Industrial Disputes Act – Reference to Labour Court – Section 10(1) – Scope of Appropriate Government's Power – Letters Patent Appeal Dismissed – Respondent No. 3, a Senior Executive/Manager Administration-Supervisor drawing Rs. 76,268/- per month, was relieved from service by appellant company upon acceptance of alleged voluntary resignation with full and final settlement of Rs. 4,43,468/- – Respondent No. 3 filed complaint before Assistant Labour Commissioner challenging termination – Reference ordered by respondent No. 2 to Labour Court under Section 10(1)(c) of the ID Act – Appellant challenged reference contending respondent No. 3 was not a 'workman' and no industrial dispute existed – Held: While forming an opinion under Section 10(1) of the ID Act, the appropriate Government is required only to satisfy itself that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended; it is not required to adjudicate whether the employee is a 'workman' under Section 2(s), as that falls within the exclusive domain of the Labour Court [Paras 35–39, 50, 60].

Industrial Disputes Act – Nature of Order of Reference – Administrative Function – The function discharged by the appropriate Government under Section 10(1) is administrative and not judicial or quasi-judicial in nature – The appropriate Government cannot delve into the merits of the dispute or determine the lis between the parties while making a reference – Making a reference presupposes formation of opinion and is not required to be reduced in writing with reasons, as that would amount to adjudication on merits – Reasons are required only when the appropriate Government refuses to make a reference, as mandated by Section 12(5) [Paras 34, 47–48, 58].

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 2(s) – Whether Employee is 'Workman' – Disputed Question of Fact – Appellant's contention that respondent No. 3 was working in managerial and supervisory capacity and therefore not a 'workman', and further that voluntary resignation had severed employer-employee relationship, are disputed questions of fact and merit — Held: Both questions are required to be adjudicated by the Labour Court on evidence and cannot be decided by the appropriate Government or the High Court in writ jurisdiction; appellant is at liberty to raise all such contentions before the Labour Court [Paras 54–56, 61].

Judicial Review – Order of Reference – Scope of Interference under Article 226 – High Court has jurisdiction to interfere with an order of reference only when futility of the reference is demonstrable from its bare reading or when the appropriate Government had no material before it or failed to apply its mind — Contention that an employee is not a 'workman' requires examination of facts and evidence and cannot be adjudicated by the High Court in writ jurisdiction; such contention goes to the merits of the dispute which is within the adjudicatory domain of the Labour Court [Paras 41–44, 57].

Decision: Letters Patent Appeal dismissed — Civil Application disposed of.

Contempt of Courts Act – Civil Contempt – Section 2(b) – D.K. Basu Guidelines – Alleged Custodial Torture – Application Dismissed – Applicant, a farmer and Congress party office-bearer, alleged that while in custody on 20.05.2020, he was taken to the office of the Police Commissioner, Rajkot City, where respondents No. 1 and 2 (DCP and Police Inspector) brutally assaulted him – FIR registered against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and two unknown police personnel for offences under IPC – Investigation concluded with filing of "A" Summary report stating insufficient evidence against accused – Held: No prima facie case established for violation of the guidelines issued under paragraphs 35 and 36 of D.K. Basu to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the respondents [Paras 25–27].

D.K. Basu Guidelines – Scope of Contempt Proceedings – Before initiating contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the D.K. Basu directions, the applicant must prima facie establish violation of the specific requirements set out in paragraphs 35 and 36 of D.K. Basu pertaining to arrest, detention, identification of police personnel, medical examination, and intimation of arrest – In the present case, on perusal of the entire record, none of the said directions are shown to have been violated so as to attract the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [Para 26].

Contempt Proceedings – "A" Summary Report – Pending JMFC Proceedings – Where FIR has been registered and investigation has concluded with filing of "A" Summary stating offence was committed but offenders are unknown, the applicant has a remedy to contest the matter on merits before the learned JMFC and is not without recourse – In such circumstances, initiation of contempt proceedings against respondents is not warranted [Paras 24, 27].

Decision: Application dismissed — Notice discharged — Applicant granted liberty to raise contentions in pending proceedings before the learned JMFC.

