MARCH, 2002
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 -
S.14(2) - Petitioner belongs to Department of Telecommunication - He was on deputation to MTNL - While on deputation to MTNL he was charged with irregularities and placed under suspension in view of pendency of criminal prosecution against him - He challenged suspension order before Central Administrative Tribunal but Tribunal held that it enjoyed no jurisdiction - Hence this writ petition - Held : Since Central Government had not issued any notification under S. 14(2) of the Act to apply provisions of S.14 (3) to MTNL, Central Administrative Tribunal was not vested with any jurisdiction to entertain any petition related to any service dispute in MTNL.
Ram Gopal Verma v. Union of India and Anr. 610 (Del.H.C.)
S.21 - Petitioner claims that his service for the period from 1-9-1974 to 25-8-76 as Sub-Overseer be treated as continuous service as Junior Engineer- Government informed him that only part of his service that is service from 1-8-1975 to 25-8-76 shall be treated as continuous service as Junior Engineer- This communication is dated 22-7-1982 - Thereafter the petitioner did nothing except making one or two representations - On 27-6-1994 he approached Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal with his grievance but the Tribunal held his claim to be barred by limitation - Hence this writ petition - Held: Petitioner moved the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in the year 1994 i.e. after 12 years of the communication of order dt.22-7-1982 which in fact gave rise to cause of action and in this backdrop the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in holding that the claim made by the Petitioner was grossly belated. Writ petition is therefore dismissed.
Shankar Digambar Poul v. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. 714 (Bom.H.C.)
As a Pharmacist on a contract basis for a fixed term till regular appointment was made - He sought for quashing of contractual agreement and declaration that he acquired temporary status in service and is entitled for all consequential benefits at par with permanent and regular employees - Employee not selected in the interview held by the employer - Employer - ONGC sought vacating of ad interim order passed in Spl.C.A. No.9381 of 2001 in the Civil Application No.2823 of 2001 - Held that agreement in question or any clause therein is not unfair or unreasonable - On termination of the contract, the service of the em- ployee comes to an end.
Group General Manager, O.N.G.C. Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Manilal Parmar and Anr. 746 (Guj.H.C.)
S.11(2) - B.S.F. Rules - Rules 22 and 177 - Dismissal under summary procedure - Petitioner dismissed from service for unauthorised absence in exercise of powers vested on respondents under S.11(2) of the Act read with Rules 22 and 177 - Petitioner contending that it was mandatory for respondents to conduct a
S. 19(A) of the Act - Held: The precondition for making out a case under S. 11 of the Act read with Rules 22 and 177 of the Rules have been satisfied and were complied with and the entire procedure as laid down therein was followed by respondents and no prejudice was caused to petitioner in any manner, and none was pointed out by him before the competent authority at any stage, and, therefore, no interference is called for the action of respondents.
Ranbir Singh (Ex. Constable) v. Union of India and Others 612 (Del.H.C.)
Rule 254(1) - Petitioner worked from 17-11-1955 till 31-3- 1974 on work charged basis and from 1-4-1974 till 31-4-1979 in substantive post on regular establishment - By notice dt. 6-12- 1979, petitioner sought voluntary retirement- Accordingly he was allowed to retire - Petitioner is not granted pension as he has not completed pensionable service- Hence this petition wherein claim is that voluntary retirement granted to him is not in accordance with Rules and in that event be continued in service till now and in any event respondent should have relaxed the period of minimum pensionable service and should have granted pension - Held: 1) It is not possible to accept the submission that resignation or retirement was not according to Rules of 1959 or that relationship of employer and employee continued between the parties; 2) Since petitioner has not completed minimum pensionable service provided under Rule 254(1), he is not entitled to pension, and (3) There being no express provision in Rules of 1959 which would authorise the respondent to relax minimum pensionable period, the Court cannot direct the respondent to do something which is not provided for by law.
Narayan Balkrishna Deshpande v. Pune Zilla Parishad & Anr. 736 (Bom.H.C.)
College Tribunal
Appeal against termination - College Tribunal rejected application for condonation of delay - In this writ petition, High Court, while setting aside order of Tribunal, held that delay of about 5 months has not accrued due to negligence on the part of petitioner but because he pursued his cause in a different forum and a wrong forum and that in the circumstances delay is condoned and the College Tribunal is directed to decide appeal on merits.
Ramesh Gajendra Jadhav v. Late Sambhajirao Garad Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Solapur & Others 775 (Bom.H.C.)
Art.16 - Denial of retiral benefits - Husband of the petitioner, Talati-cum-Mantri, died in 1997 while in service - He was under suspension but eventually reinstated in 1996 on his acquittal in criminal proceedings - Request of the petitioner for retiral benefits on account of past service of her husband, denied, though no final order was passed against the employee at the time of his death - In this Writ, - held that widow is entitled to all pensionary benefits.
Kasuben v. State of Gujarat and Others 821 (Guj.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - S.19 - Jurisdiction in respect of service matter - Petitioner is Judicial Member of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - His services are governed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Members (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rule 1963 - As per clause 8 a member shall be member of General Central Service Class I - Petitioner was placed under suspension by Respondent No. 1 by an order dt. 20-3-2001 under Rule 10(1) of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965 - Petitioner challenges this order by this writ petition - Preliminary objection on behalf of respondents is that petitioner has to first approach the Central Administrative Tribunal as Administrative Tribunals Act gives exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and redress the grievance of the petitioner and as such writ petition in the first instance is not maintainable - Held: In view of the judgments of A.P. High Court in writ petition No. 29162 of 1998 and of Supreme Court in the case of. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India 1997 I CLR 778,preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of writ petition is upheld and this writ petition is not maintainable as this Court is not Court of first instance in respect of service matters.
Abdul Razack, Judicial Member, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur v. Union of India & Others 631 (Bom.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Appointment on Compassionate grounds - Roshan Khan, father of the petitioner an employee of the respondent, died in harness - Petitioner sought service on compassionate grounds on attaining the age of 18 years i.e. 8 years after his father's death - His prayer rejected by the respondent - His writ petition was dismissed by the Single Judge - In this Letters Patent Appeal the Division Bench held that (i) nobody has any fundamental or statutory right to claim employment on compassionate grounds; (ii) the right for an appointment on compassionate ground exists on the date on which cause of action arises i.e. an employee dies in harness - leaving the family in penury without means of livelihood; (iii) though the petitioner was a minor when his father died, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge, need not be interfered with.
Veer Mohd v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi 665 (Del.H.C.)
Art.226 - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 - Secs. 74, 75 - Petitioners employers filed these writ petitions, raising the questions as to the applicability of the provisions of ESI Act to their units and their liability to pay their share of contributions under the Act, by reason of purchase of establishments/machinery in an auction held by A.P.State Financial Corporation - Held that writ petitions are not maintainable in view of the remedies available to them before ESI Court under the Act.
Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Others v. Dy. Tahsildar/Special Revenue Inspector (ESI), Recovery Cell and Others 658 (A.P.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.33-C(2) - Scope of writ jurisdiction when an award (of Labour Court under S.33-C(2) is a nullity - If the Labour Court itself can refuse implementation of an award when it is a nullity, then it cannot be contended that the High Court would be without jurisdiction to refuse relief on the ground of nullity - In order to exercise jurisdiction it has to examine the question of nullity and thus High Court's jurisdiction cannot be said to be more limited than that of the Labour Court in case nullity is complained.
Arun Kr. Ghosh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 564 (Cal.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S. 11-A - Adequacy of punishment imposed - In the instant case, the petitioner driver found in drunken state in the Driver's rest seat, after his turn of driving the bus was over and he was not to drive the said bus further in the course of journey - Doctor who had examined him, not examined - Medical Certificate not produced - held that punishment of removal from service found to be disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct held proved - Respondent No.2 directed to reinstate the petitioner, with continuity of service, but without backwages.
P. Rajanna v. Labour Court, Godavarikhani and Anr. 655 (A.P.H.C.)
Art.226 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - S.10(3) - Petitioner-Corporation declared lock-out, in the background of go-slow tactics resorted to by the workers - Petitioner sought the reference of entire dispute, with the workmen, to the Industrial Tribunal - Respondent No.1 re-ferred to the Tribunal only the question of entitlement of wages of the workmen, and not relating to legal propriety to the lock-out - In this writ petition by the Corporation, both the parties agreed to quash the said reference - Respondent No.1 directed to draw up fresh order of Reference after hearing parties on all the questions between the parties.
Maya Export Corporation v. Secretary (Labour) and Others 661 (Del.H.C.)
Art.226 - Labour Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement, as he was found drunk and in unconscious condition as a driver, in the departmental enquiry held against him - In this writ petition, held that no reply was given by him to the 2nd show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, after recording adverse finding - no mala fides attributed against witnesses examined in support of charge - There is nothing to conclude that finding of misconduct recorded, is not supported by any legal evidence - Nor does it suffer from vice of perversity -
Hence misconduct held proved.
CLR I (H.C.A.P.)...655
Art.226 - Order of transfer of petitioner challenged on the ground of mala fides - Held that mala fides are to be pleaded in specific terms by specific averments - in the instant case, pleadings are as vague as it could be.
S. John Britto v. The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District and Ors. 693 (Mad.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Locus and laches - Petitioner's mother died in harness - Her husband (Petitioner's father) filed application to receive gratuity in 1979 but no action was taken by employer - Petitioner's father took no further action - Petitioner filed application to receive the same - Ultimately he filed this writ petition - In the circumstances set out above, the writ petition is dismissed in as much as the petitioner has no locus to file this petition and further the petitioner is guilty of laches.
Mahesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. 757 (All.H.C.)
Art. 226 - Punishment - Petitioner-Manager found guilty of misconduct by the Enquiry Officer - The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings and issued the order of penalty of demotion of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager at the lowest grade and recovery of Rs.50,000/- as token compensation for the loss caused to the Corporation by the petitioner - Appeal preferred by the petitioner, rejected by the Appellate Authority - Hence this Writ Petition - High Court held that : i) Under Art.226 High Court is not an appellate authority, as its jurisdiction in the matter relating to departmental enquiries is very limited; ii) Record of enquiry proves and establishes that the charge levelled against petitioner cannot be said to be false and baseless, as alleged by him; iii) It cannot be held that the order of disciplinary authority is not a speaking order, as it is not required to give detailed reasons, particularly when it agrees with the findings of the enquiry officer; iv) In the absence of specific circumstances raised by the petitioner, it cannot be inferred that the enquiry officer was biased against him; v) On the issue of defence assistant- Sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner in the enquiry proceedings - Petitioner did not cooperate with the enquiry officer and proceeded to defend himself.
Roshan Lal v. Union of India & Others 764 (Del.H.C.)
Arts. 16, 226 - Regularisation - The two sweepers employed on contract basis by the petitioner,claimed that they were doing work of cleaning toilets - a work of regular nature - raised disputes about their non-employment from 10-1-1990 - Labour Court accepted their case and passed an award for reinstatement with monetary benefits - In this writ petition filed by the management, challenging the said award of the Labour Court, it was held that where cleaning of toilets is for the benefit of officers and staff of the management, the said work is of a regular nature - Order of Labour Court directing reinstatement with services monetary benefits is proper.
Pandiyan Roadways Corporation Limited, represented by its Managing Director, Madurai v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and Ors. 767 (Mad.H.C.)
Arts. 226, 229(2) - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Question of pay Scales of Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants, and Personal Secretaries to Hon'ble Judges of High Court - Claim for parity with Pay Scale of P.A. to Chief Secretary and Additional Chief Secretary - High Court having granted claim this appeal by special leave - Held: Following the decision of Supreme Court Employees' Association v. Union of India 1989 (4) SCC 187, it is held that it is difficult to sustain the impugned judgment, whereunder the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Art. 226 has issued the mandamus, directing a particular pay scale to be given to the Court Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal Secretaries attached to Hon'ble Judges of the Court. It is further held that the doctrine of `equal pay for equal work' is an equitable principle but it would not be appropriate for the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Art. 226 to examine the nature of work discharged by staff attached to
Hon'ble Judges of the Court and direct grant of any particular pay scale to such employees, as that would be a matter for the learned Chief Justice within his jurisdiction under Art. 229(2) of the Constitution.
State of Maharashtra v. Association of Court Stenos, P.A, P.S. & Anr. 781 (S.C.)
Art.226 - Transfer - Guidelines issued by the Church for transfer of teachers from one Institution to other institution - Whether have any legal force - Petitioner herein challenges his transfer to other institution, claiming it to be in contravention of Cl. 7.04 of the Constitution of Archdiocesan Board of Education - Held that the guidelines are executive instructions not having statutory force - non-compliance of the guidelines would not vitiate order of transfer.
S. John Britto v. The Chief Educational Officer, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District and Ors. 693 (Mad.H.C.)
Art.311 - In the instant case services of the probationer terminated as not found upto the mark, during the period of probation by the Screening Committee - In the Writ, Single Judge held the termination, illegal - In this Writ Appeal, held that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in H.F. Sangati v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, and in the absence of allegations of mala fide, view taken by Single Judge is not correct.
Rajasthan Shikshan Prashikshan Vidyapeth Samiti, Jaipur v. State of Rajasthan and Another 820 (Raj.H.C.)
Art. 311 - Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal Act, 1972 - S.2(h) - Civil Post- What it is? - Petitioner, a part time sweeper, seeks quashing of the order of the G.C.S. Tribunal, under which his prayer to be treated as a `specified Government servant' with consequential benefits, was rejected - In this writ, held that all those employees serving under a State cannot be deemed as holding a Civil Post - Persons irregularly appointed, working only for a few hours in a day, cannot be deemed to be holding a Civil Post - The Tribunal rightly held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief.
B.R. Shah v. Collector, Bharuch & Another 727 (Guj.H.C.)
