Labour Law – Termination of Employment – Reinstatement – Petitioner (Cognizant Technology Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) challenged the Appellate Authority’s order directing reinstatement of the 2nd Respondent (Sivakumar Krishnamurthy) – Authority found the termination was not for a reasonable cause and amounted to punitive action – No domestic enquiry conducted as mandated under Section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishments Act, 1947 – Termination held stigmatic and unjustified – Held: Termination order liable to be set aside and employee entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages [Paras 3, 34–38, 41, 46–52, 68].

Quasi-Judicial Authority – Allegations of Bias – Petitioner alleged that the impugned order was not authored by the Appellate Authority and claimed mala fides – Court found no substance in these allegations – Noted that the officer was not impleaded in personal capacity – Allegations held baseless and unsubstantiated – Imposition of cost of ₹1,00,000 directed for making frivolous allegations and wasting judicial time – Costs to be remitted to Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund [Paras 14, 25–32, 70].

Scope of Appellate Authority – Powers under Section 41(2) – Authority empowered to set aside termination and assess reasonableness of cause – Reinstatement with full benefits flows as a legal consequence from setting aside termination – Not a separate or excessive exercise of power – Petitioner’s reliance on loss of confidence argument rejected – Appellate Authority justified in findings after analysing oral and documentary evidence – Held: No perversity in order warranting interference under Article 226 [Paras 41–43, 60–62, 67].

Circumstantial Inference – Shifting Stance by Employer – Petitioner initially dismissed 2nd Respondent for misconduct based on a domestic enquiry – Later rescinded dismissal and issued fresh order of termination citing “reasonable cause” – Court held this was an attempt to camouflage punitive dismissal as termination simpliciter – Such strategy legally impermissible – Authority rightly pierced the veil and found the real motive behind the termination [Paras 35–40, 56–58].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Termination order set aside – Reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages upheld – Allegations against Appellate Authority rejected – Cost of ₹1,00,000 imposed on Petitioner for baseless claims and judicial impropriety [Paras 68–70].

Civil Law - Succession – Proof of Will – Compliance with Section 69 of Evidence Act – Validity Upheld – The appellant challenged the exclusion of a residential plot from partition based on an unprobated Will allegedly executed by her mother – Propounder failed to produce attesting witnesses, but established their death and proved execution through scribe's testimony – Held: Requirements of Section 69 of Evidence Act satisfied – Scribe's evidence consistent and corroborated by surrounding circumstances – Execution and attestation of Will duly proved [Paras 18–24].

Testamentary Capacity – Mental and Physical Fitness of Testatrix – No Medical Evidence Against Capacity – Appellant alleged mother was bedridden and visually impaired at time of Will's execution – However, no medical records produced – Photographs and testimony of DW5, DW3, and DW4 showed testatrix was of sound mind and mobility – Held: Allegations of incapacity unsubstantiated – Testamentary capacity affirmed [Paras 15, 28–29].

Suspicious Circumstances – Role of Beneficiary and Attesting Witnesses – No Undue Influence Proved – Appellant claimed undue influence by first defendant and use of “stock witnesses” – Trial court found scribe (DW5) reliable and independent – Propounder not present during execution – No evidence of coercion or manipulation – Mere exclusion of heirs not suspicious when justified by surrounding facts – Held: No suspicious circumstances vitiating Will [Paras 11, 27, 30–35].

Delay in Challenging Will – Long Silence and Acquiescence – Will Dated 1988, Suit Filed in 2011 – First defendant had mutated property and evicted tenant based on Will long before suit – Plaintiff was aware of Will and raised no objection for over two decades – Held: Delay supports genuineness of Will and undermines appellant’s challenge [Paras 5, 33, 35].

Presumption of Valid Execution – Registered Will – Compliance with Statutory Formalities – Will was registered with Sub-Registrar after verifying identity of executant – DW5 and DW4 deposed to execution process – Sub-Registrar’s endorsement carries presumption of regularity – Held: Execution and registration legally valid and enforceable [Paras 12–14, 32].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Judgment of Trial Court Affirmed – Will declared valid – Residential plot excluded from partition – No order as to costs – All interlocutory applications closed [Paras 36].

