Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 2(s) - Definition of Workman - Petitioner’s claim rejected on grounds of involvement in selection process and supervisory work with a salary over Rs. 1600/- per month - Held, Management must prove the dominant nature of duties to exclude an employee from the definition of workman - Reliance on a mere statement of the workman is inadequate - Onus is on the management to lead credible evidence showing the nature of duties assigned. [Para 14-15]

Evidence of Supervisory Role - Management argued petitioner performed supervisory duties based on his signatures on selection documents - Held, signatures alone insufficient to classify petitioner as a supervisor without corroborative evidence - Appointment letter did not specify supervisory responsibilities - Petitioner’s exclusion from workman definition not justified. [Para 15-16]

Issue of Abandonment of Service - Labour Court’s finding of job abandonment by petitioner based on denied entry by security - Held, Management’s directive to deny entry invalidates claim of abandonment - Petitioner justified in claiming wrongful exclusion from duties. [Para 16]

Compensation in Lieu of Reinstatement - Considering long period out of service, reinstatement not feasible - Held, compensation awarded as per Apex Court’s principles in lieu of reinstatement - Management directed to pay Rs. 2.50 Lakhs within 3 months or face 7% interest per annum on delayed payment. [Para 19, 21]

Decision:

Writ petition allowed. The award dated 07.05.2010 is set aside. Management directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- to the petitioner within 3 months from receipt of certified copy of this order. Failure to pay within the stipulated time will attract additional interest at 7% per annum from the date of the award until recovery. [Para 21]

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1964 - Transfer of Gram Panchayat Land - Condition to set up sugar mill within two years not fulfilled - Transfer cancelled due to non-fulfillment and improper land value assessment - Held, the condition required setting up the sugar mill within two years failing which land to revert to Gram Panchayat - No illegality in cancellation by the state - Plea of pending litigation and tenant eviction efforts rejected. [Para 10-12]

Land Value Assessment and Litigation - No proper assessment of land value at transfer time - Held, land value for Gram Panchayat was significantly lower than adjoining land acquired through Section 4 notification of the Land Acquisition Act - Apparent object was to grab land at throwaway prices - Petitioner's claims of litigation and eviction efforts insufficient to justify non-compliance with conditions. [Para 11-12]

Decision: Petition dismissed. The state’s cancellation of the land transfer permission upheld. The petitioner's delayed filing and lack of compelling reasons for non-compliance considered. [Para 13-16]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(g) - Advocates Act, 1961 - Enrolment Requirement - Government servant challenging the condition requiring enrolment with Bar Council for the post of Assistant District Attorney - Held, enrolment as an advocate is necessary as the Assistant District Attorney appears in court as an advocate on behalf of the government - The condition does not violate Article 19(1)(g) - Petition dismissed. [Paras 5, 8]

Bar Council of India Rules, 1975 - Rule 49 - Practice by Government Servants - Rule 49 bars government servants from practicing as advocates - Held, only those enrolled with the Bar Council are eligible to apply for the post of Assistant District Attorney - Government Pleaders/Public Prosecutors are advocates and must be enrolled with the Bar Council to practice law. [Para 8]

Comparison with Civil Judges - Argument that Civil Judges are not required to be enrolled as advocates - Held, Civil Judges do not practice law; they preside over courts - Comparison with Assistant District Attorneys is misplaced - Enrollment as an advocate is a prerequisite for practicing law, even on behalf of the government. [Para 10]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed. The condition requiring enrolment with the Bar Council for the post of Assistant District Attorney is upheld. No violation of Article 19(1)(g) found. [Para 10]

Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Deterioration of Wheat Stock - Petitioner DFSO held responsible for wheat stock deterioration rejected by FCI - No specific evidence of dereliction of duty by the petitioner - Penalty imposed without substantiation - Held, petitioner was only in a supervisory role and took necessary steps to dispose of the stock - Enquiry initiated solely based on stock rejection - Penalty set aside - Retiral benefits to be released. [Para 14]

Lack of Direct Evidence and Supervisory Capacity - Department failed to provide direct evidence of the petitioner's negligence - Petitioner's actions included writing letters for stock disposal - Held, no liability can be fastened on the petitioner without evidence of direct responsibility - Supervisory role limits direct liability - Orders imposing penalty quashed. [Para 14]

Discrimination in Imposition of Penalty - Previous similar cases resulted in exoneration of employees - Held, imposition of penalty on petitioner discriminatory - Previous departmental instructions on wheat shelf life not considered in enquiry - Discrimination and lack of evidence warrant setting aside of penalty. [Paras 13, 14]

Decision: Both petitions allowed. Impugned orders dated March 29, 2010, and July 17, 2015, set aside. Petitioner entitled to all consequential retiral benefits. Respondents directed to calculate and disburse retiral benefits within two months, failing which interest at 9% per annum from the date of filing the petition until payment. [Para 15]

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65 and 66(2) - Secondary Evidence - Application for leading secondary evidence without issuing notice under Section 66 - Held, court has discretion to determine the necessity of notice before leading secondary evidence - Notice not required if the adverse party is aware that the document will be required - Petition dismissed as respondents established that petitioners had knowledge of the will. [Paras 18-19]

Court's Discretion and Adverse Party's Knowledge - Discretion granted to court under Section 66 to decide on the need for notice before allowing secondary evidence - Held, notice under Section 66(2) not required if the adverse party would know that the will needs to be produced - Respondents' claim that the original will was with the petitioners was considered valid. [Para 17]