Public Procurement – Tender – CMMI Certification – Eligibility Condition – Judicial Restraint – Petitioner, an incumbent SMS gateway service provider, challenged the Letter of Empanelment awarded to L1 bidder (Respondent No. 2/Onextel) on the ground that its CMMI Maturity Level 5 certificate was issued by UKCert, an entity not recognised as an authorized partner of ISACA – RFE Corrigendum No. VI required a valid CMMI Level 3 or above certificate but did not specify that it must be issued exclusively by ISACA or its approved partners – NICSI's Technical Evaluation Committee accepted UKCert certificates for multiple bidders – NICSI constituted a committee which concluded on 11.03.2026 that the UKCert certificate was valid – NICSI also accepted non-ISACA partner certificates for other bidders including Pinnacle (L4) and Petitioner's sister concern in 2023 – Held: The question of whether ISACA and its partners have exclusive proprietary rights to issue CMMI certifications is a disputed question of fact not amenable to determination in writ jurisdiction on the basis of website declarations and e-mails alone – Tendering authority is the best judge of its requirements and interpretation of tender conditions – No illegality, mala fides, or perversity demonstrated in the decision-making process of NICSI – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 8–30].

Delay and Laches – Unsuccessful Bidder – Challenge after Financial Bid – Petitioner had knowledge of UKCert certificate submitted by Respondent No. 2 since 30.10.2025 when technical bid documents were disclosed on the portal – No objection raised during the period between technical qualification and opening of financial bids on 26.12.2025 – Inquiry into authority of UKCert commenced only in January 2026, after the LoE was awarded and Petitioner was declared L3 – Held: Belated challenge triggered by adverse outcome of financial bid is contrary to settled principles governing public procurement – Entertaining the petition at the stage of contract implementation would be against public interest and judicial restraint – Challenge liable to be rejected on this ground alone [Paras 31–35].

Interpretation of Tender Conditions – Absence of Specific Prescription – Where the tender document does not specify that a certificate must originate from a particular authority, a bidder cannot be disqualified for submitting a certificate issued by an otherwise competent entity – Reading in a requirement of certification exclusively from ISACA or its partners would amount to importing a condition not contemplated by the tendering authority – Held: No such exclusive prescription existed in the RFE; NICSI's interpretation cannot be faulted [Paras 22–29].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs – NICSI advised to clarify in future tenders its stance on the certificate issuing entity for CMMI certification to avoid similar controversies.

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Removal from Service – Excess Loading of Fuel Tanker – Petitioner, an Executive Operations Officer and Gantry Officer at HPCL's Visakhapatnam Terminal, was suspended on 10.09.2007 and issued a charge memo dated 26.11.2007 alleging that he instructed the crew of tanker No. AP31U2529 to load fuel in excess – Disciplinary authority held the charges proved and ordered removal from service vide proceedings dated 29.12.2009 – Appellate authority affirmed the order on 24.06.2011 – Petitioner challenged both orders under Article 226 of the Constitution – Held: No grounds for interference made out – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 1, 11, 15–16].

Departmental Enquiry – Participation – Refusal to Cross-Examine Witnesses – Petitioner declined to cross-examine management witnesses MW.2, MW.3 and MW.4 on the ground that his defence assistant sought permission to visit the site and inspect the tanker – Court held that such request ought to have been made after fully participating in the enquiry and demonstrating necessity during cross-examination – By evading cross-examination, petitioner disentitled himself from claiming absence of evidence or lack of quality evidence [Paras 7, 12, 14].

Judicial Review – Scope – Disciplinary Proceedings – Constitutional courts cannot re-appreciate evidence or act as appellate authority over disciplinary authorities – Interference permissible only where punishment is shockingly disproportionate or there is a complete absence of evidence – On facts, disciplinary authority considered available material and returned a finding of guilt – No case of no evidence or perversity made out – Court declined to interfere [Paras 13–15].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No costs – Miscellaneous petitions pending stand closed.

