Service Law - Social Forestry Workers – Claim for Permanency – Kalelkar Award – Writ Petitions by Social Forestry Division challenging the Industrial Court’s orders granting permanency to daily wage workers under the Kalelkar Award – Petitioners contended that workers were engaged seasonally and not entitled to permanency as no sanctioned posts existed – Held: Industrial Court erred in granting straightaway permanency; instead, the workers’ cases should be considered under government schemes for regularization of daily wage workers as per the Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for consideration of absorption under Government Resolutions from 1996 and 2012 [Paras 1-4, 22-25, 30].

Grant of Permanency – Industrial Court’s Power – Umadevi Case Law – Petitioners argued that as per the Constitution Bench ruling in Umadevi, workers cannot claim regularization without following due process, and the Industrial Court overstepped by granting permanency – Held: Industrial Court’s order for regularization of casual workers without sanctioned posts contravenes Umadevi principles – Court referred to Government schemes that provided for absorption of workers after 5 years of service, requiring re-evaluation under those schemes – Permissible to grant absorption as per applicable schemes, but not direct regularization [Paras 17-19, 21, 22, 29].**

Kalelkar Award – Scope and Application – CRTE Status vs. Permanency – The Industrial Court granted permanency by applying the Kalelkar Award, which requires five years of continuous service for CRTE status – Held: The Kalelkar Award confers CRTE status and does not guarantee permanent government posts – The workers should have been granted CRTE status and considered for regularization under existing schemes, but not outright permanency – Industrial Court order modified accordingly [Paras 10-12, 22-25].**

Regularization Schemes – Government Resolutions of 1996, 2012, and 2018 – Court observed that several Government Resolutions provide for the regularization of daily wage workers completing 5 years of service between 1994 and 2004 – Directed petitioners to re-evaluate workers’ claims for regularization based on these resolutions, without insisting on conditions like active service in 2012 for those terminated in 2002 – Court outlined the method for calculating service benefits, continuity, and retirement benefits for eligible workers [Paras 23-30].

Premature Termination – Impact of Interim Orders – Petitioners argued that the workers’ continued service was due to the status-quo order, thus should not count towards permanency – Held: Interim orders did not prevent petitioners from terminating workers’ services – Workers continued in service for over a decade, justifying consideration for regularization – Termination during pending complaints did not negate their right to claim benefits under the regularization schemes [Paras 14-15, 16].

Decision: Petitions partly allowed – Industrial Court’s direction for permanency set aside – Petitioners to consider workers for regularization under relevant Government Resolutions – Cases remitted for re-evaluation – Eligible workers to be absorbed and granted consequential benefits, including monetary benefits, retirement benefits, and continuity of service [Paras 30-31].

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Allegations of Rape – Petitioners sought quashment of the FIR and charge sheet on the grounds that the prosecutrix is a consenting adult and the case has been amicably settled – Held: Offenses under Section 376 IPC (rape) are serious in nature and cannot be quashed on the basis of compromise, as they have a profound impact on society – The court must be cautious when using its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, especially in cases of heinous crimes like rape [Paras 7-8, 16-17].

Compromise in Heinous Crimes – Non-Compoundable Offenses – Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the court held that offenses such as rape cannot be compromised even if the parties have settled – Crimes like rape affect the dignity and sanctity of women, and the court emphasized that these offenses are not merely private matters but affect public interest as well – Held: The petition for quashing was dismissed, and the court underscored that compromise does not mitigate or nullify the charges in such cases [Paras 9-13, 15-16].

Decision:

Petition under Section 482 of CrPC dismissed – Criminal proceedings will continue, as offenses of rape cannot be quashed based on compromise between the parties, given their serious nature and societal impact [Para 17].

Money Laundering – Corruption Allegations – PMLA Proceedings – Arrest Upheld – The petitioner, a former Forest Minister of Punjab, challenged his arrest under the PMLA, claiming violations of Section 19 and arguing that he had cooperated with the investigation. The Directorate of Enforcement arrested the petitioner for laundering proceeds of crime from bribes related to forest department activities, including issuing No Objection Certificates (NOCs), officer transfers, and illegal tree felling – Evidence, including witness statements and records of disproportionate assets, supported the allegations of money laundering – The court found the arrest was lawful, rejecting claims of procedural violations – Petition for quashing of arrest was dismissed [Paras 6.1-8.4].

