Labour Law – Unfair Labour Practice – Continuous Engagement for Over 9 Years – Denial of Permanency – Petitioners employed as Firemen and Drivers by Malegaon Municipal Corporation since 2016–17 on six-month contracts – Worked uninterruptedly, with only technical breaks – Corporation admitted continuous engagement but denied permanency citing financial constraints and staffing pattern guidelines – Industrial Court dismissed ULP Complaints citing establishment expenditure exceeding 35% ceiling – Held: Long-term engagement of workmen in essential services on daily wages amounts to unfair labour practice – Continuous temporary employment with artificial breaks amounts to exploitation – Corporation’s justification based on financial limits and staffing constraints rejected [Paras 6–14, 17–18, 21–22].

Constitutional Law – Article 14 and 21 – Arbitrary Termination During Pendency of Writ Petition – Petitioners' services were terminated on 02.07.2025 during pendency of writ petitions despite prior ad-interim protection – Held: Action of Corporation is arbitrary and high-handed – Termination orders quashed – Petitioners entitled to reinstatement with continuity and backwages – Fundamental rights to equality, fairness, and dignity in public employment violated [Paras 14, 18, 28–29].

Public Employment – Essential Services – Scope of Regularisation – Drivers and Firemen held to be part of essential service cadre – Corporation’s failure to absorb them into sanctioned posts despite staffing approvals since 2016–17 amounts to systemic neglect and inequity – Reliance on GR clause regarding 35% expenditure cap held to be insufficient to deny permanency – Reference made to SC’s rulings in Dharam Singh, Shripal, and Jaggo cases affirming protection of long-serving ad-hoc workers against exploitation [Paras 12, 20–25].

Industrial Law – Evidence and Burden of Proof – No Rebuttal by Employer – Petitioners led documentary and oral evidence proving continuous engagement and discharge of regular duties – Corporation failed to rebut evidence or show valid justification – Labour Court’s dismissal of complaints solely on administrative grounds unsustainable – Held: Petitioners entitled to permanency and benefits under MRTU & PULP Act [Paras 15–17, 24–25].

Decision:

Writ Petitions allowed – Impugned orders dated 06.05.2025 and termination orders dated 02.07.2025 quashed – Petitioners directed to be reinstated within one week with continuity in service, backwages from 02.07.2025, and all benefits of permanency from date of judgment [Paras 27–30].

Civil Law – Local Commissioner – Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC – Improper Rejection – Appointment Directed – Trial court dismissed plaintiff's application seeking appointment of Technical Engineer as Local Commissioner to demarcate disputed wall and report physical condition – Held: Though appointment of Commissioner is discretionary, such discretion must advance cause of justice – Where real controversy relates to physical features or encroachment, court must allow factual verification – Refusal to appoint Local Commissioner stifles adjudication of real issue – Impugned order set aside – Trial court directed to appoint Commissioner for inspection and report [Paras 1–10].

Constitution of India – Article 227 – Superintendence Over Subordinate Courts – Interference Justified – High Court invoked supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to correct error committed by trial court in refusing crucial procedural aid for just determination – Held: Interference under Article 227 warranted to prevent failure of justice and facilitate effective adjudication [Paras 6–10].

Commissioner Report – Scope – Not to Determine Possession or Title – Court clarified that Commissioner is to report physical condition only and not express opinion on possession or rights – Appreciation of report lies with the court – Purpose is to aid adjudication, not to substitute judicial evaluation [Para 6].

Decision: Civil Revision allowed – Impugned order dated 04.07.2024 set aside – Trial court directed to appoint Local Commissioner to inspect site and report existing physical condition – Pending miscellaneous applications also disposed of.

