Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court, in State of Rajasthan vs. Firoz Khan @ Arif Khan, has reiterated that a High Court, while passing orders rejecting the application for leave to appeal before it under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, should assign reasons for such rejection. Allowing the appeal by State of Rajasthan against an High Court order refusing to grant leave to file appeal before it against an acquittal by Trial Courtin a murder case, the Apex court bench comprising of Justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Ashok Bhushan observed that the instant case is a clear case of total non-application of mind to the case by High Court. The High Court had passed the following order ““Heard. No case for grant of leave is made out. Accordingly, the leave to appeal stands dismissed.” ASSIGN REASONS WHILE REFUSING LEAVE TO APPEAL Referring to State of Maharashtra vs. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar, the Court said: We are constrained to observe that the High Court grossly erred in passing the impugned ...

No compassion can be shown to a person who has no will to work, the Delhi High Court has observed while upholding a termination order against a clerk of District Court who was accused of absenting herself from duty frequently. One Suman Taneja, who was working as Lower Division Clerk in the office of District Court had approached the Delhi High Court against the termination order passed against her. Perusing the records, the Court observed that the petitioner was not performing her duties with due diligence and she was found guilty of taking unauthorized leaves and she has failed to show that the leaves that were taken by her were sanctioned by the respondents. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner has decided at her own will when to take leave and when to report for duty, Justice Ved Prakash Vaish said. Even after issuance of repeated Memos, the petitioner neither report back to duty nor submitted anysatisfactory explanation for her absence, which shows that she was absolutely incorri...

Federal Labor Court, decision dated February 10, 2015 – 9 AZR 455/13 Facts of the case The employee was employed since more than 20 years. The employer terminated the employment with immediate effect and additionally gave statutory notice of termination under due respect of the applicable notice period in case the dismissal with immediate effect may be invalid. Furthermore the letter of termination said: “In case that only the statutory notice of termination is effective, you are released from your duty to work with immediate effect, taking into account all leave and overtime claims.” The parties reached a settlement ending the employment 5 weeks after notice was given. Although this period would have sufficed to grant the entire leave, the employee claimed compensation for the leave. The Federal Labor Court sided with the plaintiff. The decision According to precedents set by the Federal Labor Court, it was possible so far to grant any remaining days of leave by releasing the empl...