Employment Law – Gratuity – Forfeiture of Gratuity for Misconduct – Employer Retained Gratuity Amount without Recovery Proceedings – Petition by Central Warehousing Corporation challenging the order of the Controlling Authority directing payment of gratuity to an employee dismissed for issuing 93 negotiable warehouse receipts to fictitious persons causing loss of Rs. 1.71 crores to the employer – Held: The employer’s failure to initiate recovery proceedings against the delinquent employee precluded it from withholding or forfeiting gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act – The employer must first establish losses through due process before forfeiture can occur [Paras 11-15].

Recovery Proceedings – Employer's Failure to Act – The Court observed that the employer did not take timely action to recover alleged losses from the dismissed employee – Held: Dismissal of the employee for misconduct does not absolve the employer of its duty to initiate proceedings for recovery of losses – Failure of the employer's officers to take action amounted to abdication of responsibility, and the employer's claims of loss remained unsubstantiated [Paras 12-14].

Delay in Claiming Gratuity – Justification for Delay – Employee filed proceedings for gratuity recovery seven years after dismissal – Controlling Authority condoned the delay citing the employee’s illness – Held: The delay was justified based on the circumstances and cannot be faulted [Para 16].

Decision – Petition Dismissed – The writ petition challenging the order of the Controlling Authority was dismissed – The employer was directed to pay the gratuity amount with interest as per the Controlling Authority’s order – Time for compliance was extended until 31/01/2025 [Paras 17-18].

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376(2)(n) – Allegation of Repeated Rape – Quashing of Offence – Accused (Circle Inspector) alleged to have had a physical relationship with complainant (wife of a constable) from 2017 to 2021 – Complaint alleges force, fraud, and coercion to obtain consent – Evidence suggests a consensual relationship over four years – Held: Prolonged consensual acts cannot be categorized as rape, even if the relationship turned hostile later – Offence under Section 376(2)(n) quashed – Cited judgments emphasize distinction between rape and consensual sex [Paras 9, 11, 13, 14].

Offences of Assault, Threats, and Attempt to Murder – Sections 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506 IPC – Violent Incident on 11-11-2021: Accused allegedly assaulted the complainant after taking her to a hotel – Medical evidence and witness statements corroborate injuries sustained by complainant – Held: Prima facie case established for these offences – These charges sustained for trial [Paras 9, 12, 14].

Consent and Misuse of Authority – Allegation of Dominance: Held: No evidence that complainant’s consent was obtained through fraud or dominance – Relationship between complainant and accused deemed consensual – However, consensual acts cannot justify assault or violent behavior – Trial for remaining charges necessary [Paras 9, 11, 13].

Decision: Petition partly allowed – Section 376(2)(n) IPC quashed – Remaining charges under Sections 368, 342, 307, 355, 323, 504, and 506 IPC sustained – Observations limited to Section 482 CrPC proceedings and will not influence trial [Para 14].
 

Civil Law - Injunction – Fraud Allegations – No Prima Facie Case by Respondent – Injunction Set Aside – Respondent claimed fraud in execution of supplementary LLP agreements and misuse of digital signatures to remove him as a designated partner – High Court held that the respondent failed to produce evidence to support allegations of fraud or misrepresentation – Respondent had acknowledged execution of resignation documents and consented to uploading changes with statutory authorities – Held: No prima facie case in favor of respondent, and Trial Court erred in granting temporary injunction – Appeal allowed, injunction order set aside, and application for temporary injunction dismissed [Paras 16-21].

Evidence – Resignation and Consent Letters – Admissions Support Appellants – Respondent’s resignation letter, consent to upload changes to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), and subsequent communications confirmed the validity of transactions and changes in LLP partnership – High Court noted that respondent did not challenge the resignation letter and failed to substantiate claims of fraud – Held: Material on record supports the appellants’ case; no fraud established [Paras 17-20].

