Labour Law - Industrial Disputes – Wrongful Termination – Compensation Instead of Reinstatement – Whether Justified – Held: Yes – The respondent was employed as a bus driver from 05.03.2002 but was terminated on 09.09.2012 without notice – The petitioner claimed voluntary abandonment, citing a full and final settlement of ₹30,000 – The Labour Court found no evidence of abandonment and held that the settlement voucher was fabricated – Held: Reinstatement was not feasible as the respondent had since taken other employment, but he was entitled to compensation – Compensation of ₹5,00,000 upheld [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Review Under Article 226 – Whether High Court Can Reassess Evidence in Labour Matters – Held: No – The High Court cannot act as an appellate court in a writ petition under Article 226 – Held: Findings of fact by the Labour Court, if based on some evidence, cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse or arbitrary – Reliance placed on State of Rajasthan v. Bhupendra Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1908 [Paras 5, 9].

Voluntary Abandonment of Service – Whether Proved – Held: No – The petitioner claimed that the respondent voluntarily left employment after accepting ₹30,000 in full settlement – Held: No proof was produced to show that the respondent took the money as a final settlement – Labour Inspector’s report of 04.12.2012 showed that the petitioner refused to reinstate the respondent, contradicting the claim of abandonment [Paras 10-12].

Decision – Writ Petition Dismissed – Compensation Upheld with Costs – The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court’s award of ₹5,00,000 as compensation – Petitioner directed to pay ₹25,000 as costs to the respondent for litigation expenses – Payment to be made within one week [Paras 13-15].
 

Criminal Law – Robbery and Murder – Sections 394, 397 IPC – Conviction and sentence upheld – The appellant was convicted for armed robbery and murder along with co-accused – The prosecution relied on the testimony of three eyewitnesses, including an injured witness – The defense argued that the witnesses were interested parties and that the investigation was defective – Held: The presence of eyewitnesses was natural, and minor inconsistencies in statements do not affect the reliability of their testimony – The trial court’s findings were upheld, and no material error was found [Paras 5, 7, 25, 26].

Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of Interested Witnesses – Conviction based on testimony of family members of the deceased – Defense argued that such testimony was unreliable – Held: Relationship with the victim does not render a witness unreliable unless enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused is proven – The testimony was found to be credible and corroborated by medical and forensic evidence [Paras 12-14, 17, 19, 20].

Injured Witness – Higher Evidentiary Value – Conviction upheld based on the testimony of an injured witness – Held: The testimony of an injured witness carries special evidentiary weight as they have firsthand knowledge of the incident – Unless strong grounds exist to discredit their statements, their testimony should be given due consideration – The trial court rightly relied on the injured witness’s statement [Paras 23, 24].

Conviction Under Section 460 IPC – No Specific Charge – Defense contended that the appellant was convicted under Section 460 IPC despite no specific charge being framed – Held: The court has the power under Section 222 CrPC to convict under an appropriate provision if the facts establish the offense – The trial court’s reliance on Section 460 IPC was justified in the given circumstances [Paras 8, 27].

Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction of appellant Rakshpal was upheld – The court found no legal or factual error in the trial court’s findings – The appellant’s bail bonds were canceled, and he was ordered to surrender – The conviction of co-accused Rameshwar in a related appeal was also upheld, further affirming the correctness of the trial court’s judgment [Paras 27, 28, 29].
 

Family Law – Maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. – No Proof of Husband’s Higher Income – The Family Court assessed the petitioner’s income as Rs. 20,000/- per month based on the Minimum Wages Act in the absence of any concrete evidence of actual earnings – The High Court modified this, holding that since the petitioner was only 10th class pass and not proven to be a skilled worker, his estimated income should be Rs. 18,000/- per month [Paras 16-17].

Family Law – Maintenance Distribution – Equitable Sharing of Income – The Family Court divided the petitioner’s income into five shares based on Annurita Vohra v. Sandeep Vohra, (2004) SCC OnLine Del 192, allocating two shares to the husband and three shares to the wife and children – The High Court upheld this principle while modifying the quantum based on the revised income estimate [Paras 18-19].

Legal Obligation – Able-Bodied Husband Cannot Evade Maintenance Responsibility – The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, (2015) 6 SCC 353, that an able-bodied husband cannot escape his duty to maintain his wife and children, even if he claims financial constraints [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Maintenance Reduced – Monthly Award Fixed at Rs. 3,600/- Each – The High Court modified the Family Court’s order, reducing maintenance from Rs. 4,000/- to Rs. 3,600/- per month for each respondent, in light of the revised income assessment – All other conditions of the Family Court’s order remained unchanged [Paras 19-20].
 

Contractual Employment – Right to Regularization – No Vested Right in Fixed-Term Employees – The petitioners were appointed under "Mission Mangalam" scheme on contractual basis for three years as per Government Resolution dated 16.11.2010 – Upon completion of tenure, their services were not extended, leading to petitions for regularization and parity with government employees – Held: Contractual employees do not have a vested right to regularization – Their appointment letters explicitly stated non-permanence, and they cannot claim benefits at par with government employees [Paras 8.5-10].

Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work – Not Applicable to Contractual Employees – Petitioners claimed regular pay-scale citing "equal pay for equal work" – Held: Regularization requires parity in recruitment process, service conditions, and nature of duties – Petitioners were selected through a different process than regular government employees, and their employment was tenure-based – Doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not apply to contract-based appointments [Paras 10.1-10.2].

No Violation of Article 14 and 16 – Differentiation Between Regular and Contractual Employees Justified – Petitioners alleged discrimination and arbitrary termination – Held: The employer (GLPC) has discretion to engage employees on a fixed-term basis – Policy decisions on employment terms do not violate constitutional guarantees unless arbitrary or mala fide – No evidence of hostile discrimination presented [Paras 11-12].

Reliance on Umadevi Judgment – No Automatic Right to Regularization – Petitioners cited State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) 4 SCC 1, arguing long tenure creates legitimate expectation of regularization – Held: Umadevi explicitly bars regularization of contractual employees unless they were engaged in violation of rules or working against permanent sanctioned posts – Petitioners were appointed as per government policy and contractual terms, hence no automatic regularization [Para 15].

Final Decision – Petitions Dismissed – Contractual Employees Have No Right to Regularization – The Court held that contractual employment under Mission Mangalam was validly terminated upon completion of tenure – No claim to permanent employment, regular pay scale, or government service benefits – Petitions dismissed [Paras 16-19].
 

Criminal Courts – No Inherent Power of Review – Exceptions Exist to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice – The petitioner contended that a criminal court lacks inherent power to review or recall its own orders, except in cases of clerical, typographical, or mathematical errors – The High Court reaffirmed this principle but held that exceptions exist where an order is passed due to misrepresentation, fraud, or unforeseen circumstances – Held: The Trial Court’s recall of the dismissal order was legally justified as it corrected an injustice caused by an erroneous police statement [Paras 6, 11-12].

Anticipatory Bail – Recall of Dismissal Order Justified Due to Police Misrepresentation – The private respondents’ initial bail application was dismissed based on an incorrect statement by a police official that they had not complied with investigation directions – The State later admitted the error in an affidavit, confirming that the respondents had in fact cooperated – The High Court held that when a judicial order is based on a factual mistake attributable to the police, the Trial Court is justified in reconsidering its decision – Held: Recall of the dismissal order and grant of bail was proper to prevent injustice [Paras 7-9].

Cancellation of Bail – Requires Cogent Grounds of Misuse – No Such Grounds Established – The petitioner sought cancellation of bail, arguing that the Trial Court’s exercise of jurisdiction was impermissible – The High Court reiterated that once bail is granted, it can only be cancelled if the accused violates bail conditions, tampers with evidence, or misuses liberty – In the absence of such allegations, mere legal objections to the grant of bail do not justify cancellation – Held: No compelling reason existed to revoke the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents [Paras 10, 14].

Bail Jurisprudence – Personal Liberty Should Not Be Curtailed Due to Administrative Errors – The High Court emphasized that personal liberty cannot be curtailed due to procedural lapses or administrative mistakes – The police’s incorrect statement led to an unjustified rejection of bail, necessitating its recall – Held: A strict view of recall powers should not override the broader principle of ensuring justice [Paras 12-13].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – Anticipatory Bail Upheld – The Court found that the Trial Court acted within its discretion to rectify a glaring factual mistake and prevent injustice – Since no misuse of bail was alleged, there was no valid ground for cancellation – Held: Petition dismissed, anticipatory bail of private respondents upheld [Paras 14].

Criminal Procedure – Application for Production of Documents – Section 91 Cr.P.C. – Rejection by Trial Court Held Illegal – The petitioner sought documents including station house diary, duty roster, police logbooks, and digital entries – Trial Court rejected the application stating that the accused could obtain them under the Right to Information Act – High Court held that an accused cannot be driven to secure documents through RTI when Section 91 of Cr.P.C. provides a direct remedy – Rejection order quashed – Petition allowed [Paras 3-6].

Criminal Law – Fair Trial – Right to Access Evidence – Held: The prosecution is obligated to produce relevant documents in the interest of justice – The accused has the right to request such documents through the trial process – Application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. granted – Prosecution directed to produce the requested documents at the appropriate stage of trial [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Petition allowed – Order of the Special Court rejecting the application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. set aside – Prosecution directed to produce the requested documents during trial [Para 7].

Civil Law - Property Ownership – Inheritance and Will – Claim for Full Ownership Rejected – The appellant sought full ownership of a house based on a Will executed by her mother, Kasturi Devi – The lower courts found no evidence that Harbans Lal (original owner) had transferred the property entirely to Kasturi Devi before his death – Held: In the absence of documentary proof of transfer, the property devolved by natural succession among all legal heirs, and the appellant was entitled to only a 50% share [Paras 9-10].

Scope of Will – Limited Effect on Succession – The appellant argued that the Will executed by Kasturi Devi conferred full ownership on her – The Court held that since Harbans Lal’s ownership was never exclusively transferred to Kasturi Devi, she could not bequeath the entire property – Held: The appellant could only inherit her mother’s share through the Will, not the entire property [Paras 9].

