fixing different ages of superannuation to the ministerial staff is not violative of Art.14 of the Constitution - Impugned Regulation held valid.

R.V.V. Suryanarayana Raju v. N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Rajendra Nagar and Anr. 2002 I CLR 1098 (A.P.H.C.)

Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Sec.2(22) Production incentive - Settlement between the Management and workmen to pay production incentive - Appellant Corporation issued demand notice asking for contribution on the said payments made to workers monthly - ESI Court allowed the application of the Company, holding that payment made was under the Production Incentive Scheme and directed the ESI Corporation to refund Rs. 13098. 90- In this appeal, it was held that though it is stipulated that production incentive does not form part of the wages, it is nonetheless to be considered as `wages' as the same was paid monthly - Contribution is payable in respect of production incentive also - Managements claim for refund of contribution paid in respect of production incentive (in the instant background) is not sustainable in absence of proof of the claim that production incentive was paid at intervals exceeding two months and hence those payments do not qualify to be treated as wages - also held that in respect of production incentive paid once in a quarter, as stipulated in settlement effective from 15.2.1985, there is no liability to pay contribution, as such payment cannot be treated as part of wages.

Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Bangalore v. Lamina Suspension Products Private Limited, New Mangalore 2002 I CLR 894 (Karn.H.C.).

S.85(a) - Non- payment of ESI contribution- Cognizance of offence taken- More than 2 years lapsed - Magistrate discharged respondent No. 1 accused relying on Supreme Court judgment in `common cause' cases - In this revision against said order it is held that the offence to remit E.S.I. contribution comes within the scope of economic offences as also criminal breach of trust which are excluded from operation of `Common Cause' judgment and therefore there was no justification for learned Magistrate to discharge the accused.

Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Madhukar S. Jadhav & Ors. 2002 I CLR 846 (Bom.H.C.).

Fundamental Rules - Rule 56(c) - Compulsory Retirement - Challenge to compulsory retirement of petitioner on the ground that it is punitive - While quashing the impugned order it is held that admittedly when the impugned order was passed, representations against adverse remarks were pending disposal and enquiry against the petitioner was going on before competent authority and in this back ground apparently the impugned order was passed to cut short the enquiry and by way of punishment which is against the provision of U.P. Fundamental Rule 56.

Shatrughan Singh v. State of U.P. 2002 I CLR 1080 (All.H.C.).

Haryana Veterinary Service Class I Service Rules 1930 - Haryana Veterinary Service (Group A) Rules 1995- In pursuance of advertisement for recruitment to a temporary post of Deputy Director (Feed and Fodder) in Haryana Veterinary Service Class I, appellant was selected and appointed in the scale of pay lower than other posts in the service - In spite of representations he was not given regular scale and his name was not included in Seniority list - He filed writ petition wherein respondent put up a case that the appointment of appellant was in ex-cadre post - Writ petition and writ appeal having been dismissed, this appeal is filed - The question is whether the post to which appellant was appointed was an ex-cadre post carrying lower scale of pay in Haryana Veterinary Service Class I and Supreme Court held it in affirmative and further held that he would not be entitled to the pay scale attached to a regular post in the cadre.

Ran Singh Malik v. State of Haryana & Ors. 2002 I CLR 871 (S.C.).

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 - S.10 - 88 Workmen were working in the establishment of appellant - They were retrenched - Reference was made to Industrial Tribunal as to whether non-giving work to said 88 workmen was justified - Appellant took the plea that they were contract labourers of contractor - Tribunal held against the appellant after finding that the said workers were employed since before engagement of contractor - Tribunal held that workmen be deemed to be continuing in service - High Court declined interference and in this appeal Supreme Court held that the Tribunal on due appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion that workers in question were under the direct employment of the appellant, the same cannot be seriously assailed.

Indian Farmers Fertilizer Co-op. Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal, I Allahabad & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1106 (S.C.).

Ss.2-A and 10, and 25-F - Petitioners working on daily wages for a long time, were orally terminated without assigning any reason without any compensation - Labour Court in the industrial dispute, rejected the claim of petitioners for reinstatement and back wages - Hence this writ petition by the workers - Held that Labour Court rejected the documents which proved that the petitioners were employed under 2nd Respondent for more than 480 days in 2 years, on the ground that the authors (of those documents) were not examined - Wrong view - Reason given by Labour Court was incorrect - It is well accepted principle that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to the proceedings before the Labour Court - Only rules of natural justice are to be followed - Labour Court committed grave mistake in rejecting the petitioners' claim - Impugned order quashed and set aside - Petitioners granted relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 25% of backwages.

G. Thilagam and Others v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and Anr. 2002 I CLR 876 (Mad.H.C.).

Ss. 2-A & 10(1) - State Government's jurisdiction to decide industrial dispute on merits or facts - Petitioner challenged the termination of his service by the management of Luster Tiles Ltd, on the ground of victimization and unfair labour practice - The State Govt. on getting failure report from the Conciliation Officer, declined to refer the dispute to the appropriate Labour Court- Hence this writ - Held that it is a settled law that while exercising power u/s.10(1) of the I.D. Act, the function of the appropriate government is an administrative function and not a judicial or quasi-judicial function and hence it cannot delve into the merits of the dispute and take upon itself the determination of lis, which would certainly be in excess of the powers conferred upon it.