Balance of Convenience – Impact on Business Operations – Injunction Denied – High Court observed that restraining the appellants from alienating or dealing with the suit property would cause irreparable loss to the appellants and disrupt business operations – Balance of convenience found in favor of the appellants, not the respondent – Held: Injunction order unsustainable [Para 20].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Interference with Trial Court Order – Justified – High Court interfered with the Trial Court’s order as the findings on fraud and prima facie case were contrary to the material evidence – Held: Injunction order set aside, and application for temporary injunction dismissed [Paras 19-21].
 

Virginity Test – Declared Unconstitutional – Right to Dignity under Article 21 Violated – Request for Virginity Test Rejected – The applicant sought virginity test of the wife alleging her illicit relationship and refusal to cohabit, while the wife alleged impotence – Held: Virginity test is unconstitutional, violates Article 21 guaranteeing right to dignity and personal liberty of women – No woman can be compelled to undergo such a test [Paras 6-

9].

Right to Personal Liberty – Includes Right to Dignity and Decency – Test Violates Fundamental Rights – The Court held that compelling a woman to undergo virginity test infringes Article 21 – Right to live with dignity and decency is non-derogable – Husband may prove his defence through permissible medical examination on himself, but not by compromising wife’s dignity [Paras 9-11].

Two-Finger Test – Prohibited Practice – Applicability Extended – Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand v. Shailendra Kumar Rai (2022) 14 SCC 299 and Delhi High Court in Sr. Sephy v. CBI, 2023 held that tests like virginity tests and two-finger tests are unconstitutional – Reliance placed on these precedents to deny relief [Paras 6-8].

Adjudication on Merits – Allegations Subject to Evidence – Trial Court’s Order Upheld – The allegations made by both parties regarding impotency and infidelity are to be adjudicated based on evidence in the pending proceedings – No illegality or perversity found in rejection of the application for virginity test [Paras 11-12].

Decision – Criminal Revision Dismissed – No Ground to Interfere with Trial Court’s Order – Court found no merit in the revision and upheld the trial court’s rejection of the request for virginity test [Para 13].

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)].
 

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.

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].

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].
 

Civil Law – Permanent Injunction – Maintainability of Suit – Grant of Land – Ownership in Question – Plaintiff's Suit Dismissed

Permanent Injunction – Suit Without Declaration – The plaintiff-Mutt sought an injunction to restrain the defendant-Mutt from interfering with its pooja and aradhana at the Brindavana of Sri Narahariteertharu, located on government land granted to the plaintiff-Mutt – Trial Court and First Appellate Court granted the injunction – High Court held that the plaintiff-Mutt's claim was clouded due to the cancellation of the land grant by the Government – Held: A bare injunction suit is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of ownership where title is disputed [Paras 24–32].

Possession of Land – Evidence and Admissions – PW1 admitted in cross-examination that the Government resumed possession of the land after cancelling the grant in 1996 – No evidence presented to establish reacquisition of possession by the plaintiff-Mutt – Courts below erred in ignoring the admission and granting relief to the plaintiff-Mutt [Paras 26–29].

Land Grant – Pending Proceedings – Deputy Commissioner set aside the Tahsildar’s cancellation of the grant, but the matter remains sub judice in writ proceedings before the High Court – High Court held that title over the land was not conclusively proved, rendering the suit for injunction unsustainable [Paras 25, 30].

High Court Jurisdiction – Section 100 CPC – Perversity in Findings – Despite concurrent findings by lower courts, High Court interfered due to misappreciation of evidence and the omission to consider the necessity of declaratory relief – A substantial question of law arose regarding the maintainability of a bare injunction suit without declaration when ownership was in dispute [Paras 21–24].

Decision: The appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees dated 05/08/2006 (Regular Appeal No. 11 of 2003) and 16/01/2003 (Original Suit No. 15 of 1998) are set aside. The original suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff-Mutt is dismissed.