Labour Law - Maintainability of Industrial Dispute - Definition of Workman - Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Supervisory Role and Salary Ceiling - Tribunal lacked jurisdiction - The Workman, designated as Senior Charge Hand, performed supervisory and administrative duties and earned above the statutory salary ceiling - Held: Employee does not qualify as a "workman" under Section 2(s) of the Act - Tribunal's jurisdiction to entertain the dispute questioned and found lacking - Industrial dispute declared void and award set aside [Paras 21-33].

Judicial Discipline - Adherence to High Court Directions - Failure to Frame Issue on Workman Definition - Tribunal's Breach - Tribunal did not frame an independent issue regarding the employee's status as directed by the High Court - Held: Non-compliance with the High Court's orders amounts to judicial indiscipline, rendering the award coram non judice and void [Paras 34-43].

Jurisdiction - Doctrine of Coram Non Judice - Nullity of Tribunal’s Orders - Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction - Orders passed by a judicial forum without jurisdiction are a nullity - Subject matter jurisdiction is fundamental and cannot be waived - Tribunal's award held invalid due to lack of jurisdiction over the dispute [Paras 36-39].

Industrial Welfare - Applicability of Statutory Parameters - Balancing Welfare and Legal Compliance - Workman’s Claim Denied - Industrial Disputes Act's welfare intention must adhere to statutory provisions - Employee’s supervisory duties and salary disqualified him as a workman - Courts upheld statutory compliance over welfare claims [Paras 24-29, 43].

Decision - Management’s Writ Allowed - Workman’s Writ Dismissed - Liberty to Pursue Remedies - The Court allowed the Management's writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's award and dismissing the Workman’s writ - Workman granted liberty to pursue alternative remedies under law [Paras 44(i)-(iv)].
 

Civil Law - Execution of Will - Validity - Compliance with Sections 63 of the Indian Succession Act and 68 of the Evidence Act - Attestation duly proved - Whether discrepancies in dates and overwriting vitiate the Will - Held: No - Overwriting in date rectified by the scribe’s signature - Misdescription of date on one page immaterial when consistent with the rest of the Will - Will execution upheld [Paras 12-19, 29].

Mental Capacity of Testatrix - Advanced Age Not Conclusive of Incapacity - Testatrix aged 87 - Sound mental and physical capacity corroborated by executor and attesting witnesses - Validity of the Will affirmed in absence of contrary evidence - Presumption in favor of notarized documents applied [Paras 26-27].

Role of Executor and Scribe - Executor Not Mandated to Confirm Signing in Presence of Witnesses - Compliance limited to attesting witnesses proving execution - Executor’s corroboration suffices when combined with attestation [Paras 24-25].

Signatures at Multiple Locations - Additional Signatures Strengthen Validity - Testatrix’s signature on every page and at the bottom affirms intention to execute the Will - Adherence to Section 63(b) of the Indian Succession Act established [Paras 21-22].

Discrepancy in Bengali and English Year - Error in Trial Court’s Interpretation - Bengali Year 1409 corresponds to English Year 2003, not 2002 - Will executed on January 16, 2003, validated by evidence and corroboration [Para 20].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Trial Court’s findings deemed perverse and based on extraneous considerations - Will execution upheld - Probate granted to the appellant [Paras 30-32].

Matrimonial Law - Maintenance – Refusal to Live with Husband – Sufficient Cause Established – Maintenance Upheld – Wife refused to live with her husband due to allegations of infidelity made by him, which were unsupported by any proof – Court held that such accusations constitute sufficient cause for the wife to live separately under Section 125(4) Cr.P.C. – Held: Accusations of infidelity without proof justify the wife’s decision to stay apart, and she is entitled to maintenance [Paras 4-5].

Quantum of Maintenance – Husband’s Income Considered – ₹3,000/- Maintenance Upheld – Husband claimed to earn ₹9,000/- per month as a skilled laborer and objected to the maintenance amount as excessive – Court observed that ₹3,000/- per month (1/3rd of the husband’s income) was reasonable and in line with the standard of living of the husband – Held: Trial Court rightly awarded ₹3,000/- as monthly maintenance [Para 5].

Character Assassination – Impact on Wife’s Rights – Maintenance Justified – Husband raised baseless allegations of infidelity against the wife, leading to her separation – Court held that such baseless character assassination violates the wife’s dignity and is a valid ground for living separately – Held: The wife’s refusal to live with the husband was justified, and her entitlement to maintenance remains unaffected [Para 4].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Maintenance Order – No Grounds Found – High Court declined to interfere with the Family Court’s order as it found no illegality or perversity in the findings – Held: Maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month upheld, and revision petition dismissed [Paras 5-6].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed. Maintenance of ₹3,000/- per month as directed by the Family Court is upheld.