Art.311(2) - Respondent rejected petitioner's application for voluntary retirement on 1.4.1984, and issued chargesheet dated 25.10.1985 for enquiry - Petitioner dismissed from service with effect from 28.8.1986, enquiry not held as the petitioner joined political party and worked as General Secretary - In this writ petition, petitioner challenges impugned order of dismissal - Held that the reasons given for not holding departmental enquiry, are not sufficient - In the absence of the petitioner, the enquiry could have been conducted ex parte - impugned order quashed.
Chiranji Lal v. State of Haryana and Another 679 (P.&H.H.C.)
Arts.311(2), 226 - Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980 - Dismissal - Petitioners dismissed on a charge of misconduct i.e. committing gang rape on a woman - Discharged by the trial Magistrate, on the charge of rape, for want of prima facie evidence - Petitioners filed OA, seeking quashing of dismissal order in view of Rule 12 of Delhi Police (P&A) Rules, 1980 - Tribunal dismissed the same on a finding that Rule 12 was not applicable to the petitioner - Said order of the Tribunal challenged in this writ petition -
Held that (i) Rule 12 does not contemplate an order of a discharge in a criminal case at all, (ii) `Order of discharge' can by no definition be equated with an `Order of acquittal' in a Criminal Case and synonymous; (iii) Rule 12 envisages both trial and acquittal as an aftermath of order of discharge - Hence held that order of discharge in a criminal case does not amount to an order of acquittal and that provisions of Rule 12 which could have the consequence of barring a punishment to the delinquent employees on the same charge subject to satisfying the requirements of this Rule.
Daya Nand & Anr. v. Commissioner of Police & Ors. 662 (Del.H.C.)
CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972
Rule 48-A (4) - Voluntary Retirement - Proviso - Respondent, Chief Telephone Supervisor, by letter dated 2-8-1999 informed General Manager her intention to retire voluntarily from service with effect from 20-9-1999 - but by a letter dated 14.9.1999 she withdrew her earlier letter of voluntary retirement - Her request for withdrawal of her 1st letter, rejected - Relieved from duty on 3-11-1999 - Central Administrative Tribunal held it to be illegal rejection of her letter of withdrawal of voluntary retirement - Held in this Writ Petition as per Rules one has to give notice to allow her to retire from the date of completion of period of 3 months or as early as possible - She withdrew the letter of voluntary retirement before the expiry of 3 months - Rejection of such a request held bad in law and also contrary to Rule 48-A(4) of the Rules and hence she is entitled to be continued in service till the date of her superannuation - further observed that the Government-employer is at liberty to initiate departmental action against employee for lapses, if any.
General Manager, Telecom District, Eluru and Ors. v. N. Lalithamma 573 (A.P.H.C.)
Departmental Examination (Written)
Held by Respondent No. 2 Chief Executive Officer of Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal - Petitioners were declared successful - However on some complaints, respondent no. 2 cancelled Departmental Examination which order is impugned by the petitioners - Held: In the absence of any specific allegation that the petitioners are either involved in using unfair means in the examination or responsible for committing irregularities in the examination, the cancellation of the said examination, without conducting enquiry by Respondent No. 2 on the basis of the complaints received by him, has rendered the impugned order unsustainable in law and is quashed - It is further ordered that Respondent No. 2 is entitled to consider complaints received by him in the enquiry and pass necessary order one way or other in this regard.
Panchkala Abhiman Lokhande & Others v. The Collector, Yavatmal & Another 628 (Bom.H.C.)
Disciplinary Proceeding
Habitual absenteeism - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- S.11-A- Petitioner was employee of respondent no.1 - He was given chargesheet for habitual unauthorized absenteeism and after enquiry he was dismissed from service - On reference, Labour Court held enquiry to be not fair and proper and allowed employer to lead evidence- On consideration of evidence Labour Court held the misconduct proved and dismissal of petitioner justified and hence this writ petition - Upholding the award of the Labour Court, it is observed that it would be travesty of justice to saddle the employer with the service of workman who has been remaining habitually absent and has been issued 35 memos from the time of appointment and therefore the contention on behalf of employee that Labour Court had erred in exercise of its jurisdiction under S.11-A cannot be accepted.
Ratnakar Samuel Gaikwad v. J.G. Glass Industries Ltd., Pune & Anr. 590 (Bom.H.C.)
Doctrine of Necessity
Chairman & Managing Director as a Disciplinary Authority is of Chairman of the Board and hence his presiding over Board Meeting for considering appellant's appeal is not improper in view of doctrine of necessity - It is held that there is no merit in the submission in view of the meaning of Board under Rule 3(d) of company's Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules.
Amar Nath Chowdhury v. Braithwaite and Company Ltd. & Ors. 786 (S.C.).
S.79 - Disciplinary Enquiry - Appellant-petitioner an Assistant Engineer with respondent remained absent from duty without leave for a long period - Charge-memo issued, later on withdrawn for technical reason, i.e. it was issued by an officer, who had no authority to issue the same - Fresh charge memo issued by competent authority under relevant Rules - it was held that it is permissible.
T. Rajendran v. The Chief Engineer Distribution/Madras Region and Special Officer for Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. 717 (Mad.H.C.)
S.79 - Dismissal - Petitioner, an Assistant Engineer, dismissed from service, as he was found guilty by the enquiry officer of the misconduct i.e. remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly for six months and thereafter leaving India, without permission of employer, probably to serve in some foreign country, in a totally unauthorised manner - His writ petition challenging the impugned order of dismissal, dismissed by the Single Judge - In this writ appeal, the Division Bench, while affirming the view taken by the Single Judge, held that the dismissal cannot be held to be improper, in view of the failure of the petitioner to prove that he had applied for leave and was absent from duty with permission - also held that his towering absent for about 3 years, cannot be viewed as a pardonable misconduct.
T. Rajendran v. The Chief Engineer Distribution/Madras Region and Special Officer for Distribution, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. 717 (Mad.H.C.)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) O.1.R.1, - Nominee - Palaniswamy Konar, the husband of the appellant, working with respondent No. 2 Mills, who died on 10.9.1976, had nominated his concubine as his successor for the benefits - As per the said nomination the amount of benefit was disbursed on 12.7.1977 to the nominee - Appellant, legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, filed suit against the respondent to recover the said amount of benefits, but did not implead the said nominee as a defendant - Suit dismissed - In this Appeal, High Court held that payment of benefit amounts to the nominee, was very well justified - Nominee received the amount on behalf of the legal representatives of the deceased - Since money had already been disbursed to the nominee, the nominee is a necessary party to the suit.
Varadakkal v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr. 770 (Mad.H.C.)
Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948
S.75 - Disputes raised by the employers about the applicability of the provisions of the Act to their Units and their liability to contribute the amount towards their share in these writ petitions - Division Bench held that such disputes are to be raised by employers themselves before the ESI Court and not by way of such writ petitions before the High Court - ESI Corporation need not approach the ESI Court for adjudication of the dispute.
Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Others v. Dy. Tahsildar/Special Revenue Inspector (ESI), Recovery Cell and Others 658 (A.P.H.C.)