Civil Writ - Stone Crusher Licence – Safer Zone Declaration – Validity of Licence – Cancellation Order Set Aside - Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their stone crusher licence on the grounds that the unit was allegedly within 100 meters of a Major District Road – It was held that the area had already been declared a safer zone in 2017 after proper inspection and grant of Form-C licence in 2019 – The subsequent conflicting reports on distance were deemed unreliable – Held: The cancellation order dated 31.03.2022 was quashed as being factually and legally unsustainable [Paras 3.1–5.4].

Statutory Interpretation – Deemed Licence Extension – Section 5(2) of Amended Act – Extension Granted - Petitioner sought a declaration that the Form-C licence be deemed extended for 20 years as per the amendment – The Court upheld that since the licence was valid on the date of the amendment, it attracted the benefit of the deeming provision – Held: Licence deemed extended for 20 years from 02.02.2019 [Paras 5.5–6.1].

Contempt of Court – Interim Order Compliance – Contempt Petition Not Surviving - Since the licence cancellation was stayed via interim order dated 28.04.2022 and ultimately quashed, the contempt petition for non-compliance lost relevance – Held: Contempt petition does not survive in light of the judgment in writ petitions [Paras 3.3.1, 7].

Final Decision – Both writ petitions allowed – Licence cancellation set aside and deemed extension of 20 years granted – Contempt petition dismissed as infructuous [Paras 6–7].

Service Law – Gratuity – University Mess Workers – Employer-Employee Relationship Established – Petitioner University challenged orders directing payment of gratuity to mess workers engaged through mess committees – University contended workers were engaged by student bodies and paid from mess funds – Held: As per Hostel Rules and University Statutes, appointments and disciplinary control vested with Warden/Assistant Warden – Students’ mess committees had only recommendatory role – Workers were employed in connection with the work of the University and under its ultimate control – University deemed to be employer for purposes of the Gratuity Act [Paras 1–3, 16–21, 23].

Statutory Interpretation – Payment of Gratuity Act – Broad Interpretation Favoured – Sections 2(e) and 2(f) define 'employee' and 'employer' expansively to include persons indirectly engaged in work of establishment and authorities with ultimate control – Held: Gratuity Act being a beneficial legislation must be liberally construed – University, having control over hostel administration and employment terms, is liable to pay gratuity to mess workers [Paras 19–20].

Hostel Rules – Legal Effect – Administrative Guidelines with Statutory Backing – Hostel Rules issued under Kerala Agricultural University Act and First Statute showed comprehensive control of University over hostels and messes – Held: Whether or not rules have statutory flavour is immaterial – Practical control and managerial supervision establish employer status [Paras 17–18, 22].

Case Law Distinguished – Prior Judgments Not in Conflict – Decisions in Sathikumar P. v. Vice Chancellor and Warden, College of Horticulture v. RPFC dealt with different statutory contexts – No conflict as issues of selection eligibility and provident fund liability differ in scope – G.B. Pant University case relied upon to support conclusion that cafeteria/mess workers can be University employees despite student committee involvement [Paras 7–15].

Decision – Writ Petitions Dismissed – Controlling Authority’s Orders Upheld – University liable to pay gratuity to mess workers employed in hostels under its control – No costs awarded [Para 23].

Civil Writ – PIL - Public Infrastructure – Disruption Due to Highway Widening – Incomplete Work – Litigation Delayed Civic Amenities - Petitioners, residents of Byadgi Town, sought directions for restoring roads, drainage, sewerage and potable water disrupted during the construction of State National Highway No.136 – Held: Road and civic work were interrupted due to quashing of land acquisition notifications by Dharwad Bench – State has recommenced acquisition proceedings – Authorities directed to act promptly after litigation ends [Paras 3–6.2].