Case Law Application - Reliance on co-ordinate bench judgment in Chaman Lal vs. Davin (2010) (2) PLR 758 - Case not applicable as it involved an unregistered will and different circumstances - Held, registered will's copy admissible for secondary evidence without notice if petitioners aware of its existence. [Para 14]

Decision: Petition dismissed. Trial court's order allowing secondary evidence upheld. Observations are limited to the application for secondary evidence and do not affect the final judgment on the will's authenticity. [Para 20]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, 506, 148, 149 - Conviction - Complainant party alleged accused of committing murder - Medical evidence indicated a 12 bore shot fired from close range, contradicting the complainant's version of indiscriminate firing from a distance - Held, the medical evidence did not support the ocular version of the complainant and eyewitnesses - Conviction set aside due to lack of corroboration from medical evidence - Appeal allowed. [Paras 39-41]

Evidentiary Standards and Corroboration - Injuries indicated a shot fired from a distance of 2-3 feet, not from 10 feet as claimed by the complainant - Held, injuries caused to the deceased were unlikely from the alleged distance - Blackening and deflection of pellets supported close-range firing - Medical evidence deemed more reliable than inconsistent eyewitness testimony - Conviction based on unreliable ocular evidence overturned. [Paras 22-23]

Role of Motive and Investigation Flaws - Accused allegedly motivated by previous electoral defeat of the accused's relative - Police investigation found the complainant's version unreliable - Held, motive alone insufficient to convict without credible evidence - Flawed investigation and lack of reliable evidence necessitated acquittal - Conviction and sentences of all accused set aside. [Paras 36-38]

Decision: Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 307, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act set aside. Accused acquitted of all charges. [Para 51]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i.a) - Cruelty and Desertion - Allegations by husband of cruelty and non-cooperation by wife - Prolonged separation and counter-allegations by both parties - Held, allegations not serious enough to constitute cruelty - Matrimonial cruelty must be such that it is dangerous for either spouse to remain in the company of the other - Appeal dismissed - Divorce cannot be granted based on "fault theory" alone - "Breakdown theory" not accepted under Hindu Marriage Act. [Para 12, 16]

Unreasonable Expectations and Matrimonial Cruelty - Allegations included refusal to care for mother-in-law, unreasonable demands, and non-cooperation - Held, allegations indicative of over-sensitivity and unreasonable expectations in a male-dominated society - Not sufficient to prove cruelty warranting divorce - Efforts for mediation recommended but not attempted - Divorce on grounds of cruelty not justified. [Para 12]

Prolonged Separation and Legal Theory - Despite prolonged separation, divorce cannot be granted solely on this ground - Hindu Marriage Act is based on "fault theory" and does not recognize "breakdown theory" as a ground for divorce - Held, appellant's claim based on prolonged separation rejected - Marriage dissolution requires proven fault as per statutory grounds. [Para 16]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. The petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion is not maintainable under the present circumstances. The court emphasizes the necessity of mediation and reasonable expectations within matrimonial relationships. [Para 20]

Service Law – Termination of Judicial Officer – Allegations of Illicit Relationship – Petitioner's service terminated based on allegations by another judicial officer's wife – No evidence supporting allegations – Held, termination based on unsubstantiated allegations is unjust – Petitioner's termination order quashed – Petitioner entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service but without back wages. [Paras 8, 10, 14]

Service Law – Competent Authority – Report by District Judge – Petitioner never worked under the District Judge, Faridkot, who reported against her – District Judge, Kapurthala, under whom petitioner worked, was never asked for a report – Held, report from an unrelated authority not competent for adverse comments – Termination order quashed due to lack of due process. [Paras 9, 10]

Decision – Petition allowed – Impugned termination order quashed – Petitioner reinstated with continuity in service for seniority and service benefits, but without back wages. [Paras 16-17]

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 - Assessment of Provisional Rent - Rent Controller’s duty to assess provisional rent upon tenant's request - Tenant requested provisional rent assessment at the first appearance - Rent Controller failed to assess rent and dismissed the petition on the ground of non-payment - Appellate authority ordered eviction - Held, Rent Controller is obligated to assess provisional rent and provide an opportunity for payment before eviction for non-payment can be ordered - Tenant's intention was bona fide as he requested assessment at the first appearance - Rent Controller directed to assess provisional rent - Petition allowed. [Paras 2, 21-23]

Tenant’s Bona Fides and Court’s Responsibility - Tenant demonstrated bona fide intention by requesting provisional rent assessment immediately - Held, tenant’s bona fide intention proven by timely request for rent assessment - Rent Controller failed in not assessing provisional rent - Supreme Court precedents mandate rent assessment before eviction for non-payment - Appellate authority’s order set aside. [Paras 22-23]

Supreme Court Precedent Compliance - Applicability of Rakesh Wadhawan vs. M/s Jagdamba Industrial Corporation, 2002 (5) SCC 440 - Held, Rent Controller must assess provisional rent and provide a chance to tender it, even if the dispute concerns rent amount or arrear period - Compliance with Supreme Court’s binding declaration is necessary. [Paras 10, 14]

Decision: Revision petition allowed. The Rent Controller is directed to assess the provisional rent and proceed with the case accordingly. The orders of the Rent Controller and the appellate authority are set aside. [Para 27]