Exgratia in lieu of pension
Scheme introduced by Respondent-Corporation in 1997 - Scheme provides exgratia relief in lieu of pension- It is provided to employees who retired from Corporation prior to 1986 and who are living on 1-11-1997- Scheme stipulates 20 years service prior to superannuation and not receiving pension from any source - Petitioner, an employee of Corporation who retired prior to 1986 is denied ex gratia under the scheme on the ground that he had completed 19 years and 7 days service prior to retirement - Hence this petition on the ground that when the Rules of Pension stipulates only 10 years service for pension, the requirement of 20 years service for similarly placed employees for relief under the scheme is arbitrary - The submission that the term of 20 years service is arbitrary is rejected after considering entire law on point summarised and crystallized in Supreme Court judgments and it is held that there is no injustice done to the petitioner by the denial of his claim for the grant of exgratia payment in the present petition.
Mahadeo Sankar Dhole v. Life Insurance Corporation of India Bombay & Ors. 712 (Bom.H.C.)
General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Officers) Scheme, 1985
Clause 1(2) - Came into force from 1-10-1983 - Writ petition challenges this cut-off dates as arbitrary as by doing so retirees prior to 1.10.1983 are discriminated - Dismissing the writ petition, it is held that on consideration of factors placed on record, it cannot be said that the cut-off date 1.10.1983 was selected in an arbitrary manner or that it was just selected out of a hat.
R.Y. Dhurandhar & Ors. v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance & Ors. 704 (Bom.H.C.)
Gratuity
Delayed payment - Interest awarded by State Govt. at 12% on delayed payment of gratuity amount - In this Spl.C.A. held that as per law laid down by Apex Court in 2000 II CLR 416 S.C. Employee is entitled to interest at 18% on delayed payment of gratuity - Further directions issued to recover the said amount of interest from the erring officers.
Suo Motu for B.K. Dudani v. State of Gujarat and Ors. 730 (Guj.H.C.)
House Rent Allowance
Payment of - To Government servants availing of Government accommodation - Petitioners, Junior and Senior Resident Doctors in hospitals run by Government of NCT of Delhi, claiming free furnished accommodation in addition to house rent allowance - They are seeking direction not to deduct house rent allowance from their salaries - Held: No Government servant availing of government accommodation can claim house rent allowance - Petitioners are also bound by the undertaking given by them at the time of allotment of free furnished accommodation that they would be entitled to house rent allowance only according to Rules.
Ajay Choudhary (Dr.) and Others v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Others 607 (Del.H.C.)
Delay and laches - The management, herein challenges the Award passed by Labour Court, reinstating the workman-2nd Respondent into service with backwages, whose services were terminated after being found guilty of serious misconduct in a departmental enquiry - Before Labour Court Management sought permission to lead evidence after 4 years delay - No averment in the counter-statement that it intend to lead evidence - Labour Court had denied the said opportunity to the management - In this writ petition, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, it was held that the management has not adduced sufficient reasons for the delay and as such Labour Court has rightly exercised its discretion by dismissing the application of the management.
Management of Easun Machine Tool Works, M.T.H. Road, Tirunintravur, Madras v. The Presiding Officer, IInd Additional Labour Court, Madras and Anr. 695 (Mad.H.C.)
Dismissal - for misconduct - Respondent secured employment fraudulently i.e. by producing forged school certificate - Held that employment given, as such, is liable to be recalled at the option of the employer - also held that fraud committed by the respondent disentitles him to any equitable relief.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. D. Narayanaswamy 751 (Karn.H.C.)
S.2(b) - Industrial Court passed an award by stating that reference stand `rejected' - Contention is that it is not an `award' at all - Held: The award passed by the Tribunal is on merits on consideration of evidence on record and thus it is an `award' as defined in S.2(b) of the Act.
Tata Consulting Engineers And Associates Staff Union v. Tata Consulting Engineers & Anr. 701 (Bom.H.C.)
Ss.2(k), 2(p) and 18 - Demands raised by Petitioner Union against respondent company referred for adjudication to Industrial Tribunal in November 1988 - There are two settlements between respondent company and other union or rival union namely V.V.F. Employees Union on 22.4.1988 and 1.6.1991 which cover the demands raised by Petitioner Union - There was one other settlement in 1995 - None of two unions is recognised union - Industrial Tribunal, in the reference of demands raised by petitioner, held the settlements between the respondent company with other union to be fair and reasonable and as such passed award in terms of the same - In this petition by Union against said award, High Court held that Industrial Tribunal, after applying correct test, held the settlements to be just and reasonable and as such the award of the Industrial Tribunal is required to be confirmed with modification that the award shall be in terms of settlements of 1988 and 1991 excluding Clause 9. Sarva Shramik Sangh v. V.V.F. Limited & Anr. 797 (Bom.H.C.)
S.2(oo), S.10 - Retrenchment - Respondent appointed accounts clerk in violation of eligibility criteria pertaining to age limit, terminated by a memo dt. 14.1.1998 - In dispute Labour Court held it to be termination, without compliance of S.25-F and directed reinstatement with full back-wages - In the writ petition, Single Judge agreed with the reasoning of Labour Judge, but with slight modification of restricting back-wages to the extent of 75% - In this writ appeal the Division Bench held that her appointment was per se void and illegal and as such termination of his service did not amount to `retrenchment' u/s.2(oo) of the I.D. Act.
Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bangalore and another 721 (Karn.H.C.)
S.10 - Petitioner-State challenges the Award passed by the Labour Court, wherein respondent was granted relief of reinstatement with lumpsum amount of Rs. 15,000 as backwages - In another writ petition by the workman, he seeks full backwages instead of the lumpsum backwages granted by the Labour Court - Held: that workman had succeeded in proving that he had completed continuous service of more than 240 days in a year - also held that delay in approaching the Court or making a reference cannot be used to decline the relief to the workman - Delay and laches has to be examined on the facts and circumstances of each case. Writ petition of State dismissed.
State of Punjab and Others v. Iqbal Singh and Another 678 (P.&H.H.C.)
S.10(1) - Delay in raising dispute - Refusal to refer dispute for adjudication on ground of delay of about 9 years - It is held that refusal is not valid in view of settled law and so far as delay is concerned relief particularly relating to back wages could be moulded.
Shafi Ahmed Sayyed Mohammed Guse Kadri v. Union of India and Anr. 811 (Bom.H.C.)
S.10(1) - Petitioner was clerk and then junior officer in respondent No.3 Bank - On termination of her service she raised dispute but appropriate Government refused to make reference on the ground that she was not able to establish convincingly that she is `workman' under the Act - Hence this petition - While allowing the petition, it is observed that the reasons given by the Government would tantamount to adjudication which is impermissible.
Leena Patade (Smt.) v. Union of India, Ministry of Labour & Others 778 (Bom.H.C.)
S.10(1) - Reference - Terms of - In the instant case the terms of reference as they are presently cast undoubtedly take within their sweep the entire dispute between the parties - And even if this is not so, it would be quite in order for the Industrial Tribunal to frame additional issues in conformity with the extant practice - So long as these issues are incidental to and flow out of the terms of reference, it would not tantamount to enlarging the scope of the reference or proceeding beyond it.