Right to Basic Amenities – Article 21 – Public Duty Affirmed - Petitioners invoked their right to clean environment and basic civic infrastructure as part of the right to life under Article 21 – Court observed authorities are duty-bound to restore civic amenities including roads, drainage, and water supply after land acquisition proceedings conclude – Held: Expectation of swift action from officials post-litigation [Paras 3.4–6.1].

Land Acquisition – Quashing of Notifications – Re-initiation of Proceedings - Original acquisition notifications dated 16.05.2020 and 26.07.2021 were set aside on technical grounds – New preliminary notification issued on 27.02.2023 – Objections heard and process underway – Held: Completion of acquisition critical to resume and complete civic works [Paras 5.3–6].

Final Decision – PIL Disposed of – Direction to Expedite Civic Restoration - The PIL was disposed of with direction to complete acquisition and resume civic works without delay – Pending interlocutory applications also stood disposed of [Paras 6.2–7].

Criminal Law – Murder - Sections 302, 307 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Appeal Against Conviction - Delay in Lodging FIR – Incident at 7:30 a.m., FIR at 10:15 a.m. – Delay Explained – Delay Not Fatal – The prosecution established that the FIR was lodged promptly after the informant parted from the deceased and travelled to the police station 10 km away – Medical and witness evidence corroborated time of death – Held: No unreasonable delay found, delay not fatal to prosecution case [Paras 28-30, 55, 65].

Credibility of Eyewitnesses – Related Witnesses – Evidence Acceptable – No Contradictions – The Court upheld the credibility of eyewitnesses P.W.-2 (father), P.W.-3, and P.W.-4 despite being related to the deceased – Their testimonies were consistent, natural, and free of embellishments – Earlier affidavits denying presence were held to be manipulated – Held: Relatedness does not disqualify truthful testimony [Paras 31-34, 38-39, 47-54].

Medical Evidence – Compatibility with Ocular Testimony – No Conflict – The injuries described in the postmortem were consistent with use of a sharp and pointed weapon like tabbal – Witnesses described tabbal with pointed ends; doctor confirmed such injuries possible – Held: Medical and ocular evidence corroborate each other [Paras 20, 66-68].

Motive – Land Dispute Following Widow’s Remarriage – Motive Established – Though not essential due to direct evidence, motive was shown through land ownership conflict after informant’s nephew’s widow remarried accused – Held: Motive supported by documentary evidence and explained animus [Paras 56-57, 59-60].

Non-Recovery of Weapon – Not Fatal – The failure to recover the tabbal and pistol used in the attack was not fatal – The court accepted that accused fled with weapons and did not disclose their location – Held: Non-recovery did not undermine consistent and reliable eyewitness and medical evidence [Paras 63, 66].

Affidavits Disowning Eyewitness Role – Discarded – P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 Denied Making Such Affidavits – The affidavits allegedly denying their presence were found to be manipulated – Witnesses provided plausible explanation, denied authoring them, and supported prosecution case in court – Held: Statements in court prevail over extrajudicial affidavits [Paras 54, 60].

Common Intention – Sections 302/307 r/w Section 34 IPC – Conviction Upheld – The court held both accused guilty for acting in concert with shared intent – Attack was coordinated and aimed to kill – Held: Offences under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC proved beyond doubt [Paras 72-74].

Decision: Appeal – Conviction Affirmed – Sentence Upheld – The court found no merit in the appeal – All evidentiary links complete – Held: Judgment and conviction by trial court sustained – Accused to surrender and serve sentence [Paras 73-74].

Criminal Revision – Conviction Under Sections 465, 471, 409, 120-B IPC – Conviction Upheld - Petitioners convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur, for offences involving criminal breach of trust and forgery – Appeals dismissed by Sessions Judge – Revision petitions filed and kept pending for over 16 years – Held: Conviction well-founded based on material on record – No interference warranted with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts [Paras 2–4, 12].