Balram v. State of Rajasthan, 993 (Raj.H.C.).

Ss.2K, 2A and 17 - Some workmen of respondent Corporation, who were dismissed/removed from services, challenged orders by filing civil suits - These matters reached the Supreme Court on the issue whether Civil Courts jurisdiction was barred in view of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act - Supreme Court held that having regard to the reliefs sought in the civil suits, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court must be held to have been impliedly barred and appropriate forum for resolution of such dispute is the forum constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act.

Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam & Ors. v. Municipal Corporation of Ahmedabad & Anr. 2002 I CLR 926 (S.C.).

S.2(s) - Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226 - Termination - Petitioner, a Supervisor by designation with Respondent No.3 M/s. Bells Controls Ltd, terminated from service after found guilty of committing misconduct in a departmental enquiry- In the reference of the dispute, the Industrial Tribunal held that petitioner was not a "workman" as contemplated u/s.2(s) of the I.D. Act and hence reference was not maintainable - In this writ the petitioner challenges the impugned order of the Tribunal - Held that (i) that no evidence is forthcoming that the petitioner is controlling the other subordinates in the discharge of his duty; (ii) the Tribunal did not consider all the relevant factors namely chargesheet, order of dismissal, initiation of domestic enquiry and conclusion of that which were held in terms of the Standing Orders of the Company; (iii) the Company caused or permitted the writ petitioner to believe that he is a workman; (iv) Company is estopped from taking a stand that the petitioner is not a workman, after holding the domestic enquiry against him, under the Standing Orders of the Company; (v) Award of the Tribunal is vitiated with perversity and illegality- Hence held that petitioner is a "workman" within the meaning of S. 2(s) of the I.D. Act- Reference remanded back to Tribunal for trial and disposal in accordance with law.

Sri Monoranjan Chakrabortty v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1029 (Cal.H.C.).

S.10 - Reference of dispute as to pay scale at the instance of employees of appellant trust - Award made and High Court confirmed it - Defence is that appellant is not an `industry'- Supreme Court, while setting aside the High Court's order and award of Tribunal, remanded the matter for fresh decision and observed that appropriate tests to be applied for determining whether the appellant is industry or not are indicated in the passage from Rajappa's case reproduced in the judgment and matter be decided accordingly.

Shri Gajanan Maharaj Sanathan v. Shri Gajanan Karamchari Sangh & Anr. 2002 I CLR 869 (S.C.).

S.10(1) - Reference of dispute by the Government to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication on certain demands raised by the Union - Reference dismissed for default since nobody on behalf of respondent remained present - On subsequent Miscellaneous Application filed by the Union, the Tribunal found sufficient reason to set aside the order dismissing reference - In this Special Civil Application the Railway Administration challenges the said decision of the Tribunal restoring the Reference to be decided on merits - On examining the facts and the law on the point, Court held that (i) the earlier decision of the Tribunal, (dismissing the Reference) was not the adjudication of the rights of the parties on the merits of the reference, and it cannot be equated with an Award; (ii) the Tribunal had ample powers to restore the matter on file there being sufficient ground for the same; (iii) publication of the dismissal of Reference under S.17A of the I.D. Act had no effect, and hence (iv) Tribunal was justified in passing impugned order to restore the Reference on file to be decided on merits.

Divisional Railway Manager v. Secretary 2002 I CLR 957 (Guj.H.C.).

S.10(1) - Reference is made at the instance of respondent - Reference is whether management is justified in transferring award staff to Resource Management Centre (RMC)- In statement of claim names of 33 workmen transferred were incorporated - Because of subsequent transfers of two other lots, their names were sought to be added in statement of claim - Industrial Court allowed the amendment and hence this petition alleging that by amendment Industrial Tribunal has enlarged the scope of reference - Held: Respondent union has challenged as a whole the action of the petitioner management to transfer the award staff to RMC, that as such it cannot be said that by amendment, union has sought any fresh industrial dispute and as such there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal to allow the amendment. Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Grindlays Bank Employees Union & Anr. 2002 I CLR 1017 (Bom.H.C.).

S.10(1) & S.18(3) - Reference made to Labour Court is whether service of respondent is terminated by management of petitioner and respondent's entitlement to reinstatement and back wages - Petitioner denied relationship between petitioner and respondent and submitted that he was in personnel employment of President/Chairman of the Petitioner Company - On application, Labour Court directed to implead President as party - Hence this petition - While allowing the petition and setting aside impugned order, it is held that by directing joinder of parties, what the Labour Court has done is to amend the terms of the reference.

Alfa Laval (India) Ltd. v. Karbhari Devji Waghmare & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1050 (Bom.H.C.).