Mool Chand Kharati Ram Hospital & Ayurvedic Research Institute v. Secretary (Labour) Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Rajpur Road, Delhi & Ors. 617 (Del.H.C.)
S.10(1)(c) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, S. 3 - Domestic Enquiry - Respondent-driver chargesheeted for having obtained employment by producing fake document - Charge of misconduct proved - Respondent dismissed from service - In the dispute, Labour Court set aside the order of dismissal and passed an award granting reinstatement with 50% back wages, it held that Headmaster was not examined in person, who had issued the letter that the transfer certificate produced by delinquent-respondent, was not issued by his school, as it purports to be - In this writ petition filed by the Management - held that technical rules of evidence under the Evidence Act do not apply to proceedings in domestic enquiry - Labour Court not justified in setting aside the finding of guilty.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Bangalore v. D. Narayanaswamy 751 (Karn.H.C.)
Sec.11-A - Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 226, 227 Misconduct - Penalty to be imposed - When the interference by Labour Court is justified - Only in cases where penalty imposed is disproportionate to misconduct of the delinquent, proved in enquiry - In the instant case delinquent driver dismissed for driving bus full of passengers in rash and negligent manner, while under intoxication - Held there is no scope for the Labour Court to interfere with the punishment of dismissal- Non- interference by the Single Judge in the writ petition amounts to failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in High Court under Arts. 226, 227 - Sympathy to delinquent was misplaced.
North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli v. S.L. Hosur 738 (Karn.H.C.)
Sec.11-A - Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 226, 227 - Misconduct Respondent a driver with petitioner-Corporation, found drunk while on duty - Dismissed after he was found guilty by the enquiry officer in a departmental enquiry - In the labour dispute, Labour Court found charges proved, but ordered reinstatement with a warning and denied back wages - Writ petition by the Corporation challenging the said Award, dismissed by Single Judge - In this Writ Appeal the Division Bench held that in this case, the Labour Court and Learned Single Judge gave a complete go-by to the safety of passengers - Courts cannot encourage such alcoholic driving to the detriment of the safe driving of the public by a public Corporation - Impugned Award and Order set aside.
North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli v. S.L. Hosur 738 (Karn.H.C.)
Sec.11-A - Scope of the power of the Labour Court - The respondent employee working as Assistant Grade II, being found guilty of misconduct in a departmental enquiry, removed from service on 2-7-1993 - In the dispute, Labour Court held the charge to be proved, but found the punishment to be harsh in the circumstances of the case and hence granted the relief of reinstatement as a fresh candidate - both the parties filed writ petitions and challenged the said Award - Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions, not finding any merit in it - In these writ appeals, the Division Bench affirmed the view of the Labour Court and held that in the facts of the case, Labour Court exercised its discretion judiciously and had given valid and convincing reasons for modifying the punishment, which is upheld by the Single Judge - No interference warranted with the said orders of Labour Court as upheld by the Single Judge.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum- Additional Labour Court and Others 577 (A.P.H.C.)
Ss. 18(1) and 18(3) - Settlement - Company giving benefit of the same to some workmen but not others and there was thus unfair labour practice - Rejecting the contention, it is held that if a workman does not give an undertaking, which is a part and parcel of the voluntary settlement, arrived at between the parties otherwise than in conciliation proceedings, he cannot claim benefits under the said settlement.
Tata Consulting Engineers And Associates Staff Union v. Tata Consulting Engineers & Anr. 701 (Bom.H.C.)
Ss. 25-B and 25-F - Continuous Service - Petitioner served as a mate with the respondent No. 3 - Orissa Forest Development Corporation from November 10, 1989 to June 15, 1991 - Terminated without assigning any reason - In the dispute, Labour Court held the termination to be legal and valid - In this Writ Petition, said order of the Labour Court is challenged - Held that there was no infirmity in the impugned order - Petitioner had failed to establish that he had worked for more than 240 days within 12 calendar months just preceding his disengagement - He also failed to prove that his juniors were continued in service.
Gangadhar Labala v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others 812 (Ori.H.C.)
S.25-F - Termination - Petitioner Legal Assistant with Respondent Co-op. Sugar Mills, terminated without compliance of S.25-F of the Act, without holding enquiry - Labour Court held it to be illegal termination and passed award granting the relief of reinstatement with back wages to the extent of 50% - In writ petition, Single Judge, upset the Award only on the ground that appellant petitioner had been appointed as Assistant District Attorney from 1985 to January 1987 - In this writ Appeal, Division Bench held that Single Judge committed serious illegality by upsetting the Award of reinstatement, in view of the law laid down on this point.
Ajit Singh v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Rohtak Camp Court, Sonepat and Anr. 681 (P.&H.H.C.)
S.25-F - Termination - Delay in raising dispute - Services of the respondent terminated on 1.11.1987 - Industrial Dispute raised after about seven years - On reference, Labour Court held termination to be illegal for want of compliance of the provisions of S.25-F and awarded relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and 20% of back wages - In this writ petition challenging the impugned award - held that (i) as observed by the Apex Court, mere delay does not cease the industrial dispute, (ii) the Labour Court had rightly recorded the finding of the fact that work was available with the petitioner at the time of termination of the service of the workman; (iii) Labour Court has rightly held that there was no sufficient compliance of S.25-F of I.D.Act; (iv) Labour Court committed gross error in granting back wages to the extent of 20%.
Deputy Executive Engineer Panchayat Sub- Division - II v. Jitendrakumar Ranchhodbhai Bhatt 816 (Guj.H.C.)
S.25-O (as amended in 1982) - Closure of Industrial Undertaking - Grant or refusal for closure - Constitutional validity - The question for consideration, in this group of appeals and writ petitions, is the constitutional validity of S.25-O of the Act and it is held that S.25-O is not ultravires the Constitution and that it is saved by Art.19(6) of the Constitution of India.
Orissa Textile & Steel Ltd v. State of Orissa and Ors. 831 (S.C.)
S.33(2)(b) - Refusal of approval - Effect of - In the case of refusal of approval to the action taken by the employee under S.33(2)(b) of the Act, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the dismissal or discharge of the workman would be of no effect; that the workman would be deemed never to have been dismissed or discharged; that the workman would continue to be in service as if there never was any dismissal or discharge by the employer; and that the employer would be bound to consider the workman as his employee and pay him full wages for the period.
Ram Kishan v. Lt. Governor, National Capital Territory of Delhi & Anr. 647 (Del.H.C.)
S.33(2)(b) and S.33-A - Termination of service of employee - Effect of non-approval under S.33(2)(b) - Held: Endorsing the views taken in the cases of Straw Board Manufacturing Co. and Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd., it is held that effect of non-grant of approval under S.33(2)(b) is that the order of dismissal becomes ineffective from the date it was passed and therefore the employee becomes entitled to wages from the date of dismissal to the date of disapproval of the application and no specific order for reinstatement would be necessary.
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Shri Ram Gopal Sharma and Ors. 789 (S.C.)