Service Law — Pay Revision — State Financial Corporation — Autonomy — State Government Jurisdiction — Section 23 of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951 confers absolute power on a State Financial Corporation to appoint officers and employees and to determine their conditions of service and remuneration — Proviso to Section 23 empowering State Government to give directions on remuneration was deleted by Amendment Act 39 of 2000 w.e.f. 05.09.2000 — Held: After deletion of the proviso, prior approval of the State Government is no longer necessary for the Corporation to revise pay scales of its employees — Government of Bihar had no jurisdiction to withhold concurrence to the Board resolution dated 28.06.2019 for extending 6th Pay Revision Commission benefits — Section 39, which empowers the State Government to issue policy instructions, is an independent provision and does not govern the field covered by Section 23 — No instruction on policy was issued by the State Government to the Board after taking advice of Small Industries Bank as required under Section 39 [Paras 28–39].

Service Law — Pay Revision — Withdrawal of Board Resolution — Bona Fides — The Board of Directors of BSFC had in its meeting dated 28.06.2019 resolved to extend 6th PRC benefits to employees notionally w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and financially w.e.f. 01.04.2007 — Corporation's own counter affidavit before the writ court affirmed adequate funds and operational profit of Rs.18.58 crores in FY 2019–20 — After disposal of the writ petition, the Board in its meeting dated 15.05.2023 withdrew the earlier resolution citing cumulative loss of Rs.506.27 crores as per Balance Sheet of FY 2020–21 — Held: Such change of stand is not bona fide and appears to have been taken under undue pressure of the State Government — Since the decision to implement 6th PRC was taken in FY 2019–20, when the Corporation was in operational profit, the subsequent plea of financial loss in a different financial year cannot be a valid ground for denial — Appellants cannot be permitted to deviate from their earlier conscious decision [Paras 41–51].

Civil Procedure — Letters Patent Appeal — Review Petition — Maintainability — Appeal against order rejecting review petition — Order XLVII Rule 7 CPC bars an appeal from an order rejecting a review petition — An order dismissing review petition is not an adjudicatory order and does not merge with the original decree or order — Aggrieved party must challenge the original decree and not the order of rejection of review — L.P.A. No. 18 of 2024 held to be not maintainable — Also, since L.P.A. No. 709 of 2023 against the original judgment has already been dismissed, there is no question of entertaining the appeal against dismissal of review of the same [Paras 60–68].

Decision: L.P.A. No. 709 of 2023 dismissed — No infirmity found in the judgment dated 23.02.2023 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2402 of 2021 — L.P.A. No. 18 of 2024 dismissed as not maintainable — Pending applications disposed of.

Co-operative Society — Registration — Gated Residential Community — Social Housing — Exclusion of LIG/EWS Allottees — Writ appeal against order of Single Judge setting aside registration of appellant society registered under TMACS Act on 21.10.2022 — Society formed by a section of villa owners of Pristine Estates project (105 villas plus 12 LIG/EWS units) in the alleged absence of action by promoters to facilitate formation of allottees' association — Verification report recorded "100 flats" with only "22 sold," whereas in fact 87 villas and all 12 LIG/EWS units had been sold and registered by 2020 — Factual discrepancy not controverted by official respondents or appellant society — LIG/EWS allottees not served notice prior to registration — Bye-laws expressly restricted membership to "villa owners" with membership fee of Rs.5,00,000 effectively excluding LIG/EWS allottees — Section 4(1) TMACS Act requires members from different families; four of seventeen signatories belonged to two families — Held: Registration vitiated by fundamental infirmities — Setting aside by Single Judge affirmed — Writ appeal dismissed with structured directions for formation of inclusive association [Paras 19–24, 44].

TMACS Act — Section 4 — Registration — Duty of Registrar — Registration is not a mere formality but requires due application of mind and proper inquiry into foundational requirements — Registrar duty-bound to verify documents, invite objections from all stakeholders, and ensure no parallel or competing society exists for the same project — Failure to invite objections from LIG/EWS allottees and other villa owners constitutes a fundamental defect in the decision-making process — Requirement of inviting objections is a substantive safeguard to ensure transparency and inclusivity — Uncontroverted averments in writ petition may be treated as admitted — Material discrepancy in verification report between stated data and ground reality renders foundation of registration suspect [Paras 19–24].