Service Law – Promotion – Notional Promotion and Stepping-Up of Pay – Appellant, a retired Headmaster, claimed entitlement to notional promotion and pay fixation from 1988 at par with his junior of reserved category who was promoted under accelerated promotion scheme – Suit filed in 2018, long after appellant’s actual promotion in 2004 and retirement in 2006 – Held: Claim was hopelessly barred by limitation – First cause of action arose in 1988 or latest by 2004 – Suit filed after 14 years is not maintainable under the Limitation Act [Paras 8–10]

Limitation – Delay in Seeking Notional Promotion – Appellant sought financial and pensionary benefits based on deemed earlier promotion – Distinguished from recurring pensionary claims – Held: Claim for notional promotion and parity in pay fixation is not a continuing cause of action – Time-barred civil suit rightly dismissed by both courts below – Appellant not entitled to relief [Paras 9–11]

Precedent – Distinction from Pension Cases – Appellant relied on Union of India v. Tarsem Singh and other pension benefit rulings – Held: Such cases pertain to recurring causes of action for pension – The present case involving stepping-up of pay based on deemed promotion does not fall in that category – Relief denied [Para 11]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgments of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak dated 23.07.2019 and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak dated 05.08.2022 upheld – Suit held barred by limitation.

Criminal Law – Outraging Modesty – Discharge – Accused sent old and ugly undergarments of women via parcel to a female school principal with intent to insult her modesty – Accused sought discharge under Section 239 CrPC – Magistrate discharged them from Section 354 IPC but retained charges under Section 509 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 – Revision filed against continuation under these charges – Held: Sending such items amounts to gesture and exhibiting object to insult modesty – Attracts Section 509 IPC – However, such act not covered under definition of "indecent representation" under Section 2(c) of the Act – Discharge granted under Sections 4 & 6 of the Act [Paras 1–7, 9]

Penal Code – Section 509 IPC – Interpretation – Act of sending ugly female undergarments by parcel constitutes "gesture" and "exhibiting an object" – Deemed intentional insult to modesty of woman – Attracts Section 509 IPC – Plea that offence not made out rejected – Held: No merit in contention of accused – Charge under Section 509 IPC to proceed [Paras 5–6]

Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act – Sections 4 & 6 – Definition – Section 2(c) defines indecent representation as depiction of a woman’s form/body in a way likely to deprave or corrupt – Sending old female undergarments not depiction of woman's body – Held: Act does not attract Sections 4 & 6 – Discharge allowed [Para 7]

Criminal Procedure – Double Jeopardy – Accused claimed they were already prosecuted for similar offence in Tamil Nadu – Held: Offences distinct – One pertains to sending items to another woman in different jurisdiction – No bar under Article 20(2) of Constitution or Section 300 CrPC – No merit in plea of double jeopardy [Para 8]

Decision:

Criminal revision partly allowed – Accused discharged from prosecution under Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 – Order upheld with respect to prosecution under Section 509 read with Section 34 IPC – Trial to continue for said offence alone.

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Transferee Pendente Lite – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Application under Order I Rule 10 CPC – Trial court allowed subsequent purchaser’s impleadment despite purchase being made during pendency of civil suit and in violation of interim injunction – Held: Order unsustainable – Purchaser during pendency of litigation is neither necessary nor proper party – Rights of such transferee are subject to outcome of litigation – Their presence is not required for complete adjudication – Trial court erred in allowing impleadment contrary to settled law in Vidur Impex v. Tosh Apartments [2012 (8) SCC 384] – Impugned order set aside – Petition allowed [Paras 1–14]

Transfer of Property – Section 52 – Knowledge of Litigation – Actual or Constructive Notice – Irrelevance – Transferee bound by outcome regardless of awareness of pending suit – Doctrine applies automatically upon pendency of suit relating to property rights – Purpose is to prevent alienation and maintain status quo – Knowledge of injunction or suit immaterial [Paras 7–11]

Civil Practice – Judicial Discretion – Error in Trial Court’s Reasoning – Trial court misapplied test of necessary party by holding issue of bona fide purchaser to be decided in trial – Held: Legal status as transferee pendente lite disqualifies such party from being impleaded – Impleadment would unnecessarily delay proceedings and defeat statutory objective [Paras 6, 12–13]