S.10 (4-A) - Constitution of India 1950, Arts. 226, 227- On the enquiry officer finding respondent-conductor guilty of misconduct, he was dismissed from service in 1985 - His appeal dismissed in 1986 - After a lapse of 9 years dispute was referred - Labour Court accepted reference and awarded relief of reinstatement with 50% backwages and other benefits - Writ petition by the Corporation challenging the impugned Award rejected by Single Judge - In this writ appeal, the Division Bench held that in view of this enormous delay of 8 years and absence of proof explaining the delay, Labour Court was not justified in entertaining this stale claim - However as the workman was reinstated during pendency of proceedings, he is not liable to be removed - But he is not entitled to continuity of service and back wages.

North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli v. Abdul Salam 2002 I CLR 853 (Karn.H.C.).

Ss.10(4), 18(3) - Adjudication of a dispute - In the instant case revised wages were fixed by way of settlement - Dispute referred to Tribunal was `whether claim of 37 workers of C.W.C. at par with direct payment system workers of FSI was justified or not' - Tribunal held that deprivation of benefits of revised wages to 37 workers, was arbitrary - In the Writ, held that it cannot be said to be beyond the scope of reference - By virtue of S.18(3), such adjudication of reference is binding on the employer - Contention of the Management that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to extend the benefits of settlement to the said 37 workers, who were not included under the said settlement, not tenable.

Food Corporation of India, New Delhi & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 I CLR 856 (Gau.H.C.).

S.10(4-A)- Services of the respondent terminated, as he was chronic absentee, without taking leave - But no departmental enquiry held to prove the said misconduct - Meanwhile the society merged with another society - In the dispute, Labour Court held the termination to be illegal, unjustifiable and in violation of principles of natural justice and passed an award granting reinstatement with back wages against both Societies. - In the writ petition, the Single Judge upheld the Award passed by the Labour Court - In this writ appeal, Division Bench. held that award cannot be set aside as otiose merely because society against whom it is made, has since merged with another society, as award is against both societies who have to workout dispute between themselves.

Devanur Grama Seva Sahakari Sangh Limited, Devanur, Dharwad District v. Virupaxayya & Ors. 2002 I CLR 890 (Karn.H.C.).

Ss.10(5), 18(3), Reference - Power to add party - In this Writ, Petitioner challenged the allowing of the application of 37 workers of Central Warehousing Corporation, to be added as party to the Reference by the Tribunal - Held that it is not exclusive power of the appropriate Govt. - Tribunal has power to add party to the reference - Thereby the Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction.

Food Corporation of India, New Delhi & Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. 2002 I CLR 856 (Gau.H.C.).

S.11-A - Scope - Management terminated services of a workman without conducting disciplinary proceeding - Before the Labour Court, it applied u/s. 11-A of the Act to lead evidence to prove misconduct of the workman - Application to lead evidence, allowed - However, the Labour Court set aside the order of termination on the ground that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated - In this writ petition filed by the Management - Held that once petition u/s.11-A of the I.D. Act is allowed and parties let in evidence, Labour Court should adjudicate the dispute on the basis of such fresh evidence - In the instant case Labour Court failed to scrutinize and adjudicate upon the evidence led before it - Award passed by the Labour Court quashed - Matter remitted back to Labour Court for fresh disposal as indicated above.

G.M.M. Company Limited, St. Thomas Mount, Madras v. Labour Court (Second Additional Judge), Madras and Anr. 2002 I CLR 879 (Mad.H.C.).

S.11-A - Scope - Petitioner being found guilty of the misconduct (i.e. using of harsh language against the Personnel Officer) was dismissed from service - Before the Labour Court, he challenged the punishment of dismissal only on the ground that it was grossly disproportionate to the charge proved against him - Labour Court held that non-employment was justified, hence denied the relief of reinstatement but awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- - Crucial question in this writ, filed by the workman, challenging the said Award, is, whether, the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner, is justified or lesser punishment is warranted - Held that the capital punishment of dismissal is not warranted for an isolated incident, with all his past record clean - This Court itself can mould appropriate relief by modifying punishment.

Damodaran v. The Presiding Officer, Second Additional Labour Court, Madras and Anr. 2002 I CLR 899 (Mad.H.C.).

S.11-A - Termination of service for unauthorised absence - Labour Court held termination of respondent, who is Bus Conductor and who is T.B.Patient, to be illegal and directed his reinstatement with full back wages - Hence this petition in which the only dispute is whether award of back wages is proper - Held: The petitioner Corporation has not discharged its initial burden of proving why the normal relief of full back wages should not be granted to respondent on his reinstatement, and that Labour Court has rightly exercised its discretion and no interference is necessary.

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. v. Shri Namdeo Ramchandra Musale 2002 I CLR 1052 (Bom.H.C.).