Social Housing — Inclusive Association — Single Project — One Association — G.O.Ms.No.528 dated 31.07.2008 mandates social housing mix requiring at least 5% EWS units and 5% LIG units in group housing projects — Project sanctioned subject to these conditions is a statutorily integrated residential community — LIG/EWS units form an integral and inseparable component of the sanctioned project — Common amenities funded collectively by all unit holders and intended for use of all residents — Formation of association restricted solely to villa owners results in stratified two-tier community contrary to social housing policy — A single project must necessarily have a single democratically representative association — Exclusion of LIG/EWS allottees from access to common facilities and participation in association is violative of Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India — Any association excluding a statutorily recognised class of allottees is unsustainable in law [Paras 25–32].

RE(R&D) Act, 2016 — Association of Allottees — Section 11(4)(e) — Promoter's Obligation — Expression "association of allottees" under Rule 2(b) of RERA Rules 2017 means collective of all allottees of a real estate project — Section 11(4)(e) casts obligation on promoter to facilitate formation of such association — TMACS Act and RE(R&D) Act 2016 to be construed harmoniously — While TMACS Act provides procedural mechanism for registration, RE(R&D) Act 2016 read with applicable G.Os furnishes substantive framework governing composition of association — Entitlement of LIG/EWS allottees to participate in association flows directly from statutory and policy conditions under which project was sanctioned — Promoter's failure to discharge obligation to facilitate formation does not confer legality on an exclusionary association; an act otherwise unlawful does not become lawful merely because occasioned by default of another [Paras 26–30, 37].

TS RERA Order — Effect — TS RERA order dated 04.07.2025 recognised appellant society as "valid and competent association of allottees" only for limited purpose of maintaining a complaint before it and not as the final or legally recognised association of all allottees — Operative direction for handover of common areas expressly made subject to outcome of writ proceedings — Held: TS RERA order does not validate or confer legitimacy upon appellant society as sole lawful association — Court not bound by observations of another forum on collateral issues when such observations are themselves subject to final adjudication — Inaction of promoters prompting formation of society cannot be construed as conferring legality upon an exclusionary and procedurally infirm association [Paras 33–38].

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed — Registration of appellant society set aside and order of Single Judge affirmed — DCO, Ranga Reddy District (Respondent No. 4) directed to facilitate formation of a single unified inclusive association within sixteen weeks — Membership to be open to all villa owners, six EWS allottees, six LIG allottees, and all other unit holders without discrimination — Bye-laws to reflect inclusive membership and social housing policy under G.O.Ms.No.528 — Promoters to submit application for registration of new society upon finalisation of bye-laws — Funds collected by appellant society to remain in suspense account and be transferred to new society after proper verification and audit — Promoters to continue maintaining common areas until new society assumes charge — Miscellaneous petitions closed — No costs.

Hindu Law — Partition Suit — Ancestral Property — Coparcenary — Burden of Proof — Plaintiffs sought partition of suit schedule properties claiming them to be joint and ancestral properties — Held: There is no presumption of a property being joint family property merely on account of existence of a Joint Hindu Family — The party asserting must prove existence of a nucleus with which joint family property could be acquired — In the absence of any pleading or evidence establishing existence of coparcenary property, no question of blending or throwing of self-acquired property into common stock arises — Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove the existence of coparcenary or ancestral property — Suit schedule properties held to be self-acquired properties of the father of Defendant No.4 [Paras 18–35].

Relinquishment Deed — Pre-existing Right — Validity — Ex.A-7 was a registered relinquishment deed executed by Defendant No.4 in favour of his father — Held: Relinquishment of right in a property can arise only when the person relinquishing holds a pre-existing right in the property — By the date of Ex.A-7 (02.01.1969), Defendant No.4 was not possessed of any pre-existing right in Ex.A-7 property, as his father was alive until 1988 — The purported relinquishment is therefore meaningless and cannot be construed to convert self-acquired property into joint family property — Moreover, Ex.A-7 can at best be treated as a gift deed, making the property the self-acquired property of Defendant No.4 [Paras 21, 29, 35, 42, 53].

Non-Joinder of Necessary Parties — Partition Suit — Alienees in Possession — Plaintiffs were aware that several items of plaint schedule properties were in the possession of third-party purchasers and alienees, who were not impleaded as parties to the suit — Defendant Nos.16 to 18, though impleaded as legal representatives of Defendant No.3, were not brought on record as proper parties by amendment of plaint — Held: In the absence of proper and necessary parties, a suit for partition cannot be decided — The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone [Paras 36–41, 48, 54].