Decision: Impugned order dated 20.05.2025 set aside – Civil Revision allowed – Trial court to proceed with suit without impleading applicant as party – All pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Anticipatory Bail – Forged Judicial Summons – Circulation via WhatsApp – Petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in FIR alleging conspiracy with co-accused to create and circulate forged summons purporting to be issued by Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar, demanding ₹10 lakh as “maintenance” – Co-accused’s disclosure and recovered WhatsApp screenshots indicated petitioner’s active role – Held: Allegations strike at sanctity of justice system and public confidence in judiciary – Grant of anticipatory bail would impede investigation – Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 8–13].

Criminal Law – Custodial Interrogation – Necessity and Scope – Court relied on State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 – Held: Custodial interrogation is qualitatively distinct and necessary to trace digital origin of forged summons, devices used, and wider conspiracy – Mere argument of “no need for custodial interrogation” not by itself a ground to grant pre-arrest bail [Paras 11–12].

Forgery of Judicial Process – Public Interest and Judicial Sanctity – Forging and circulating fake court summons undermines public trust in judicial institutions – Even compromise between parties cannot dilute gravity of such offence – Judicial institutions must respond firmly to preserve public faith in administration of justice [Paras 9–10].

Compromise Between Parties – Irrelevance in Offences Against Justice System – Settlement between complainant and accused held immaterial – Such offences transcend individual disputes and affect institutional credibility – Compromise cannot justify pre-arrest protection in cases of judicial impersonation [Para 9].

Prima Facie Case – Material Evidence – Disclosure statement of co-accused, recovery of screenshots showing petitioner’s number and chats, and corroborative material established prima facie involvement – False implication plea rejected as defence issue to be tested at trial [Paras 11–12].

Decision:
Anticipatory bail denied – FIR discloses grave offence involving forgery of judicial summons and impersonation of court authority – Custodial interrogation required to trace conspiracy and digital evidence – Petition dismissed – Observations confined to bail stage only [Paras 13–14].

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Power of Attorney – Impounding of Document – Plaintiff filed partition suit through Power of Attorney holder (P.W. Jayaprakash) – Defendant challenged validity of the Power of Attorney (Ext. P2) for non-registration and inadequate stamp duty – Trial Court impounded Ext. P2 under Section 33 of Kerala Stamp Act – Ordered collection of duty and penalty under Sections 37(2) and 39(b) – Plaintiff sought to replace Ext. P2 with fresh Power of Attorney (Ext. P5) – Trial Court rejected this attempt – Held: Mere filing of second Power of Attorney does not constitute valid replacement unless accepted by court – Replacement application viewed as attempt to evade stamp duty – Impounding order upheld – Plaintiff directed to pay stamp duty and penalty [Paras 6–20]

CPC – Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 – Plaintiff filed amendment application to substitute own name and delete Power of Attorney holder – Application allowed by Trial Court – Defendant challenged order – Held: Amendment application premature as application for plaintiff’s personal appearance still pending – Without formal discharge of Power of Attorney holder, allowing amendment unjustified – Trial Court’s amendment order set aside – Both applications to be heard together for proper adjudication [Paras 21–23]

Procedure – Filing of Suit through Power of Attorney – Admitted that suit was filed through Ext. P2 Power of Attorney – Later, conflicting stand taken that earlier suit was filed based on oral authority – Such contradiction in pleadings viewed as misleading – Held: Once suit admitted based on a document, subsequent attempt to deny it invalid – Fresh Power of Attorney cannot be filed to circumvent consequences under Stamp Act [Paras 18–19]

Judicial Reasoning – Sequence of Applications – Court emphasized that amendment to delete Power of Attorney holder’s name cannot precede or preempt decision on application seeking plaintiff’s permission to appear personally – Described as "putting the cart before the horse" – Amendment and discharge must be adjudicated together [Para 22]

