Industrial Dispute – Termination of Workman – Validity of Domestic Inquiry – Petitioner challenged the termination order and the Labour Court's decision – Workman dismissed for misconduct, including physical assault on a superior and a co-worker – Domestic inquiry upheld by the Labour Court – Petitioner failed to challenge the inquiry's fairness earlier – High Court affirmed the Labour Court's decision, holding that the inquiry was fair and the dismissal justified – No jurisdictional error found warranting interference [Paras 2, 3, 6].

Writ Jurisdiction – Scope of Interference – High Court under Article 226 does not function as an appellate body – It corrects jurisdictional errors and acts contrary to natural justice, not errors of fact – High Court found no procedural errors or jurisdictional overreach in the Labour Court's decision – Petition dismissed on these grounds [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Petition dismissed – High Court upheld the validity of the domestic inquiry and dismissal of the petitioner for proven misconduct – No relief granted to the petitioner .

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Acquittal - Section 52A compliance – Whether the procedure for sampling under Section 52A was followed. Held, the samples were drawn on the spot without the presence of a Magistrate, which contravenes the NDPS Act. As per the Supreme Court's decisions in Mohanlal and Yusuf, samples must be drawn in the presence of a Magistrate, and the inventory must be certified by the Magistrate. Failure to comply invalidates the primary evidence – [Paras 15-17, 26].

Criminal Procedure – FIR Mention on Search Memos – Whether FIR number on documents before registration renders the prosecution's case doubtful. Held, the inclusion of FIR number in memos prepared prior to FIR registration casts serious doubt on the prosecution's case. This violates procedural fairness as established in Manjit Singh v. State – [Paras 20-26].

Constitutional Law – Presumption of Innocence – The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt when procedural lapses affect the integrity of the prosecution’s case – [Paras 34-38].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The judgment and conviction order dated 05 July 2011 passed by the Special Judge, Solan, was set aside. The appellant, Sachin Sharma, was acquitted of charges under Section 15(b) of the NDPS Act. The appellant was directed to furnish a bond under Section 437-A of CrPC to the satisfaction of the Trial Court – [Paras 44-47].

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Section 22(c) – Bail under Section 439 CrPC – Prolonged incarceration considered for granting bail – Petitioner apprehended with 295 grams of heroin under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Prosecution failed to present significant progress in the trial despite the charges being framed on 30.11.2023 and only one witness being examined out of 16 listed witnesses – Custody certificate showed petitioner behind bars for more than one year and two months – Supreme Court's rulings in Rabi Prakash v. State of Odisha and Mohammad Salman Hanif Shaikh v. State of Gujarat cited to argue that prolonged incarceration justifies bail even in cases involving commercial quantities under the NDPS Act – Bail granted on the condition of compliance with standard legal requirements and certain additional conditions – [Paras 1-17].

Constitutional Law – Article 21 – Right to Liberty – Conditional Liberty under Section 439 CrPC – Prolonged detention beyond reasonable time violates the right to liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution – The court emphasized that conditional liberty must override the statutory embargo created by Section 37 of the NDPS Act, given the prolonged custody of the petitioner and minimal progress in the trial – [Paras 5-12].

Judicial Precedent – Supreme Court Rulings – Relevance of Custodial Period – Court followed precedents established by the Supreme Court, including cases like Chitta Biswas v. State of West Bengal and Nitish Adhikary v. State of West Bengal, where prolonged custody and slow progress in trials were key factors for granting bail under the NDPS Act – Court concluded that continued incarceration of the petitioner in this case would be unjustified – [Paras 6-10].

Decision – Bail Granted – Petition for bail allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on bail, subject to standard bail conditions and additional restrictions like surrendering the passport, maintaining good behavior, and ensuring timely appearance in court – [Paras 13-17].