Sec.11-A and Item 3 of Second Schedule - Appellant-workman, a Conductor chargesheeted for the misconduct of collecting fare, but non-issue of tickets, and on 24-1-1986 dismissed from service, on being found guilty of the said misconduct in the departmental enquiry - In the dispute raised by him, Labour Court found the charge against workman proved but using its discretion u/s.11-A of I.D. Act, set aside dismissal and directed reinstatement with back wages from 30-3- 1990 - In the Writ Petition filed by the KSRTC, the Learned Single Judge following the judgment of the Apex Court in KSRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti allowed the writ and set aside the award of the Labour Court - Hence this writ appeal - The Division Bench affirmed the view taken by the Learned Single Judge and held that award of the Labour Court is not sustainable in law - Once misconduct is proved against workman and employer has lost confidence in him, Labour Court was not right in awarding the relief of reinstatement in the exercise of its discretionary power.

E. Gurumurthy v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore 2002 I CLR 886 (Karn.H.C.).

S.12(3) - Settlement as a result of conciliation proceedings - In terms of this settlement, platinum jubilee pension scheme is framed providing for life pension to workers retiring on or after 24-8-1986 - Exclusion of retirees prior to 24-8-1986 resulted in referring the said point for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal - Tribunal held against the union by holding that those who retired prior to 24-8-1986 are not entitled to benefit under platinum jubilee pension scheme - High Court confirmed the same and hence this appeal to Supreme Court - While justifying the award and holding settlement and the platinum jubilee pension scheme to be valid, it is observed that there is nothing which is palpably unjust or irrational in giving the benefit only to those who retired during and after platinum jubilee year, that adjudicator of industrial dispute could not have directed the benefit to be extended to all the retired employees by substituting its own views to those reflected in the settlement, on an application of usual principles governing industrial adjudication, and that no legal infirmity is found in the award.

I.T.C. Ltd. Workers Welfare Association and Anr. v. The Management of I.T.C. Ltd. & Ors. 2002 I CLR 965 (S.C.).

S.17-B - An Award passed against the appellant to offer a job to the workman, which the appellant did not do - But appellant applied for stay of operation of Award, which was passed on certain conditions by a Single Judge - The appellant management challenges the impugned order in this writ appeal, claiming that the workman did not take any initiative and did not report for duty - Division Bench held that in the facts of the case (i) the appellant did not issue any letter making its offer of reinstatement to the workman; (ii) Appellant is bound to comply with the directions of the Court issued u/s.17-B of the Act; (iii) Employer has to file an affidavit and establish that the employee who had been given the benefit of S.17-B of the Act, is employed somewhere else and has disentitled himself from obtaining the benefit - Thus the Division Bench modified the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. 933 (Del.H.C.).

S.25-F - Termination - Respondent Umang Sharma, a workman of MECON, was terminated from service allegedly without complying with S.25-F of the I.D. Act - Termination held to be illegal for non-compliance of S.25-F of I.D. Act - In this writ petition filed by the Management, it was held that the specific plea of non-compliance of S.25-F of the I.D. Act was not raised - Hence no record to suggest that one month's notice/salary and retrenchment compensation in terms of S.25-F was not offered - Impugned order was bad in law and hence set aside.

Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 2002 I CLR 914 (Jhar.H.C.).

S.33-C(2) - Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226 - The petitioner joined as Audit Clerk with the respondent, eventually passed his examination of Chartered Accountants and was promoted in the grade applicable to CA.- Filed an application claiming computation of wages and difference of salary-Labour Court dismissed his claim, stating that it was outside the ambit and scope of S.33-C(2)-In this writ, the petitioner challenges the impugned order - Held that in the instant case there is no pre- existing right or adjudication or benefit of which the petitioner may seek enforcement u/s. 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act - Order of the Labour Court upheld.

Shri Basant Lal v. The Management of M/s. A.F. Ferguson & Co. and Anr. 2202 I CLR 990 (Del.H.C.).

S.33-C(2) - In this petition the submission is that Labour Court has no power to order stay of recovery proceedings conditional on depositing 50% of amount held due - Rejecting the submission it is held that Labour Court was within its jurisdiction as well as powers vested in it to order conditional stay.

Heena Restaurant & Ors. v. Madhukar M. Dewadiga & Ors. 2002 I CLR 950 (Bom.H.C.).

S.33-C(2) - Jurisdiction of Labour Court to grant lay-off compensation- Respondent company employing more than 100 workmen - Workmen laid-off without Government's permission - It is held that the right to claim compensation for illegal lay-off is rooted in the Statute itself and therefore the question of ousting the jurisdiction of Labour Court under S.33-C(2) does not arise.

Jasbir Kaur Dhaliwal v. NEPC Airlines, Madras & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1076 (Bom.H.C.).

S.33-C(2) - Labour Court allowed exparte claims of respondents - Petitioners filed this petition to get exparte order set aside alleging that from 1.5.1999 they had given restaurant for running to one Vikramsing - Considering that aspect it is observed that Labour Court may hear the application on merits provided petitioners pay to the workmen the amounts claimed for the period prior to 1-5-99 within 4 weeks and deposit the sum payable to workman for the subsequent period.