Precedent – Karnataka High Court Case – State of Karnataka v. M. Muniraju [2002 KHC 3513] cited – Suit filed through unauthorized Power of Attorney holder is not maintainable – Cited to support the necessity of proper authorization [Para 17]

Service Law – Adverse Remarks in ACR – Judicial Review – Appellant, a police officer, challenged adverse remarks in his ACR for 2019–2020 describing him as “Not Reliable” and “Doubtful Honesty” – Trial court decreed suit for expungement, but first appellate court reversed decree – High Court upheld appellate judgment – Held: Adverse remarks were supported by material including findings in departmental inquiry and viral video evidence – Appellant was given full opportunity to represent and explain – No evidence of mala fides or procedural violation – Judicial interference in ACR not warranted [Paras 6–11]

Departmental Proceedings – Principles of Natural Justice – Challenge to Adverse Entries – Appellant received multiple punishments including stoppage of increments and censure – Contention that principles of natural justice were not followed was rejected – Representation against ACR was duly considered and dismissed via reasoned order – Held: Due process was followed, and bias not established – ACR remarks justified [Paras 6–10]

Reliability and Honesty – Discretion of Reporting Officer – Use of descriptors such as “Doubtful Honesty” and “Not Reliable” in ACR – Justified based on material evidence and conduct history – FIR quashed on compromise does not negate administrative findings or misconduct – Held: Reporting officer’s evaluation falls within domain of administrative discretion unless shown to be arbitrary or malafide, which was not the case here [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of District Judge, Kurukshetra dated 12.07.2024 upheld – No interference warranted with adverse ACR remarks.

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Ganja Seizure – Enhancement of Sentence – Respondent found in alleged possession of 1.7 kg of Ganja – Seizure included seeds and leaves – FSL Report confirmed presence of flowering tops but also noted seeds and leaf matter – Held: Under Section 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act, Ganja excludes seeds and leaves unless accompanied by flowering or fruiting tops – Absence of clear separation renders seizure weight questionable – Prosecution failed to prove quantity was above “small quantity” threshold [Paras 15-17, 22].

Sentencing – Principles – Section 377 Cr.P.C. – State Appeal on Ground of Inadequate Sentence – Trial court had sentenced accused to 1 year RI and fine, both complied with – Court reiterates settled law that appellate courts should interfere with sentencing discretion only in exceptional cases – Refers to Bed Raj v. State of U.P. – Held: Sentence imposed was not shockingly disproportionate and consistent with evidence – No ground for enhancement [Paras 1, 3.1, 23].

NDPS Act – Presumption of Possession – Burden of Proof – Alleged seizure occurred from premises under construction – Labourers present at site – Ownership and exclusive possession not proved – Accused explained house belonged to father and was under renovation – Held: Exclusive conscious possession of larger quantity not established beyond doubt – Conviction under consumption and lesser quantity held appropriate [Paras 6, 20-22].

Criminal Trial – Witness Testimony – Panch Witnesses Turned Hostile – Prosecution relied on police witnesses and FSL – Court noted contradictions and absence of corroboration from independent witnesses – Held: Trial court rightly considered benefit of doubt while determining sentence and acquitting co-accused [Paras 10-14, 21].

Sentencing Policy – Proportionality and Deterrence – Court referred to State of Rajasthan v. Mohan Lal, Soman v. State of Kerala, and Alister Anthony Pareira – Held: Sentence must balance gravity of offence, intent, and societal impact – In present case, imprisonment already undergone with fine paid found proportionate [Paras 3, 11-14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Sentence of 1-year rigorous imprisonment and fine of ₹15,000 upheld – No enhancement warranted – Accused had already served full sentence and paid fine – Sentence found proportionate and consistent with facts and legal standards [Para 23].