S.33-C(2) - Jurisdiction of Labour Court under - The section empowers the Labour Court to compute the monetary benefit which a workman is entitled to receive from the employer - The Court's jurisdiction is only to compute and determine the amount payable under such benefit - While computing, the Court can go into incidental question, but it cannot assume the jurisdiction to determine the entitlement and then to compute - In the present case the Court has in fact determined the entitlement.
Arun Kr. Ghosh & Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. 564 (Cal.H.C.)
Karnataka Co-op. Societies Act, 1959
S.70 - Dispute over employment/termination between Employer Co-op. Society and its employees - Disagreeing with the Single Judge, Division Bench held that such a dispute can be referred for decision only to the `Registrar' appointed under the Co-op. Societies Act and no such dispute can be raised, referred to and
decided under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act - also held that in view of mandate of Art.254(2) of the Constitution of India, Cooperative Law would prevail in such a matter.
Rajajinagar Co-operative Bank Ltd., Bangalore v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bangalore and another 721 (Karn.H.C.)
Karnataka Education Act, 1983
Sec.94 - Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline & Control) Act, 1975, Sec. 10(4)(c)(i) - Termination of services of probationer - Respondent appointed as teacher on probation for one year, terminated during the probation period - Educational Appellate Tribunal held it to be illegal - In the writ, it was held that the impugned termination was not stigmatic and in the absence of evidence to prove that termination is by way of punishment, the termination of service is passed in terms of letter of appointment and hence cannot be interfered with.
Catholic Board of Education, Mangalore v. Theresa D'Souza (Ms) 583 (Karn.H.C.)
Sec.94 - Karnataka Private Educational Institutions (Discipline & Control) Act, 1975, Sec. 10(4)(c)(i) - Termination of services of a probationer - Educational Appellate Tribunal held termination not justified and directed reinstatement - but respondent-probationer failed to report back for duty as ordered - Management employed another person - Held that the respondent probationer is not entitled to the relief of reinstatement.
Catholic Board of Education, Mangalore v. Theresa D'Souza (Ms) 583 (Karn.H.C.)
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977
S.9 and Rules of 1981 under the Act - Rules 25A, 26 and 27 - Respondent No. 1 was initially appointed as teacher for short period in Marathi Primary School of Petitioner but by fresh order she was appointed in English Medium School of same Management - In May 1995, her service came to be terminated as the School was being closed from 1-6-1995 - Her appeal under S.9 of the Act failed but her writ petition is allowed by learned Single Judge on the ground that Management did not follow common seniority list as required by Rule 27 of the Rules - Hence this writ appeal - While setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, it is held that closure of school was under Rule 25-A and on such closure termination of service of permanent employee has to be made in accordance with Rule 25A and not under Rule 27 as held by learned Single Judge, and the termination is effected accordingly and is valid.
J.K. Pansare Education Trust v. Suman D. Patil & Others 687 (Bom.H.C.)
Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971
Complaint of unfair labour practice - By order dated 13.6.2001, Industrial Court vacated its earlier order granting interim relief - This order and order dated 30.10.2001 are challenged by this petition - High Court observed that while passing order dated 13.6.2001, Industrial Court appears to have acted as if it was Court of Appeal. However since impugned orders are pending disposal of complaint of unfair labour practice, High Court directed Industrial Court to dispose of the complaint itself before 31.8.2002.
Sohanlal Mijajilal Karotia v. Welcome Group Searock Sheraton 796 (Bom.H.C.)
Items 1(b), 5 and 6 of Sch. II and Items 2,4 & 10 of Sch. IV and Sections 24(2) and 25(5) - This is a writ petition against dismissal of complaint of unfair labour practice of illegal lock- out - It is held that lock-out commenced or continued in pursuance of notice as required under S. 24(2)(a) cannot be said to be illegal and in any event it is withdrawn before declaration of lock-out to be illegal as required under S.25(5) and therefore this is not a fit case to interfere with the findings recorded by Industrial Court.
Cipla Employees Union v. Cipla Limited & Others 733 (Bom.H.C.)
Item 1 Sch. IV - M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as `Standing Orders') - Ss.20 & 36(15) - Standard Standing Orders 12(1)(b)(d) & (f) - Petitioner, Conductor in the employment of respondent Corporation at Nagpur was given a chargesheet under Standard Standing Order No.12(1)(b), (d) and (f) and after holding domestic enquiry, he was dismissed from service - Petitioner challenged the same by filing a complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Act - Contention is that the Standard Standing Orders are not applicable but Regulations framed under Road Transport Corporations Act are applicable, that chargesheet was issued under Standing Orders and that as such enquiry was vitiated - Labour Court dismissed complaint and Industrial Court also dismissed the revision petition and hence this petition - Held: While dismissing this petition, it is held that the Standard Standing Orders are applicable and Corporation had rightly given the chargesheet to the petitioner under the said Standing Orders. It is further held, considering the contentions of the par- ties, that both Labour Court and Industrial Court acted within their authority and jurisdiction and their orders do not suffer from any infirmity.
Gangaram s/o. Ramcharan Rajput v. Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur, Depot 599 (Bom.H.C.)
Violation of Ss.25-F and 25-G - Complaint of Unfair Labour Practice - Industrial Court dismissed complaint on the ground that the alleged misconduct is under Item 1 of Schedule IV and within jurisdiction of Labour Court - Setting aside the dismissal of the Complaint, it is held that provisions of S.25-F and S.25-G form implied terms of contract, that failure to comply with the same would amount to failure to implement agreement and that therefore Item 9 of Sch. IV is attracted and Industrial Court has jurisdiction.
Bombay Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Aryadoot Transport Ltd. & Ors. 699 (Bom.H.C.)
Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV - Petitioner Corporation by two separate orders effected transfer of Senior Assistants and Assistants at various places throughout the State of Maharashtra - Said orders were issued on administrative grounds as
administrative exigencies demanded - Respondent therefore filed complaints of unfair labour practice under Items 3 & 9 of Sch IV of the Act alleging that the transfers are in violation of Government circulars and guidelines - Second complaint is filed on the ground that transfer of one Ponkshe was cancelled and yet he was relieved and asked to join at transferred place - Industrial Court allowed the complaints after holding that petitioner has engaged in unfair labour practices as alleged - Hence this writ petition- Held : 1) So far as unfair labour practice under item 9 is concerned, there is not a whisper of any observation in that regard throughout the entire order of the Labour Court; 2) Regulation 17 of the Service Regulations is the foundation of the orders of transfer and therefore the transfer policy of State Government cannot prevail over the specific regulation framed in the Regulations under the Statute viz. M.I.D. Act; 3) In any event guidelines on which reliance is placed by respondents do not give any right to the employees to claim posting as of right; 4) The petitioner was well within its rights to issue transfer orders as and when administrative exigencies demanded; 5) There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has acted with malafide intention and Court cannot jump to such a conclusion; 6) The transfer of Ponkshe was not cancelled but was in abeyance and as such there is no unfair labour practice in his case; and 7) The petition is allowed.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation v. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation's Employees Association & Anr. 593 (Bom.H.C.)