Heena Restaurant & Ors. v. Madhukar M. Dewadiga & Ors. 2002 I CLR 950 (Bom.H.C.).

S.33-C(2) - Respondent workman filed writ petition against order of termination of his service and obtained an interim order of stay of termination - Pending writ petition, he claimed his salary and other dues under S.33-C(2) from the date of interim order which is allowed and hence this petition wherein the contention is that during pendency of writ petition on the strength of stay order, the amount of salary cannot be paid under S.33-C(2) of the Act - While holding that Labour Court has committed no error, much less error of law, in allowing the application under S.33-C(2), it is observed that there being no dispute with regard to quantum of amount claimed and the order of termination being stayed by Court, respondent workmen is entitled to salary and other allowances so long as interim order is in operation.

State of U.P. & Anr. v. Labour Court 1st Meerut & Anr. 2002 I CLR 1085 (All.H.C.).

Sec. 33-C(2) & (4) Suspension of a workman pending enquiry - Subsistence allowance paid for the said period at 50% of wages - Workman's claim for full wages during suspension period, refused by the Management - Labour Court allowed the application filed by the workman u/s. 33-C(2) of the Act - Hence this writ petition by the Management - Held that (i) in the absence of provision in contract of service, claim for suspension on payment of less than full wages as subsistence allowance, is enforceable; (ii) employer's power to suspend employee, in the sense of directing employee not to do service required of him during particular period, is implied in every contract of service, but power is to suspend employee and not to suspend the contract of service, which subsists during suspension (of an employee); (iii) where contract of service does not provide for suspension on payment of subsistence allowance, employee is entitled to be paid full wages for the period of suspension - There is no infirmity in the impugned order.

Management of Majestic Exhibitors, Bangalore v. Muthyalu 2002 I CLR 1091 (Karn.H.C.).

Sections 39, 25-L(b), 25-O - Effect of delegation of power - In the instant case, the powers of Central Government in respect of certain specified undertaking (owned by the Central Government) delegated to State Government by a Notification - held that delegation never denudes the delegation of its power - Central Government still remains `appropriate Government' - Delegation of certain powers cannot substitute Central Government and State Govt. can never be appropriate Government of that industry - It is open to Central Government to exercise its power for grant of approval.

RIC Workers & Employees Union, W.B. and Others v. Union of India 2002 I CLR 910 (Cal.H.C.).

Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 - Rule 26-A - Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 226 - Respondents working with the petitioner, were terminated - In the industrial disputes, as petitioner remained absent, Labour Court passed ex parte awards in favour of the Respondents, granting relief of reinstatement with back wages - Restoration applications filed by the petitioner to get set aside the ex parte awards, dismissed in default of the petitioner - Applications filed by petitioner to restore those Applications (to get set aside ex parte awards) dismissed by the Labour Court, on the ground that there is no provision for restoration of such applications - The petitioner in these Special Civil Applications, challenges those impugned orders dt. 9.12.1987, dismissing the restoration applications for the restoration (original) applications to set aside the ex parte awards - Held: that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Grindlays Bank v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, the view taken by Labour Court in rejecting the applications for restoration of application for setting aside the ex parte awards, is erroneous and hence set aside.

Taluka Development Officer v. Dhurabhai Virabhai Vankar 2002 I CLR 1019 (Guj.H.C.).

Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 - Sec. 70(2)(d)- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.10(4-A) - Termination of services of the employee of the Cooperative Society - On the issue of jurisdiction, the Division Bench following the Apex Court, held that when a question of employment arises, it cannot be held that the doors of Labour Court are shut - Labour Court has the jurisdiction.

Devanur Grama Seva Sahakari Sangh Limited, Devanur, Dharwad District v. Virupaxayya & Ors. 2002 I CLR 890 (Karn.H.C.).

Lien- Appellant teacher in St. Ann's High School joined Navodaya Vidyalaya on 23-11-91 for two years - He was repatriated on 11- 11-93 but he was not taken back in service in St. Ann's High School on the ground that his lien was upto 6-10-93 on which date period of deputation was over - Supreme Court while setting aside High Court's order held that lien was commensurate with deputation which came to an end on 11-11-93 and as such St. Ann's High School is directed to take back the appellant in its employment but appellant will not be entitled to back wages.

K. Phani Ramesh v. Dy. Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya & Ors. 2002 I CLR 985 (S.C.).

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971- Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice under Item 1 of Sch. IV - Petitioner's service is terminated which according to petitioner is punitive - Pending complaint his application for interim relief to get subsistence wages is dismissed by Labour Court which order is sustained by Industrial Court - Hence this petition - Defence is that at the time of termination respondent has paid Rs.1,19,402.42 p to the petitioner - Held: Ex-facie it appears that the order of termination is discharge simplicitor, that petitioner has received handsome amount as legal dues and in the circumstances the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Sidhanath Bhanudas Ghodke v. Excel Industries Ltd. 1059 (Bom.H.C.).