Maintenance for Wife – Allegations of Infidelity Without Proof – Section 125(4), Cr.P.C. – Maintenance Upheld – The husband alleged infidelity of the wife without providing any evidence – The Court held that a wife is justified in living separately when her chastity is questioned by her husband without proof – Such allegations amount to character assassination, providing sufficient cause for the wife to refuse to live with the husband – Held: Wife entitled to maintenance [Paras 4-5].

Quantum of Maintenance – Standard of Living – Husband’s Capacity to Pay – Maintenance Reasonable – Maintenance of ₹3,000/month upheld as reasonable, considering the husband’s admitted income of ₹9,000/month and the wife’s inability to maintain herself – The amount aligns with the husband’s standard of living – Held: No interference warranted [Para 5].

Burden of Proof – Allegations Without Evidence – Adverse Inference – The Court noted the husband’s failure to produce evidence to support his claims of infidelity – Such failure justified rejection of his plea against maintenance – Held: No ground to interfere with the trial court's findings [Para 4].

Final Decision – Revision Petition Dismissed – The Court dismissed the revision, affirming the trial court’s order granting maintenance to the wife – No costs imposed [Paras 5-6].
 

Writ – PIL - Challenge to the withdrawal of recommendations - Governor’s Role in Nominations – Article 171(3)(e) and Article 163(1) – Discretion Limited – Challenge to Governor’s non-action on the Council of Ministers' recommendations dated 6 November 2020 for Legislative Council nominations – Held: The Governor’s discretion under Article 171(3)(e) is not absolute but subject to limited circumstances as outlined in prior judgments – Withdrawal of recommendations by the subsequent Cabinet decision dated 10 August 2022 precludes further action on the earlier advice [Paras 13, 19, 21].

Cabinet’s Power to Withdraw Advice – Article 166 – Recommendations Not Finalized – Once the Council of Ministers withdrew its earlier recommendations, there was no binding advice pending with the Governor – Recommendations must culminate in a final decision through a government order under Article 166 – Withdrawal of advice by the Cabinet upheld [Paras 15-17, 20-21].

Nature of Recommendations – Interim Status – Until the Governor acts on the advice and a formal notification is issued under Article 166, recommendations by the Cabinet remain tentative and revocable – No rights accrue to individuals recommended for nomination during the interim period [Paras 15-16].

Direction to Governor – Not Permissible – Article 361 – The Court reiterated that no direction can be issued to the Governor under Article 361 – The petitioner’s prayer for directing the Governor to act on the withdrawn recommendations was deemed untenable [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Petition Dismissed. The withdrawal of the 6 November 2020 recommendations by the subsequent Cabinet decision was held valid. The Court declined to issue directions to the Governor for acting on withdrawn recommendations or returning them with reasons.
 

Service Law - Recruitment - Disclosure of Pending Criminal Case - Bona Fide Mistake - Candidate failed to disclose pendency of criminal case due to lack of awareness - Not construed as suppression or fraud - Candidate acquitted honorably - Discharge order set aside - Reinstatement directed [Paras 3-16, 18].

Nature of Offence - Triviality of Alleged Crimes - Offences under Sections 341, 504, and 506 IPC held not to constitute serious crimes - Employer’s obligation to evaluate trivial cases for possible condonation - Non-disclosure found to lack dishonest intent [Paras 12-13, 17].

Employment in Disciplined Forces - Role of Character Verification - Mere omission or minor errors in disclosure cannot tarnish suitability for disciplined forces - Requirement to exercise discretion and consider the facts and circumstances holistically [Paras 14-16, 18].

Applicability of Supreme Court Precedents - Flexibility in Assessing Lapses - Principles in Avtar Singh v. Union of India applied - Omission due to bona fide error held not to disqualify the candidate [Paras 12-14, 16-17].

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Discharge order and Single Judge's decision set aside - Reinstatement of appellant with directions for continuation of service within eight weeks [Paras 18-19].
 

Default Bail – Extension of Detention under UAPA – Prosecution sought an extension of investigation beyond 90 days—Trial court granted the extension without providing an opportunity of hearing to the accused—Held: Mandatory notice and presence of accused are required while considering an extension under Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA—Denial of default bail on the basis of an invalid extension violates Article 21 of the Constitution—Appeal allowed, and bail granted [Paras 8, 14, 18].

Investigation Delay – Right to Liberty – Prosecution failed to demonstrate due diligence in completing the investigation within the statutory period—Held: The right to liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed arbitrarily—Extension of detention cannot be granted mechanically—Prolonged detention without substantial progress in investigation unjustified—Bail granted [Paras 11, 25, 26].

Judicial Review of Prosecution’s Conduct – Section 43D(2)(b) of UAPA – The trial court failed to record specific reasons justifying the need for further detention—Held: Extension under Section 43D(2)(b) is an exception and must be based on valid grounds—The court must be satisfied that further detention is necessary for completing the investigation—Failure to record specific reasons renders the extension order unsustainable—Bail granted [Paras 13, 31].