No Substantial Question of Law – Second Appeal Dismissed – The Court reaffirmed that a second appeal under Section 100 CPC is not maintainable unless a substantial question of law arises – Since both lower courts correctly applied legal principles and factual findings, no interference was warranted – Held: No substantial question of law; appeal dismissed [Paras 10].
 

Criminal Law - Bank Fraud – Criminal Conspiracy – Misuse of Credit Facility – Conviction Upheld – The accused, in conspiracy with a bank manager, obtained fraudulent credit facilities, causing wrongful loss to the bank – Loan limits were enhanced despite non-payment of earlier dues, and cheques presented by the accused were dishonored – Held: The appellants colluded with the bank official to misuse banking norms, thereby justifying their conviction under Sections 120B and 420 IPC [Paras 3-8].

Corruption Charges – Abuse of Official Position – Wrongful Gain Established – The bank manager failed to report irregularities in loan transactions and sanctioned additional credit despite knowing that previous payments were dishonored – The prosecution established that these actions resulted in wrongful gain for the accused and wrongful loss to the bank – Held: Conviction under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was justified [Paras 9-12].

Absence of Dishonest Intention at the Inception – Defense Rejected – The appellants argued that their transactions were genuine and that loans were secured – The Court rejected this defense, noting that the fraudulent pattern of financial transactions and overdraft extensions without security indicated clear criminal intent – Held: Mere presence of collateral security does not negate the fraudulent nature of transactions [Paras 15-18].

Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and Sentence Affirmed – The Court upheld the Special Judge's decision, concluding that the evidence sufficiently proved the appellants’ guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – Held: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were maintained [Paras 19-25].
 

Murder Trial – Common Intention – Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 – Conviction Upheld – The appellants, along with other accused, forcefully entered the victim’s house at night, dragged him outside, and brutally assaulted him with iron rods, wooden sticks, and hammers – The assault continued at multiple locations, ultimately causing the victim’s death – Evidence from multiple eyewitnesses corroborated the sequence of events – Medical report confirmed homicidal injuries – Held: The appellants acted with common intention, making them liable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 3-5, 46-47].

Non-Framing of Specific Charge – Section 464 CrPC – No Prejudice Caused – The appellant Badal Sarkar argued that since no specific charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against him, his conviction was illegal – The Court noted that the trial order sheet clearly indicated that all accused were charged under Section 302 IPC – The appellant was represented by counsel throughout the trial and fully participated in cross-examination – Held: The absence of a specific charge did not cause prejudice or failure of justice – Conviction sustained [Paras 25-35].

Acquittal of Co-Accused – Plea of Parity – Rejected – The appellants argued that since some similarly placed accused were acquitted, they should also be acquitted – The Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that a wrongful acquittal does not justify setting aside a valid conviction – Independent evaluation of evidence revealed that the appellants had a more direct and active role in the crime – Held: The plea of parity was not applicable, and the conviction of the appellants was upheld [Paras 38-50].

Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony – Nighttime Identification – No Test Identification Parade Required – The appellants challenged the credibility of eyewitnesses on the ground of nighttime occurrence and lack of Test Identification Parade (TIP) – The Court held that the witnesses were familiar with the accused and had sufficient opportunity to recognize them – Testimony of PW1, PW2, and PW3 was consistent and corroborated by medical evidence – Held: TIP was not necessary, and the eyewitness testimony was reliable [Paras 65-67].

Delay in Recording Eyewitness Statements – Effect on Credibility – The appellants contended that a delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses affected their credibility – The Court held that delay alone does not render testimony unreliable unless it is unexplained or unsupported by other evidence – The statements of PW1, PW2, and PW3 were recorded soon after the incident and corroborated by other witnesses – Held: No adverse inference could be drawn against the prosecution [Paras 69-72].

Non-Seizure of Weapons – No Adverse Inference Against Prosecution – The defense argued that the absence of seizure of weapons and fingerprints weakened the prosecution’s case – The Court held that in cases involving common household weapons like iron rods, sticks, and hammers, non-recovery was not fatal to the case – Medical evidence and eyewitness testimony sufficiently established the weapons used – Held: Conviction cannot be set aside due to non-seizure of weapons [Paras 73-75].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – No Inconsistency – The defense argued that the post-mortem report did not conclusively establish that the injuries were fatal – The Court found that the medical evidence clearly indicated multiple blunt force injuries leading to hemorrhage and cardio-respiratory failure – The injuries were consistent with the eyewitness accounts – Held: Medical evidence corroborated the prosecution’s case, and there was no basis to interfere with the conviction [Paras 56-60].

Assessment of Circumstantial Evidence – Collective Assault and Common Intention – Guilt Established – The Court examined the sequence of events, corroborated eyewitness testimonies, medical evidence, and the accused’s participation in unlawful assembly – The appellants had a clear common intention to cause death – Held: The cumulative effect of the evidence conclusively established the guilt of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 46-50, 62-64].