Service Law – Alteration of Date of Birth – Petitioner sought correction of the date of birth from 06.04.1964 to 12.12.1966 based on a civil court decree – Held that such decrees are not binding on government authorities if the matter pertains to service records – Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act, 2016 governs such alterations, and the application must be made within the statutory limits – Decree declared null and void as per binding precedents from the Division Bench.

Civil Court Jurisdiction – Bar on Service Matters – Court emphasized that service matters, especially concerning date of birth corrections, are governed by statutory provisions, and civil courts lack jurisdiction in such cases – Civil decrees altering dates of birth in service registers are considered null and void [Paras 1-17].

Government Guidelines – Referred to prior judgments and government guidelines that mandate specific conditions, including the minimum age requirement for appearing in SSLC exams, before allowing date of birth corrections in service records [Paras 7-12].

Decision:

Writ Petition Dismissed – Civil Court decree null and void – Petitioner not entitled to date of birth correction in service records.

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Vague Allegations – Petition Dismissed – The appellant failed to establish specific instances of cruelty to support his divorce petition. The allegations were vague, lacking in detail about the time, place, or nature of the acts. The court concluded that no concrete evidence of cruelty was presented, and the appellant failed to discharge the required burden of proof. Thus, the petition was dismissed – [Paras 10-30].

Family Law – Divorce – Lack of Independent Evidence – Appeal Dismissed – The appellant did not produce key witnesses, such as his mother, sister, or daughter, to substantiate his claims of cruelty. Meanwhile, the respondent’s independent witnesses refuted these allegations. The Family Court's decision to dismiss the petition was upheld due to the appellant's inability to provide corroborative evidence – [Paras 20-35].

Judicial Review – Sufficiency of Evidence – No Perversity Found – The Family Court's decision was based on a sound evaluation of the evidence. The appellant's vague and unsupported allegations, coupled with the credible counter-evidence provided by the respondent, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The High Court found no error or illegality in the lower court's judgment – [Paras 40-45].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming that the appellant failed to prove the alleged acts of cruelty. The High Court held that the appellant’s claims were unsupported and lacked merit – [Paras 46-50].

Civil Law – Title and Possession – Will – The appellant's claim for declaration of title and recovery of possession was based on a will (Ex.A.1). The trial court dismissed the suit due to the appellant’s failure to establish her title and possession. The first appellate court affirmed the decision, citing discrepancies between the property claimed and the property described in the will. The courts below found no evidence of the appellant's possession or her predecessors' possession over the property [Paras 1-70].

Will – Proof of Title – Although the appellant claimed title through Ex.A.1-Will, the courts held that in the absence of boundaries in the will and clear proof of title of the testator, the appellant could not succeed. It was also noted that the appellant failed to produce a registered sale deed or any other evidence to support her claim of title through the testator [Paras 75-100].

Admissions – Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act – The appellant relied on Ex.A.6, a letter allegedly admitting the appellant’s title, but the courts rejected the document as it was not a free and voluntary admission, having been made under pressure at a police station. The courts held that admissions in such circumstances cannot establish title over immovable property [Paras 105-120].

Concurrent Findings – No Interference in Second Appeal – The High Court found no substantial question of law arising from the concurrent findings of the lower courts, holding that the appellant failed to prove her title and possession. The court reiterated that weakness in the respondent’s defense could not validate the appellant's title claim [Paras 130-145].

Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed. The judgment and decree of both the trial court and first appellate court were upheld, and no costs were awarded​.

Criminal Law – Bail – Section 439 CrPC – Custody of two years and four months – The petitioner sought regular bail, charged with attempting to murder under Sections 324, 307, and 506 of the IPC. The prosecution claimed the petitioner stabbed the victim with a knife during a dispute. Despite over two years of incarceration, no prosecution witnesses had been examined, and the trial was delayed. Charges were framed in August 2022, but the trial showed no progress – [Paras 1-5].