Sentence – Reduction on Ground of Delay and Mitigating Factors – Sentence Reduced to Period Already Undergone - FIR registered in 1997; conviction in 2007; appeal dismissed in 2009; revision petitions heard in 2025 – Petitioners Nanak Singh and Darshan Singh had undergone only about two and a half months in custody – Held: Considering age, time lapse of over 28 years since FIR, and partial incarceration, sentence reduced to period already undergone on condition of paying ₹50,000 each to Gram Panchayat – Sentence of fine and default term unchanged [Paras 9, 13–14].

Death of Co-Accused – Abatement of Proceedings – Proceedings Abated - During pendency of revision petitions, petitioners Gura Singh and Dharam Singh passed away – Proceedings abated in respect of the deceased accused as per order dated 14.05.2025 [Para 8].

Decision – Conviction Upheld, Sentence Modified – Revision Petitions Disposed - Court found no merit to disturb conviction – However, in exercise of discretion under revisional jurisdiction, modified sentence considering long passage of time and limited custody – Revision petitions disposed of on these terms [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Law - Foreigners Act – Misapplication of Section 14B – Charge Modified – Petitioner, a Sri Lankan national, accused of overstaying a valid visa and creating false Indian identity documents – Trial court erroneously framed charge under Section 14B of the Foreigners Act alleging use of forged passport to enter India – Held: Prosecution case itself confirms entry was on valid Sri Lankan passport and visa – Section 14B applies only where forged passport is used for entry – Petitioner’s act of overstaying and obtaining false identity documents attracts Sections 14(a) and 14(b), not 14B – Charge modified accordingly [Paras 1–5, 7].

Criminal Procedure – Plea Bargaining – Ineligibility Due to Incorrect Charge – Application for plea bargaining under Section 290 BNSS was dismissed due to framing of charge under Section 14B, which prescribes punishment up to 8 years – Held: Once charge is properly reframed to Section 14(b), where maximum punishment is 5 years, petitioner becomes eligible for plea bargaining – Impugned dismissal order of CMP quashed – Trial court directed to reconsider plea bargaining application [Paras 2, 6, 8].

Statutory Interpretation – Section 14B Foreigners Act – Scope and Ingredients – Section 14B mandates knowledge and use of a forged passport for entry into India – Mere overstay or illegal stay without such entry condition does not fall within scope of 14B – Interpretation reaffirmed in light of precise charge language and admitted facts [Paras 4–5].

Decision – Petition Allowed – Charge under Section 14B deleted – Replaced with Section 14(b) of the Foreigners Act – Impugned order dated 11/03/2025 rejecting plea bargaining application quashed – Trial court to reconsider the application on basis of modified charge [Paras 8–9].

Civil Law - Usufructuary Mortgage – Redemption Rights – Mortgage Does Not Mature into Ownership by Lapse of Time – Plaintiffs’ Ownership Upheld – The plaintiffs sought declaration and possession over ancestral land, claiming merger of mortgage and ownership rights and redemption of mortgage – Held: The Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that the defendants’ possession as mortgagees ripened into ownership – In light of Supreme Court ruling in Singh Ram v. Sheo Ram, a usufructuary mortgagee cannot claim ownership merely by lapse of time; redemption rights of mortgagor do not extinguish unless limitation is triggered under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act [Paras 6–7, 11].

Revenue Record – Value of Long-standing Entries – Fard-Badar Cannot Overturn Long-standing Mutation – The High Court held that jamabandi entries consistently reflected the plaintiffs as owners until they were changed by fard-badar after more than 20 years – Such unilateral alteration without valid basis cannot displace the plaintiffs' title, especially in absence of legal redemption or transfer [Paras 10–11].

Appellate Court’s Error – Misreading of Evidence – Cross-examination Misinterpreted – The Lower Appellate Court placed undue reliance on a stray admission in cross-examination without reconciling with consistent revenue records and judicial proceedings affirming plaintiffs' ownership – Such selective reliance was held unsustainable [Paras 6, 11].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment of Appellate Court Set Aside – Trial Court’s Decree Restored – The High Court allowed the second appeal, restored the decree of the Trial Court declaring plaintiffs as owners of their respective 1/3rd shares free from encumbrance, and set aside the contrary findings of the Appellate Court [Paras 12–13].