Legal Reference Library

The Madras High Court has ruled that an employee removed from service due to conviction in a corruption case by the trial court is entitled for back wages if he wins his appeal in an appellate court. Besides if the employee wins the appeal on merit, he is entitled for continuity of service also, justices S Manikumar and C T Selvamof the Madurai bench said, dismissing a writ appeal by Executive Officer of Mamsapuram Panchayat against a single judge's 2013 order to reinstate an employee who was dismissed in 2008. The principle of "no work, no pay" cannot be applied in every case. Every employee reinstated in service on acquittal cannot be denied back wages and continuity of service. Once the conviction is set aside by an appellate court, the stigma is removed, the judges said. The employee should be restored to his original position as if he was not removed and continued to be in service all along, the Judges said. They disagreed with the Executive Officer's con...

The Supreme Court, in Nagabhushanammal (D) by LRS. Vs. C. Chandikeswaralingam, has put an end to five decade long property dispute between members of a family who, upon the direction of the court, finally agreed for a reasonable settlement. Bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman held that an earlier suit for possession does not bar institution of a later suit for partition and it is not hit by Principle of Res Judicata. In this case, the trial court held that the suit for partition was hit by the principle of res judicata in view of the dismissal of the earlier suit for possession. The Appellate court had reversed the finding holding that the suit is not hit by Res Judicata. The Apex court observed that the suit filed by the plaintiff in 1962, based on the settlement deed executed by her husband in her favour and the sufferance of the dismissal of the suit, will not, in any way, be a bar for making a claim for her share, if any, of the family property, if otherwise...

Supreme Court has, in Nandram vs. M/s Garware Polyster Ltd., held that a complaint against termination of an employee of a company is not only maintainable in a Labour court having jurisdiction of the place where the employee was working, when the termination was ordered, but also the Labour court having jurisdiction of the place where the decision to terminate the employee was taken by the management of Company. In this case, the employee who was initially employed by the company in Aurangabad was later transferred to the company plant in Pondicherry where he was given termination order. He complained before the Labour court which held the complaint as maintainable. But the Industrial Tribunal on revision and later the High Court held that the Labour court at Aurangabad has no jurisdiction. The employee then approached the Apex Court. In a very short judgment, the bench of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman observed “The undisputed position is that the appellant was employed by t...

In a landmark pronouncement of the Delhi High Court, a Division Bench of Justice Gita Mittal & Justice PS Teji has dismissed an appeal filed by The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation of UP Ltd (PICUP) holding it as being”completely devoid of factual or legal merit.” Briefly, a property was mortgaged with PICUP by M/s Pacquik Industries Ltd. Another creditor of Pacquik Industries, one Sh. Darshan Khurana offered to make the payment of the OTS amount of about Rs. 2.20 Crores, on the behalf of Pacquik Industries to PICUP to have the title deeds of the property released to him to secure his interest. This request of Pacquik and Sh. Darshan Khurana was conveyed to PICUP vide letters, courier and facsimile communication. The management of PICUP, internally, objected to the title deeds being released to a third party, however chose to remain silent and accepted the amount, instead of conveying their decision either to Pacquik or Sh. Darshan Khurana. The entire hierarchy of...

The Kerala High Court in G. Madhavan Nair v Union of India & others (W.P(c) No:30342 of 2014) has ruled that Kerala High Court cannot assume Jurisdiction, based on the mere fact  that the alleged cause of action was communicated  through website and it was accessed in Kerala. The petitioner  an eminent Scientist, who had  worked in the Department of Space from its very inception in the year 1972 and has headed the Indian Space Research Organisation [for brevity“ISRO”] as its Chairman for about half-a-dozen years had approached the High Court impugning orders passed by the respondents black listing  him from undertaking  any future Government assignment. Petitioner challenged these orders ;before the High Court Of Kerala  trying to take cue from Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 which permitted a  High Court to issue directions,orders or writs to any Government , authority or person who resides outside the territorial jurisdicti...

Disposing of a dowry harassment petition, Justice C T Selvam of the Madurai bench on Wednesday said money demanded by a person from his wife and in-laws for investing in business cannot be construed as dowry demand and tried under Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.  He said it was necessary for a complainant to prove that money was demanded only as dowry. The Judge accepted the petitioner's submission that money had been demanded for conduct of business, but that the same was not demanded as dowry. Such a demand for money for conduct of business would attract IPC Section 498A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), the judge said and ordered that the petitioners be prosecuted under this provision, apart from IPC Sec. 506(I) (criminal intimidation). The Judge exonerated the complainant's father-in-law, saying he was in no way connected with the case. He directed the Judicial Magistrate in Tiruchirapalli, where the case was filed i...

Employees dismissed from service after the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings initiated against them are also entitled to encashment of ‘Earned/Privilege Leave’ that they had accumulated to their credit over the years, the Madras High Court Bench here has ruled. Justice D. Hariparanthaman passed the order while allowing a writ petition filed by the dismissed General Manager of Thanjavur District Central Cooperative Bank since he was denied the benefit on the ground that it would be accorded only to those who retire from service on attaining the age of superannuation. The judge came to the conclusion after taking a cue from a decision rendered by a Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on November 9, 2012 wherein it was held that employees can encash their earned leave on the day of retirement irrespective of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. “The reason given by the Full Bench is that Earned Leave encashment is a right equal to the right to property ...