Civil Law – Recovery of Money – Execution of Promissory Note – Appellant contested the execution of the promissory note by the deceased Ramachandran, alleging it was fabricated – Trial court dismissed the suit for lack of conclusive proof, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that oral evidence of witnesses substantiated the claim despite adverse expert opinion – Appellants argued the appellate court wrongly disregarded the expert opinion and failed to properly assess the evidence – Held: Oral evidence, corroborated by other factors, sufficiently established the validity of the promissory note, and the expert opinion was considered a weak piece of evidence – First appellate court's judgment upheld, and second appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 11-26].

Presumption of Execution – Section 118 of Negotiable Instruments Act – Legal heirs of the deceased Ramachandran denied the execution of the promissory note – Plaintiff unable to claim presumption under Section 118 of the Act as the signature was disputed – Burden of proof shifted to plaintiff to establish that the deceased executed the promissory note – The trial court held the plaintiff did not meet this burden; however, the appellate court found the oral evidence provided by the plaintiff's witnesses sufficient to prove execution [Paras 11, 12, 16, 21].

Evidence – Adverse Inference – Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act – Trial court invoked Section 114(g) against the plaintiff for withholding expert opinion that was unfavorable – Appellate court found that invoking Section 114(g) was incorrect as the expert’s opinion was available to the court and could have been marked as evidence if deemed necessary – Held: Plaintiff was not obligated to rely on expert opinion, and oral evidence took precedence under Section 47 of Indian Evidence Act, allowing witnesses familiar with the signature to testify [Paras 13-20].

Remand Request – Defendants sought remand to trial court for re-appreciation of expert evidence – Held: As the expert opinion was already available, the defendants had the opportunity to submit it in their defense – The appellate court’s decision not to rely on it, and its focus on oral evidence, was deemed appropriate – Remand was unnecessary as the appellate court had sufficiently dealt with the matter based on the existing evidence [Paras 27-29].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 24.08.2021 of the first appellate court confirmed – No costs [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Conviction under POCSO Act – The appellant was convicted under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act for pressing the chest of a minor girl with sexual intent – Appellant contended that the prosecution’s case was based on contradictory evidence and the child’s testimony lacked corroboration – Held: The prosecutrix’s testimony, corroborated by her parents and the FIR, was credible and sufficient to establish the offense – Conviction upheld [Paras 5-8, 10-12].

Age Determination – The appellant challenged the age of the prosecutrix – The court relied on the scholar register, which showed the victim’s date of birth as 09/10/2007, establishing that she was under 12 years old at the time of the incident – Court rejected the appellant's arguments regarding age [Paras 9-10].

Testimony of Child Witness – The appellant argued that the child’s testimony required corroboration – Court held that the testimony of a child victim in sexual offenses carries inherent credibility and does not require corroboration, especially when there is no material contradiction or embellishment [Paras 13-15].

Sexual Intent – The appellant denied the presence of sexual intent – Court held that pressing the chest of a minor female is sufficient to demonstrate sexual intent under the POCSO Act – Section 30 of the POCSO Act presumes culpable mental state in such cases unless proven otherwise [Paras 16-18].

Sentencing – The appellant was sentenced to 3 years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹1,000 under Section 8 of the POCSO Act – Court found no reason to interfere with the sentence as it was within the statutory limits and appropriate for the offense [Paras 19-20].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act upheld [Paras 21-22].

Right to Fair Trial – Denial of Legal Assistance – Violation of Article 21 – Retrial Ordered – The appellant contended that he was deprived of the right to legal assistance during the trial as his counsel did not appear, and he was asked to cross-examine the witnesses himself, despite his lack of legal expertise. The Court found that the trial was not conducted fairly, as the accused was denied his right to be represented by counsel, a fundamental aspect of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. Held: The conviction and sentence are set aside, and the case is remanded for retrial with the direction to allow the appellant to engage counsel or to be provided legal aid – Appeal allowed, retrial ordered [Paras 36-52].

Sanction for Prosecution – Validity Not Proven – Absence of Examination of Sanctioning Authority – The appellant challenged the validity of the sanction order, arguing that the prosecution failed to examine the Sanctioning Authority to prove that proper sanction was granted. The Court found that the prosecution did not establish the validity of the sanction, as the Sanctioning Authority was not examined, and no material was provided to show proper application of mind by the authority. Held: The sanction was not proved as required by law – Retrial ordered [Paras 16-25].