Item 1 of Schedule IV - Respondent gave a chargesheet for misconduct to the petitioner against which petitioner filed complaint aforesaid - As per order of High Court, parties led evidence before Labour Court as if it was holding enquiry in respect of chargesheet and held misconduct proved - On that basis respondent dismissed the petitioner - In this writ petition High Court, while dismissing the petition, held that there is no perversity in the impugned orders of the Courts below, there is no violation of principles of natural justice as the enquiry was held by the Labour Court and as such no interference is necessary with the impugned orders.

Y. Rajan v. The Indian National Press (Bombay) Limited 2002 I CLR 1057 (Bom.H.C.).

Item 3 of Sch IV- Transfer from one employer to other - Petitioner Hindoostan Mills is Respondent No. 6 in W. P. No.1603/99 while Petitioner ECK Haubold Co. in W.P. No. 1603/99 is respondent No.6 in W.P. No. 1079 of 1999- Respondents Nos. 1 to 5 are workmen in both petitions who claim to be employees of ECK Haubold Co.- These employees are working in Calendar Bowl Department of ECK Haubold Co. which is run on agency basis by Hindoostan Co.- Hindoostan Co. transferred them to other departments of the said company and hence they filed complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 3 of Sch. IV of the Act- Industrial Court allowed the complaint after holding that said workmen are employees of ECK Haubold Co.- Hence these petitions- High Court upheld the finding of Industrial Court that respondents No.1 to 5 are employees of ECK Haubold Co., that complaint was maintainable and that transfer of employees amounted transfer from one employer to another.

Hindoostan Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. v. Sharad G. Khanolkar & Ors. 2002 I CLR 999 (Bom.H.C.).

Item 9 of Sch. IV - Birth date - Correction - Superannuation - Petitioner's birth year recorded in his service record to be 1935 and also in leave card - He was sought to be retired on that basis - He made representation and then filed complaint of unfair labour practice - Industrial Court did not accept school and leaving certificate showing birth date to be 30-7-47 and dismissed complaint except that he shall be retired at the end of year 1998 - In this petition, High Court observed that law is well settled that birth date cannot be sought to be corrected at the fag end of service, that there is no infirmity in the impugned order and the same needs no interference.

Indrabali Ramnihor Yadav v. Phoenix Mills Ltd. & Anr. 2002 I CLR 1054 (Bom.H.C.).

Item 9 of Sch.IV - Maintainability of complaint, as regards termination of service, in Industrial Court - It is held in this case that Industrial Court has no jurisdiction to try a complaint in which the only grievance is wrongful termination and that substantive complaint can be entertained only by the Labour Court as it relates to a matter provided in Item 1 of Sch. IV of the Act.

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Noshir Elavia & Anr. 2002 I CLR 953 (Bom.H.C.).

Preliminary Issue - Maintainability of Complaint - Relying on the decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola 2001 II CLR 380, Labour Court held that issue as to maintainability of complaint shall be decided with the main complaint - Hence this petition - Held that decision in the case of Hindustan Coca Cola is no longer good law in as much as the same is set aside by the Division Bench in appeal. Hence Labour Court's order is set aside.

Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. S.V. Hinge & Ors. 2002 I CLR 921 (Bom.H.C.).

Regularisation - Petitioner/Appellant appointed on number of occasions, on temporary basis, terminated on 15-3-1993, though his earlier writ petition was pending - Four years thereafter with permission, he withdrew that writ petition and filed the present writ petition, challenging the impugned termination order - Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that termination was proper - In this Special Appeal the Division Bench held that the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, shows that the petitioner did not appear for screening test inspite of an intimation and suppressed this material fact, which was required to be disclosed in the writ petition - Non- disclosure of material and important fact is sufficient for the Court to dismiss the writ petition - No fault can be found with such termination order.

Ramchandra Jati v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2002 I CLR 996 (Raj.H.C.).

A.P. (Regulation of Appointments to Public Services and Rationalisation of Staff Pattern and Pay Structure) Act 1994 Executive Instructions - G.O.Ms. 212, dated 22-4-1994, prescribing certain guidelines for regularisation of services of temporary employees of State Government, not applicable to employees engaged by the Secretariat of State Legislative Assembly - In the instant case, petitioners appointed purely on temporary basis as Typists, worked as such for number of years, with intermittent artificial breaks - In this writ petition they are seeking regularisation of their services from the dates of their initial engagement, with all consequential benefits - Held that (i) these appointments were made for few days initially; (ii) appointments were not made under any Recruitment Rules; (iii) These appointments were made not against any vacancies of posts, but made due to exigencies of work load - In this background no mandamus can be issued to regularise their services - However directions are given to evolve an appropriate scheme for their regular absorption in suitable posts.

G.R.V. Vidya Sagar and Others v. Govt of A.P., Finance and Planning Dept. and Anr. 2002 I CLR 1095 (A.P.H.C.)

Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers (Reservation of Vacancies) - Rules 1971 Executive Orders dt. 10-11-1986 and clarificatory order dated 8-5-87 - Clarificatory order provides that person joining before 28-1-74 in public sector undertaking would be entitled to count his previous military service for seniority - Question is whether date 28-1-74 is arbitrary - It is held that Rules themselves were in force till 28-1-1974 and hence those joining public sector undertakings after 28-1-1974 cannot take advantage and count their service in army for seniority.

Y. Chandrahas Reddy v. Government of India & Anr. 2002 I CLR 925 (S.C.).

Resignation - When can be withdrawn - Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 - S.19 - Central Bank of India Service Regulations, 1979, Regn. 20 - Petitioner working with respondent Bank - due to some domestic circumstances wanted his transfer from Bharatpur to Jaipur on compassionate grounds - Request not granted by the respondent - Narrating all the circumstances, the petitioner submitted resignation on 6-4-1992, stating that he was forced to resign - By letter dt. 26-6-1992 he withdrew his resignation - After seeking his explanation for his absence, respondent Bank informed the acceptance of his resignation, by a letter dt. 2-12-1992 and rejection of his request to withdraw his resignation letter - In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned order - Held that in the facts of the case, resignation cannot be said to be voluntary - As per law laid down by apex Court, employee can withdraw his resignation before it is accepted by the employer - Even documents relied putting certain conditions before resignation could be accepted i.e. deposit 3 months pay, which was not done by the employee - Hence it cannot be said that resignation of the employee was accepted in accordance with the provisions of law.

N.L. Gothwal v. Central Bank of India 2002 I CLR 918 (Raj.H.C.).

Retirement - Voluntary - Right to withdraw option - On 18-10-1995 appellant applied for Voluntary retirement under scheme - On 30-7-1997, management accepted offer with a condition that `release memo along with details particulars would follow' - Appellant withdrew his option by two letters yet he was relieved on 26-9- 1997 - His writ petition and writ appeal are dismissed - Supreme Court, while allowing the appeal and granting consequential benefits, observed that in view of settled position of law and the terms of the letter of acceptance, the appellant had locus poenitentiae to withdraw his proposal for voluntary retirement before relationship of employer and employee came to an end.

Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India Ltd. & Anr. 2002 I CLR 1044 (S.C.).

Retrenchment - Burden of Proof - Workman asserts to have worked for 240 days - Employer denies - Question is on whom is the burden of proof - Supreme Court, while setting aside award of Tribunal, held that since it was the claim of respondent - workman that he had worked for 240 days which was denied by the Management, it was for the respondent - workman to lead evidence to show that he had in fact worked for 240 days in a year preceding his termination and that filing of affidavit cannot be said to be sufficient evidence.

Range Forest Officer v. S.T. Hadimani 2002 I CLR 922 (S.C.).

Reversion - Appellant was appointed as T-mate along with others on 1.1.1969 - Promoted as work-charged Lineman in 1970 and as ad hoc Lineman from 3.4.1979 - On complaints he was reverted as assistant Line-man - His writ petition came to be dismissed and hence this appeal wherein submission is that others who joined with him are appointed Line-man with effect from 17.12.1997 and as such he should at least be appointed as Lineman from date - Hence this appeal to Supreme Court - While setting aside impugned order of High Court and accepting submission of the appellant, it is directed that appellant be reverted as Lineman w.e.f. 17.12.1997 and be accorded all benefits flowing from the same.

Laxmi Chand v. Haryana Vidyut Prashar Nigam Ltd. & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1086 (S.C.).

Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 - Sec. 45(2)(C) - Karnataka S.R.T.C. Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations, Regulation 25 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.11-A and Item 3 of the Second Schedule - Penalty for misconduct - In the instant case, the Learned Single Judge on examining admitted facts and past conduct of the appellant- Conductor, justified the action of termination of services of the appellant-Conductor by the Management - Division Bench approved the view taken by Learned Single Judge, and held that in the imposition of penalty for the misconduct proved, the past conduct of the delinquent is a relevant consideration, as provided in the Regulation.

E. Gurumurthy v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Bangalore 2002 I CLR 886 (Karn.H.C.).

Suspension - Petitioner placed under suspension by order dt. 28.4.2001 - He challenges the same and claims revocation on ground that he was not given chargesheet within 6 months as is required under G.O. dt. 31.3.1984 - It is held that suspension is on account of serious allegations of financial irregularities, that Government Order is only directory and not mandatory and as such there is no substance in the prayer for quashing or revocation of suspension order. However direction is given to issue chargesheet within 3 weeks.

Asha Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1081 (All.H.C.).

Termination - Respondent workman terminated, for being found guilty of serious misconduct i.e. remaining absent from duty by the enquiry officer - In the writ petition, Learned Single Judge held termination to be invalid as respondent being a chronic patient of asthma, his absence was not without sufficient reason - In this writ appeal, the Division Bench, upholding the view taken by the Learned Single Judge observed that there was sufficient reason for respondent not to attend his duties - No proper appreciation of evidence on record by the petitioner - appellant - Order of dismissal cannot be sustained.

Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Sri Khogen Bouri & Ors. 2002 I CLR 884 (Cal.H.C.).

Validity and legality of - Gujarat Panchayat Act 1961, Ss.102, 203, 293(1) - Petitioner initially appointed as Water Tax Recovery Clerk, eventually was appointed as Accountant with Dhari Gram Panchayat - After Dhari Gram Panchayat was converted to Dhari Nagar Panchayat, on 27.3.1987, on the basis of an order of District Development Officer dt. 26.3.87, it passed the impugned order, under which petitioner came to be reverted from the post of Accountant to the post of Clerk - In this Spl. C.A. the petitioner challenges the same as unconstitutional and contrary to the Government Orders, resolutions and rules - Held that the Additional Development Commissioner had rightly come to the conclusion that Dhari Nagar Panchayat did not have power under S.102 of the Act to bifurcate the post - Appointment given to the petitioner on the said post was not in accordance with law - and action of Nagar Panchayat was unconstitutional and contrary to the Government Orders, resolutions and rules - thus held that the impugned order is not illegal or contrary to the provisions of law.

Kirankumar H. Ruperelia v. State of Gujarat 2002 I CLR 987 (Guj.H.C.).

Termination of Service - During probation - Appellant was appointed on probation for two years - Her service was terminated before end of probation period - The question is whether termination was penal as contended by the appellant - Following the decision in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. M.S., it is held in the negative and appeal is dismissed.

Shailaja Shivajirao Patil v. President Hon. Khasdar UGS Sanstha & Ors. 2002 I CLR 949 (S.C.).

Ground being illegality in whole recruitment process - Respondent was appointed in 1996 and his service was terminated along with others as stated above - Central Administrative Tribunal allowed his application on the ground that general allegation of irregularity was not sufficient for termination and also because opportunity of hearing was not given to him - In this appeal Supreme Court set aside impugned judgment following the decision in the case of Krishna Yadav (1994 II CLR 600 SC) after holding that cancellation of the whole selection by Railway Board was proper and in such a case, it was neither possible nor necessary to issue individual show cause notices.

Union of India & Ors. v. O. Chakradhar 2002 I CLR 975 (S.C.).

Of Probationer-Service of petitioners, Judge of City Civil Court on probation, is terminated - Petitioner submits that termination is stigmatic inasmuch as the order states that he was "incompetent" to remain in service - Rejecting the submission it is held that the reason for termination was not petitioner's conduct and work was not found satisfactory and "incompetent to remain in service" does not mean that petitioner was incompetent.

Subhash Raghuvir Jaiswal v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2002 I CLR 1062 (Bom.H.C.).

Of Respondent - Labour Court held termination illegal and directed reinstatement and back wages - High Court confirmed the same - This appeal is admitted by Supreme Court limited to the question of back wages - Supreme Court modified the award of full back wages to 50% back wages.

Haryana Urban Development Authority v. Devi Dayal 2002 I CLR 1038 (S.C.).

Termination of lien - Principle of estoppel - Appellant was granted permission to go abroad for service for two years on condition that he returns within 2 years - He did not rejoin within two years - On challenge as to termination, it is held that the principle of estoppel clearly applies, appellant's lien automatically be regarded as terminated and High Court was right in dismissing his writ petition wherein he had challenged his termination.

Anil Bajaj (Dr.) v. Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research & Anr. 2002 I CLR 923

Termination held legal - Direction for reinstatement - Question is of continuity of service and arrears of salary - Supreme Court confirmed that the appellant will not be entitled to salary but as regard continuity of service, Supreme Court held the order being of reinstatement, appellant is continued to service.

Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors. 2002 I CLR 924 (S.C.).

Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams Service - T.T.D. Employees Service Rules 1989, Rule 14 - Transfer from one post to another - Respondent 20 in number appointed and eventually regularised as Mazdoors sought transfer from the post of Mazdoor to the post of Attender under Rule 14 - As their request was turned down, they filed writ petition, seeking the said transfer from Mazdoors to Attenders - Learned Single Judge allowed the said Writ Petition - Hence this Writ Appeal by T.T.D. Trust Board - Division Bench held that (i) employees of T.T.D. cannot seek a transfer from the post of Mazdoor to the post of Attender as a matter of course or as a matter of right; (ii) It is a matter within the domain of administrative power and discretion of TTD Administration - (iii) Rule 14 does not deal with transfer, deals with consequences of transfer of an employee in the last grade service from one category to another category vis-a-vis his seniority in the transferred category; (iv) Directions given by the learned single Judge in the writ petition, are not proper - D.B modified those directions - TTD directed to consider the request of employees, in its discretion having regard to exigencies and needs of service.

Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams Trust Board and Others v. Raghupathy Reddy and Others 2002 I CLR 1093 (A.P.H.C.)