Alienations by Defendant No.4 — Self-Acquired Property — Validity — Defendant No.4 alienated all plaint schedule properties under registered sale deeds prior to the filing of the suit — As on the date of institution of the suit in 1982, the entire plaint schedule properties were in possession of the purchasers — Plaintiffs' own admissions confirmed knowledge of alienations and possession by purchasers — Defendant No.5 (brother of plaintiffs) had previously filed a written statement in O.S.No.119/1985 asserting that the properties were self-acquired properties of the paternal grandfather — Held: The alienations by Defendant No.4 as absolute owner are valid and binding — No property was available for partition as on the date of suit [Paras 36–47, 51].

Pleadings — Evidence Beyond Pleadings — Law Reiterated — Held: No evidence can be led beyond the pleadings — In the absence of specific pleading regarding the existence of coparcenary property, any amount of evidence on that point cannot be considered — Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove which properties were joint and which were ancestral in the plaint schedule [Paras 18, 41].

Decision: Appeal allowed — Decree and judgment dated 01.03.2000 in O.S.No.100 of 1983 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalli, set aside — Suit dismissed — Parties to bear their own costs.

Criminal Law – POCSO and BNS Offences – Quashing of FIR – Post-Settlement Marriage – Petition Allowed – FIR was lodged at the instance of the parents of the prosecutrix at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar, under BNS and POCSO Act – Prosecutrix had been a consenting party and was forced to depose against the petitioner by her parents – Subsequent to recording of her statement in the Trial Court, the parties solemnized marriage – Both parties appeared before the High Court, prosecutrix confirmed compromise and stated she does not intend to prosecute the petitioner – Held: When parties have settled and are residing together as husband and wife, allowing criminal proceedings to continue would be catastrophic for both; though Court should be slow to quash proceedings involving heinous offences, the peculiar facts and circumstances, including post-settlement marriage and the prosecutrix's own assent to quashment, warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction — FIR and all subsequent proceedings quashed [Paras 3, 7–8].

Decision: Petition allowed — FIR No. 560/2024 registered at Police Station Dhamnod, District Dhar and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom quashed.

Family Law — DNA Examination — Adultery — Presumption of Legitimacy — Section 112 Evidence Act — Direction Refused — Appellant-husband filed application in divorce proceedings under Section 13 HMA seeking DNA examination of minor child born during subsisting marriage, with the stated purpose of substantiating his allegation of adultery against respondent-wife — Family Court rejected the application on the ground that it would adversely affect the rights, dignity and future of the minor — On appeal, High Court holds that Section 112 of the Evidence Act creates a conclusive presumption of legitimacy for a child born during a valid marriage, which can be displaced only by proof of non-access between spouses — Appellant neither specifically pleaded nor placed any foundational material establishing non-access — Held: In absence of such pleading and material, statutory presumption remains intact and DNA examination cannot be directed — Appeal dismissed [Paras 7–10].

DNA Testing — Exceptional Circumstances — Not to Be Directed as a Matter of Routine — Balancing Interests of Child Against Rights of Parties — DNA examination can be ordered only in exceptional circumstances where strong prima facie material establishing non-access is available or where the interests of justice so demand — Direction for DNA testing, if granted, may have the effect of bastardising the child and is an unwarranted intrusion into the privacy and dignity of the minor, which are facets of the fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution — Courts must exercise utmost caution and restraint — The balance of interest in the present case tilts in favour of protecting the legitimacy and rights of the child [Paras 8–10].

Adultery — Evidentiary Requirements — Conflation of Adultery with Paternity — Appellant's contention that DNA examination was sought solely for proving adultery and not for determining paternity — Held: Such a distinction cannot be accepted as a reason to bypass the foundational requirement of rebutting the presumption under Section 112 — Permitting DNA examination without first discharging the burden of establishing non-access would render the protection under Section 112 otiose [Paras 5, 9].

Decision: Appeal from order dismissed — Order of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Nainital dated 16.12.2025 rejecting application for DNA examination upheld — Pending applications disposed of.