Demand and Acceptance of Bribe – Corroboration of Prosecution Witnesses – Incomplete Cross-Examination – The prosecution relied on the testimonies of the complainant and shadow witnesses to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe. However, the accused was denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses fully due to his counsel's absence. The Court observed that incomplete cross-examination of key witnesses prejudiced the defense. Held: Retrial necessary to ensure fair opportunity for cross-examination – Retrial ordered [Paras 26-34, 49-52].

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheque – Conviction under Section 138 – Cheque issued by the accused for ₹2.00 lakh dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Accused claimed cheque was issued as a security for ₹50,000 and not for a legal liability – Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused to eight months of simple imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,50,000 – Appeal by accused was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge – Revision petition dismissed by the High Court, upholding the conviction and sentence – Held: All ingredients of Section 138 NI Act were satisfied – Presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for legal liability was not rebutted by the accused [Paras 6, 7, 8, 13-22].

Presumption of Consideration – Accused admitted the issuance of the cheque – Accused claimed it was a blank cheque given as security for ₹50,000, but failed to prove this defence – Court held that under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act, once a cheque is issued, it carries a presumption of consideration which the accused failed to rebut – Defence of a blank cheque for security was rejected as no evidence was led by the accused [Paras 16, 17, 19, 20].

Notice of Demand – Notice of demand sent to the accused through registered post – Acknowledgment of delivery was produced by the complainant – Court presumed service of notice under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act – Accused failed to make payment within 15 days of receiving the summons, thus failing to discharge the liability [Paras 35, 36].

Sentence – Eight months of simple imprisonment and fine of ₹2,50,000 – Held not excessive – Fine compensates for legal expenses and interest loss – In line with Supreme Court guidelines to levy fines up to twice the cheque amount along with simple interest [Paras 38-41].

Decision: Revision petition dismissed – Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the NI Act upheld – Accused failed to rebut presumption of consideration and notice of demand was properly served [Paras 43, 44].

FIR Quashing – Offences Under Sections 457 and 380 IPC – Compromise Accepted – The petitioner sought the quashing of an FIR registered for house-trespass and theft, contending that the matter had been amicably resolved through a compromise with the complainants – Held: The offences in question are of a private nature and do not affect the public at large – Following the Supreme Court's guidelines in Gian Singh and Narender Singh, the High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the FIR based on compromise in cases with a predominantly private dispute – FIR quashed [Paras 8-14].

Quashing of FIR in Private Disputes – Judicial Precedent – The Court referenced prior decisions, including Musharaf vs. State of H.P. (2022), Harsh Anand vs. State of H.P. (2020), and Chaman Lal vs. State of H.P. (2023), where FIRs for similar offences were quashed following compromises between the parties – Following the principle of judicial consistency, the present petition is similarly allowed [Para 12].

Decision: The FIR No. 38 of 2022, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Shimla, under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, and all consequential proceedings are quashed based on the compromise between the parties. Petition is disposed of accordingly.

Commercial Law – Civil Revision Petition – Maintainability – Petitioners challenged the rejection of an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC for rejection of the plaint – Petitioners argued that the suit was barred by limitation and failed to comply with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 regarding mandatory pre-institution mediation – Held: Civil Revision Petition not maintainable due to the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 against challenging interlocutory orders – Petitioners failed to file an appeal under Section 13(1) or (1A) of the Act – Dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition upheld [Paras 9-17].

Limitation Law – Section 12A of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Petitioners contended that pre-institution mediation was mandatory and that the suit violated this requirement – Respondent argued that the suit, filed before 20.08.2022, was exempt from the mandate per the Supreme Court's ruling in Patil Automation Pvt. Ltd. v. Rakheja Engineers Pvt. Ltd. – Held: Patil Automation applies prospectively from 20.08.2022, and the suit, filed on 30.11.2021, is exempt [Paras 3, 7].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 of the Constitution – Petitioners invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India to bypass the bar under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – The court reiterated that the High Court’s power under Article 227 is not unrestrained and must be used sparingly, especially in light of specific statutes aimed at expediting dispute resolution – Held: Article 227 cannot be used to circumvent the bar on revision petitions under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition dismissed as not maintainable under Section 8 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – No costs awarded – No consideration of the merits of the dispute [Paras 18-19].