Item 5 of Sch. IV - Petitioner, a representative union under B.I.R. Act for Co- operative Banking Industry in local area of Thane Municipal Corporation, filed complaint of unfair labour practice under Item 5 of Sch. II of the Act against respondent no.1 which is a Co- operative Bank alleging that respondent no.1 refused to bargain collectively with the petitioner - In that complaint, an interim relief application was filed which was rejected by Industrial Court an hence this petition - Held: Under Item 5 of Sch. II of the Act refusal to bargain collectively must be with recognised union, that petitioner is not a recognised union under the Act though it may be representative union under B.I.R. Act, that as such case of unfair labour practice is not made out and that therefore Industrial Court was right in rejecting application for interim relief.
Thanco Bank Karmachari Sangh, Thane v. Thane Bharat Sahakari Bank Ltd. Thane & Ors. 823 (Bom.H.C.)
S.14(5)(6) and (10) - Standard Code Rule 3(2)(d) - Termination of service - Powers of Vice Chancellor and Management Council - Respondent initially joined as Assistant Finance Officer on 18-7-1997 and later on was working as Officer on Special Duty - When the post of Deputy Finance Officer was advertised, she had applied for the said post - Selection committee selected her but was appointed as officer on special duty - On 15.6.1998, Petitioner University issued order of her termination, but on 16-6-1998, respondent filed appeal to University Tribunal and obtained stay of termination order - The respondent has filed writ petition in High Court to publish outcome of her interview conducted in December 1995 for the Post of Dy. Finance Officer - Committee appointed by petitioner submitted report in favour of respondent and on 4-1-1999 Management Council by resolution recommended the respondent for being appointed as Deputy Finance Officer - Writ Petition was then disposed of - On 3-3-2000 University Tribunal held impugned termination order dt. 15-6-1998 to be illegal and that respondent stood confirmed as Deputy Finance Officer from 17-6-1998 - In pursuance of said decision and Selection Committee Report, Management Council passed a resolution on 18-10-2000 that respondent was confirmed as Deputy Finance Officer - On 24-10- 2000 University issued letter that respondent was confirmed as Deputy Finance Officer - The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging order of University Tribunal dt. 3-3-2000 - It is held that the challenge is unsustainable in as much as, once having resolved to abide by the Judgment of University Tribunal, the Petitioner University cannot turn round and say that it can still challenge the said order of the Tribunal and that as such there is no merit in the writ petition and is dismissed.
University of Pune v. Vidya Kisan Gargote 622 (Bom.H.C.)
Ss.4 and 7 - Petitioner's claim for gratuity- He stands retired on 30-6-1991 pending his writ petition for setting aside dismissal. Controlling authority rejected his claim on the ground that his application was filed beyond 3 years from 30-6-91 -Appellate authority confirmed the same - While setting aside the impugned order, it is held that no such conclusion could have been drawn having regard to the provisions of Ss 4 and 7 of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Gurunath Vithal Tamse v. National Textile Corporation 809 (Bom.H.C.)
Payment of Wages Act, 1936
Sec.1(6) - Wage ceiling under the Act - Petitioner to strike down the said sub-section - As a public interest litigation, the petitioner is seeking a declaration that the said provision is void in view of the changed circumstances - Reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Malpe Vishwanath Acharya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. - Held that as the respondent No. 1 is seized with the matter to bring about appropriate and requisite changes in the Act, it becomes unnecessary to examine the validity of the relevant provision and to strike it down.
Hospital Employees Union v. Union of India & Anr. 755 (Del.H.C.)
Selection - Later on issuance of chargesheet for misconduct - Whether promotion can be stopped pending enquiry - Held: No absolute legal proposition can be laid down that if a misconduct is alleged to be committed subsequent to a selection then the misconduct cannot be the basis for withholding promotion - However so far as this case is concerned, until and unless the petitioner is exonerated in the inquiry, there is no question of his promotion particularly, when the petitioner is an officer in Bank where the highest degree of discipline and integrity is required to be maintained in order to maintain public confidence in the Bank.
Kant Kumar Singh v. Gomti Gramin Bank and Anr. 761 (All.H.C.)
Reference of Industrial Dispute-
At the instance of the union, Central Government Industrial Tribunal passed an order that appearance of office bearers of the union and concerned workmen in pending reference be treated as on duty leave and they be paid wages on all said days - This order is impugned in this petition - Held: The impugned order cannot be sustained as it is without any legal authority and secondly because it can give rise to indiscipline and financial implications on the employer.
Bank of India, Nagpur v. Bank of India Workers' Organisation & Anr. 630 (Bom.H.C.)
Non-payment of- Petitioner was appointed as lecturer on 1-8-1998 in respondent no. 3 Junior College which is run by respondent no. 1 Society of which respondent no. 2 is President - Petitioner claims that he is not paid his salary till now though he has worked as lecturer throughout - It is further alleged that post on which petitioner is working is approved by Education Department - Respondent no. 4 is Deputy Director of Education - Respondents Managements has not disputed the factual aspect but pointed out condition no. (vi) of appointment order which provides that Management will not be responsible if staff is not approved by Education Officer- Advocate for respondent no. 4 submitted that approval was granted for two years when petitioner was on probation - While allowing the writ petition and directing respondents nos. 1 and 2 to pay arrears of salary to the petitioner, it is observed that reliance placed on clause no. (vi) of Appointment Order is devoid of substance and misconceived in as much as liability of payment of salary to the teacher from whom the management is extracting work as a teacher or lecturer cannot be wiped out in view of clause (vi) of the appointment order.
Rakesh s/o. Shrihari Kumbhare v. Maharashtra Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Chandrapur & Ors. 673 (Bom.H.C.)
Post of Librarian - Non-appointment- Respondent no. 2 is Education Society running a college of which respondent no. 3 is principal - Respondent no. 4 is Registrar of Nagpur University - Petitioner's case is that in pursuance of advertisement by Respondents nos. 2 & 3 he applied for the post of Librarian for which he is eligible and was selected by Selection Committee - Even then no appointment order is being issued - Hence this petition - Respondents nos. 2 & 3 submit that no order was issued as the petitioner had not applied in pursuance of advertisement - Held: On the basis of undisputed facts, the stand taken by respondents nos. 2 &3 and contentions advanced on their behalf cannot be accepted, that conduct of respondents nos. 2 & 3 in not issuing appointment order even after selection by the Selection Committee and even after grant of approval by University is self- explanatory and as such direction is given to respondents nos. 2 &3 to issue order of appointment with effect from 30-8-2000 since approval was granted by University from the said date.
Rahul s/o. S. Lokhande v. Joint Director, Higher Education, (Grants) Nagpur & Ors. 676 (Bom.H.C.)
Pending enquiry - Without waiting for explanation called from petitioner - Hence this petition - Held: Perusal of impugned order demonstrates that the impugned order purports to suspend the petitioner pending regular disciplinary enquiry under relevant standing order or otherwise and counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that merely because explanation has been asked for, the employer cannot suspend the petitioner pending disciplinary enquiry.