Constitutional Safeguards – Procedural Fairness – Accused was neither notified nor given an opportunity to object to the extension application—Held: Violation of the principles of natural justice—An accused’s right to default bail is a fundamental right under Article 21—Denial of such bail due to procedural lapses is illegal—Bail granted [Paras 16, 29].

Failure to Conduct Prompt Investigation – The prosecution delayed crucial steps such as witness examination and forensic analysis—Held: Prosecution cannot seek an extension if investigation proceeds at a sluggish pace—Arbitrary delay in investigation cannot justify continued detention—Default bail granted [Paras 24, 27].

Decision: Appeal allowed—Orders extending investigation and denying default bail set aside—Appellants granted bail on execution of personal bonds and sureties—Court reaffirms that procedural safeguards under UAPA must be strictly adhered to.

Civil Law - Trademark Infringement - Registration in Identical Classes - Passing Off – Phonetic, Structural, and Visual Similarity – Plaintiff established prior use and goodwill over the trademark "INDI" – Defendant’s use of "INDEED" found to be deceptively similar, creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers – Defendant’s lack of bona fide adoption of the mark "INDEED" highlighted by the identical trade dress and absence of justification for the new mark – Held: Ex-parte injunction made absolute; balance of convenience in favor of the plaintiff – Defendant restrained from using "INDEED" or any mark phonetically, visually, or structurally similar to "INDI" [Paras 28-31, 49-51].

Trademark Infringement – Registration in Identical Classes – Defendant’s registration in unrelated classes irrelevant to the plaintiff’s claim – Plaintiff demonstrated exclusivity over "INDI" through extensive use and sales figures – Held: Plaintiff’s rights as prior user superior to defendant’s subsequent registration – Decision: Injunction upheld against use of "INDEED" for measuring tapes [Paras 22, 49-52].

Color Combination – Role in Passing Off – Plaintiff disclaimed exclusivity over "blue and white" color combination – Defendant’s use of similar trade dress along with the mark "INDEED" created consumer confusion – Held: Trade dress relevant in conjunction with the deceptively similar mark – Decision: Passing off established; injunction upheld [Paras 18-19, 37-38].

Misrepresentation and Suppression – Allegation of Suppression Rejected – Defendant alleged suppression regarding its trademark registrations in classes 7 and 8 – Held: Plaintiff disclosed all relevant information regarding Class 9 goods, while other class registrations were immaterial to the dispute – No misrepresentation found – Decision: Defendant’s allegations dismissed [Paras 22-23].

Decision: Ex-parte ad interim injunction dated 28/08/2024 is made absolute – Defendant restrained from using the mark "INDEED" or any similar mark in relation to measuring tapes or allied goods.
Defendant’s applications under Order XXXIX Rule 4 and for release of seized goods are dismissed.
Observations confined to interim applications and will not affect the final adjudication of the suit.
 

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Applicability of Rules of 2018 and Rule 28 of Management Rules of 1969 – Convent of Our Lady of Providence Girls High School, a Christian minority unaided school, initiated disciplinary proceedings against two teachers alleging misconduct – Petitioners challenged the proceedings citing non-compliance with the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (Appointment, Confirmation, Conduct and Discipline of Teachers and Non-Teaching Staff) Rules, 2018 and Rule 28 of the Management Rules of 1969 – Supreme Court clarified that Rules of 2018 are inapplicable to unaided minority schools and directed the school to proceed further after serving the enquiry report – High Court reiterated that Rule 28(8) of the Management Rules applies only to the extent of ensuring reasonable facilities for defense and does not mandate prior approval of the Board in unaided minority institutions [Paras 15.5, 16.5-16.8, 17.4-17.5].

Minority Institution – Autonomy in Administration – School argued that as a Christian minority institution, it enjoys autonomy under Article 30(1) of the Constitution and is not bound by provisions interfering with its administration – High Court upheld this position, relying on precedents including Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of India (1986) and Chandana Das (Malakar) v. State of West Bengal (2020), which invalidated provisions requiring prior approval for disciplinary actions in unaided minority institutions as violative of Article 30(1) [Paras 16.5-16.7].

Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata – Petitioners’ earlier writs challenging the enquiry report were disposed of without quashing the report – Supreme Court allowed the school to proceed further based on the same report – Renewed challenge to the enquiry report barred by constructive res judicata as the prior proceedings amounted to a deemed refusal to grant the relief sought [Paras 17.5].

Decision:

WPA 7329 of 2023: Dismissed – Petitioners directed to respond to the enquiry report within two weeks – School may continue disciplinary proceedings [Para 17.5].

WPA 7894 of 2022 and WPA 7897 of 2022: Dismissed as not pressed, as the school did not pursue its challenge to the constitutional validity of Rules of 2018 [Final Paragraph].