Criminal Law – Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 of the Constitution – The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right under Article 21. Despite the seriousness of the charges, the prolonged delay and lack of trial progress were key factors in the court’s decision to grant bail. The court emphasized that pre-conviction detention should be as brief as possible – [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Precedent – Apex Court Rulings on Bail – Relying on Dataram v. State of U.P., the court reiterated that bail is a general rule and incarceration an exception. The court also referred to Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar and Baljinder Singh alias Rock v. State of Punjab to stress the importance of protecting personal liberty when the trial is significantly delayed – [Paras 4-5].

Decision – Bail Granted – The petition for regular bail was allowed, and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail, subject to standard bail and surety conditions. The court clarified that this decision should not be taken as an opinion on the merits of the case – [Paras 5-7].

Service Law - Regularization of Mess Workers – Industrial Disputes Act – Validity of Labour Court Award – Workers' Employment Temporary – The petitioners, NIT Kurukshetra, challenged the Labour Court's decision to regularize 250 mess workers on the grounds that they were never appointed through proper recruitment channels and were paid by student-run mess committees, not from university funds – Held: The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by ordering regularization without considering the absence of sanctioned posts and the lack of a proper recruitment process – The Supreme Court’s judgment in Umadevi (2006) was applied, emphasizing that regularization without adherence to constitutional provisions violates Articles 14 and 16 – Labour Court's order quashed [Paras 24-27, 32-33].

Master-Servant Relationship – Employer-Employee Determination – Lack of Direct Control – The Labour Court mistakenly concluded that there was a Master-Servant relationship between NIT Kurukshetra and the mess workers due to the administrative control exercised by the Warden over the mess – Held: The mess workers were hired by student-run committees and paid from student funds, with no financial contribution from the university – Mere supervisory involvement does not establish an employer-employee relationship – Labour Court’s finding on this point set aside [Paras 34-35].

Unfair Labour Practice – Industrial Disputes Act, Fifth Schedule – No Powers for Regularization – The Labour Court incorrectly invoked unfair labour practice provisions under the Industrial Disputes Act to order regularization – Held: The Labour Court does not possess statutory authority under the Industrial Disputes Act to declare unfair labour practices and mandate regularization – Entry 10 of the Fifth Schedule of the ID Act was misinterpreted, and the powers under Section 30 of the MRTU & PULP Act were not applicable – The Labour Court's action was beyond its jurisdiction [Paras 16-20].

Creation of Posts – Executive Prerogative – Courts Cannot Mandate Post Creation – The Labour Court's direction for regularization of mess workers assumed the creation of posts within the university – Held: The creation of posts is an executive function, and neither the Labour Court nor the Constitutional Courts have the authority to mandate the creation of such posts – The judgment in Mahatma Phule Agricultural University and Umadevi was followed – Labour Court’s decision was legally unsustainable [Paras 21-24].

Decision: The writ petition is allowed. The Labour Court's award dated 12.01.2022 directing the regularization of the mess workers is set aside.

Motor Accident Claim – Proof of Negligence – Dismissal of Claim – Appellant claimed injuries caused by rash and negligent driving of an HRTC bus, resulting in permanent disability (15% of the right limb) – Tribunal dismissed the claim petition, holding that the appellant failed to prove negligence by the driver or conductor of the bus – Appeal dismissed by the High Court, reaffirming that negligence on the part of the driver is a sine qua non for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act – No cogent evidence provided by the appellant to establish negligence [Paras 1-40].

Evidentiary Issues – Failure to Produce Material Evidence – Appellant did not produce any medical records from CHC Kumarsain or MGMSC Khaneri, nor did he examine any passengers of the bus – The petitioner’s evidence, including the police record (DD Entry No. 12A), did not support claims of negligence by the bus driver or conductor – Tribunal and High Court found no error in dismissing the claim due to lack of sufficient evidence [Paras 25-35].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No error found in the Tribunal’s decision – Negligence not proven by the appellant, and thus no compensation awarded