Satish Chandra Sharma v. The Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and Anr. 760 (All.H.C.)
For Misconduct - Removal from service - Departmental appeal - Dismissal by Board of Directors - Disciplinary Authority presided and participated in Board Meeting while considering appeal - Held: While setting aside the appellate order and remanding matter to Board of Directors, it is observed that fair play demanded that the Managing Director, who awarded penalty in his capacity as disciplinary authority, ought not to have participated in the deliberations of the Board when it heard and decided the appeal of the appellant and that reliance on the doctrine of necessity is totally misplaced.
Amar Nath Chowdhury v. Braithwaite and Company Ltd. & Ors. 786 (S.C.).
Respondent was working in Share Department - Said department closed as work assigned to other agency - Employees found surplus accepted job in other agency company - Respondent was also found surplus but he did not accept job with agency company - His service came to be terminated - In writ petition by him learned single Judge held termination to be illegal and directed his reinstatement with full back wages - Appellant filed this writ appeal - At the time of admission, appellant undertook to reinstate respondent with 50% back wages and thus question now in this appeal is as regards, remaining 50% back wages - At the hearing, learned Counsel for appellant submitted that even for deciding issue as regards 50% back wages it was necessary to examine contentions on merits - High Court dealt with the same, though it was hardly necessary - High Court finally concluded that this is not a fit case for interference with the view taken by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal.
Tata Iron & Steel Company Ltd. Bombay & Anr. v. Adil K. Patel 637 (Bom.H.C.)
Misconduct of carrying passengers in Bus without issuing tickets to them - Respondent was Conductor in State Transport Bus - His bus was checked by surprise - There were 26 & 1/2 passengers in the bus and half of them were travelling without ticket - Conductor's version is that the said passengers were adamant and refused to purchase tickets- After domestic enquiry, his service came to be terminated - Labour Court upheld the order of termination but Industrial Court directed reinstatement but without back wages - Hence this writ petition- While allowing the writ petition, it is observed that in inquiry full proof case was made out, respondents' defence was rightly rejected by the Labour Court and the findings of Industrial Court are perverse and are set aside.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through the Divisional Controller, Nagpur v. Digambar Ramji Zade 670 (Bom.H.C.)
Respondent Zilla Parishad, Gondia terminated the service of Petitioner in view of condition/term no. 8 in appointment order which provides that service will be terminated if it is found that mother or father of the candidate is in service - This order is impugned in this petition alleging that neither father nor mother of the petitioner is in service - Respondents took up defence that brother of petitioner was in service and termination was under condition/term 7 and it was an error that in termination order term 8 was mentioned. While quashing the impugned order, it is held that impugned order on the face of it suffers from non-application of mind and it is open to the respondents to issue show cause notice to petitioner and take appropriate action according to law after proper application of mind.
Vijaykumar s/o. Kewalram Zingre v. Zilla Parishad, Bhandara through its Chief Executive Officer & Anr. 672 (Bom.H.C.)
Reference of dispute to Labour Court - Reference rejected - Finding recorded that no employer- employee relation established - Review was sought on ground of a letter received from E.S.I. Corporation and identity card- Review petition was dismissed as not maintainable- Writ petition also came to be dismissed and hence this writ appeal wherein reliance is placed on E.S.I. letter and identity card - Held: (1) On an overall consideration of the matter by Labour Court in the matter appears to be based on evidence on record and is not vitiated by any illegality. (2) On the basis of the documents which were not produced before reference Court during pendency of reference, the finding recorded by the Labour Court about want of relationship of employer and employee between the parties cannot be rendered illegal. (3) No case for interference is made out and appeal is dismissed.
Gulab Narayan Tilekar v. D.V. Industries 716 (Bom.H.C.)
U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules 1975 - Service of petitioner, a temporary employee, was terminated by order termination simplicitor as he was found unsuitable - Termination challenged as punitive and discriminatory - Held : While upholding the order of respondent no. 1 Tribunal, it is observed that the petitioner, being a temporary employee, has no right on the post and the order does not cast any stigma and as such termination is valid having been passed under the Rules.
Raghubansh Behari Lal v. U.P. Public Service Tribunal and others 762 (All.H.C.)
U.P. Co-operative Employees Service Regulations 1975
CLR I Regulations 5 & 15 - Recommendation of Board for promotion - Petitioner was promoted in Class III in anticipation of respondent no. 1 Board which was not granted and petitioner was reverted to Class IV post - Hence this application - Held: In view of Regulation 5 & 15, once respondent no.1 refused to give approval, there was no option but to revert back the petitioner to his substantive post of category IV and as such petition is dismissed.
Chandra Pal Singh v. U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board and others 758 (All.H.C.)
Wages for intervening period
Petitioner did not remain present on duty after giving notice of voluntary retirement - Held: that with this position, it is not proper to accept the request that the respondents be ordered to pay the petitioner salary for the said period.
CLR - I (H.C.P.&H.)...679
Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-
S.30 - Appeal - Whether it involves substantial question of law? In the course of employment, the respondent No.1, as a khalasi, suffered injuries on his waste, back and right leg, as a vehicle in which he was travelling, collided against the road side tree - Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation fixed the compensation at Rs. 1,03,990/- on the basis of 100% loss, it being permanent, total disablement - In this appeal by the Insurance Company, held that (i) as the medical practitioner, in this case, failed to assess the actual loss of earning capacity, as required by the amended Act, the Commissioner failed to arrive at a just conclusion; (ii) the compensation as assessed by the Commissioner, being opposed to law, is not acceptable and is liable to be set aside.
National Insurance Company Limited v. Bhim Dey alias Bhola Dey & Another 742 (Cal.H.C.)
Sec.30(1) - Motor Vehicles Act,1988, Sec 149 (2) - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226, 227 - In these writ petitions, contesting respondents raised contentions that (i) petitions are not maintainable under Arts. 226, 227 of the Constitution, as alternative remedy by way of appeal is provided under W.C. Act, and (ii) no remedy of appeal is available to the Insurance Company on the defences other than those available u/s.149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Held that (a) power conferred on the High Court under Arts. 226, 227 of the Constitution cannot be limited by any statute; Orders passed by subordinate Court or Authority in violation of the statute can be interfered with; (b) in the case on hand there is no complaint of violation of any statute; (c) though remedy by way of appeal under W.C.Act is not a bar to the writ petition under Arts.226, 227 of the Constitution there is no reason for the High Court to interfere in the case on hand; (d) in the appeal u/s.30 of W.C. Act the aggrieved person has to satisfy that there is substantial question of law, which requires consideration of the High Court; (e) even if these proceedings are taken under W.C. Act, the Insurance Company has no right to contest the claim on any of the defences other than the defences available to it u/s 149 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act; (f) mere error of law or irregularity in passing the award itself, is not a ground for the High Court to interfere under its writ jurisdiction; for all these reasons, High Court did not find it proper to entertain these writ petitions.
National Insurance Company Limited, Bantwal v. J. Krishna Sapalya and Others 587 (Karn.H.C.)