Contempt of Court – Willful Disobedience – Petitioners sought to punish respondents for disobeying orders of the Division Bench of the High Court – Respondents claimed good faith, misunderstanding the status of interim order – Court accepted unconditional apologies considering no further actions were taken post-execution petition – Contempt case closed with direction to respondents to halt further proceedings in E.P.12/2022 [Paras 1-8].

Execution of Compromise Decree – Lok Adalat Award – Compromise reached and award passed by Lok Adalat required execution of sale deed – Respondent filed execution petition post interim stay order, misunderstanding it was vacated – Court emphasized the duty to verify the status of interim orders before proceeding [Paras 2-4].

Apology and Undertaking – Respondent’s Conditional Compliance – Respondent tendered unconditional apology and submitted undertaking to cease further actions in execution proceedings till disposal of main writ petition – Court accepted apology but highlighted the importance of verifying court orders [Paras 6-7].

Decision – Contempt Case Closed – Held – Apologies accepted and directions given to halt proceedings in E.P.12/2022 – No costs awarded – Interlocutory applications, if any, to stand closed [Para 8].

Pension and Gratuity – Withholding of Retirement Benefits – Rule 43(b) and 43(c) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950 – Petitioner retired without any pending departmental or criminal proceedings – Withholding 10% of pension and gratuity deemed illegal in absence of such proceedings – Writ petition allowed directing respondents to pay withheld amounts [Paras 2-19].

Procedural Fairness – Requirement of Pending Proceedings – Rule 43(b) and 43(c) stipulate withholding only if proceedings are pending – Respondents failed to show any ongoing departmental proceedings – Court emphasizes strict adherence to procedural fairness in withholding pension and gratuity [Paras 13-16].

Decision:n Writ petition allowed – Respondents directed to pay the petitioner the remaining 10% of pension and gratuity along with arrears forthwith.

Bank Accounts – Defreezing – Appeal against the order to defreeze the accounts of CSI West Bengal Branch – Single Judge directed the bank to defreeze accounts and allowed suspended office bearer to operate them – Division Bench upheld defreezing but restricted suspended office bearer’s operation – Allowed West Bengal Branch to nominate new signatories from non-suspended office bearers [Paras 1-36].

Society Administration – Suspension of Office Bearers – Suspension of office bearers for violating injunction orders – Court refrained from deciding on suspension legality within appeal scope – Emphasized branches’ financial autonomy with certain oversight by parent body [Paras 18, 26-30].

Banking Operations – Freezing Orders – Banks can only freeze accounts under specific circumstances such as court orders, Central Bank instructions, or legitimate claims against the account holder – Action based on complaints without legal backing deemed improper [Paras 20-22].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Upheld order to defreeze accounts but set aside order permitting suspended office bearers to operate them – Allowed temporary operation by suspended officer under strict conditions until new signatories are nominated [Paras 35-36].

Provident Fund Contributions – Liability of Amalgamated Entity –

Petitioner bank challenged the order imposing damages and interest for delayed remittance of Provident Fund contributions and transfer of past accumulations by the Board of Trustees (BOT) of the amalgamated bank – Contention that BOT is a separate entity and petitioner should not be held liable – High Court held that obligations of the amalgamated bank include liabilities of the BOT – Sections 17(1-A) and 27AA of the Scheme mandate employer responsibility for timely transfer of funds [Paras 1-21].

Constitutional Validity – Section 14B of EPF Act –

Petitioner argued Section 14B inconsistent with Section 17(1-A)(d)(iv) of EPF Act and Article 14 of the Constitution – Court found no inconsistency or arbitrariness – Upheld validity of Section 14B, emphasizing statutory obligations of employer for Provident Fund contributions – Reference to precedents indicating employer liability for BOT actions [Paras 22-25].

Decision:

Writ petition dismissed – Court affirmed that petitioner bank is liable for damages and interest imposed by Provident Fund Authority – Section 14B held valid and consistent with statutory provisions and constitutional principles – No arbitrariness found in the authority’s order [Paras 26-28].

Employment Law – Transfer and Posting – Appeal against order favoring employee’s writ petition challenging compulsory retirement due to unauthorized absence – Employer's prerogative to decide employee's place of work emphasized – Health issues and political influence in transfer orders considered – Court upholds employer's decision, reinstates punishment of compulsory retirement [Paras 1-8].

Absenteeism and Misconduct – Employee claimed health issues as reason for absenteeism – Medical report did not support health-related leave – Unauthorized absence deemed misconduct – Supreme Court precedents affirm disciplinary action for such absence [Paras 5-7].

Political Influence in Service Matters – Court criticized political interference in employee transfers and postings – Noted it disrupts public administration – Court disapproved employee’s act of seeking political influence, affecting writ relief eligibility [Para 7].

Judicial Review of Disciplinary Actions – Findings of guilt in disciplinary proceedings generally upheld – Limited judicial interference, especially when departmental appeals fail on merits – Court supports employer’s disciplinary decisions unless exceptions apply [Para 8].

Decision:

Appeal allowed – Order of the learned Single Judge set aside – Compulsory retirement of the respondent-employee reinstated – Benefits accruing from compulsory retirement to be processed within eight weeks, with interest for delays.

Negotiable Instruments Act – Dishonour of Cheques – Petitioner issued cheques to the respondent which were dishonoured due to insufficient funds – Legal proceedings under Section 138 of the NI Act initiated – Settlement agreement reached, but petitioner failed to comply fully – Respondent invoked Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. for enforcement – Court upheld the enforcement of settlement terms [Paras 1-10].

Settlement Agreement – Non-compliance – Settlement under Section 147 of the NI Act – Petitioner failed to pay agreed amount – Court confirmed liberty for respondent to recover amount through Section 421 of Cr.P.C. – Emphasized that settlement subsumes original complaint and failure leads to fresh cause of action [Paras 6-8].

Jurisdiction and Legal Principles – Apex Court’s observations on settlement agreements and subsequent liabilities – Reference to cases Gimpex Private Limited v. Manoj Goel, Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels, Himanshu v. B. Shivamurthy – Court noted principles but found them inapplicable to petitioner’s arguments [Paras 8-9].

Decision – Criminal Petition Rejected – Interim order dissolved – Emphasized enforcement of settlements and no merit in technical objections by petitioner [Para 10].

Contract Labour – Regularization – Workmen of BEML Ltd. Sought regularization of contract workers performing similar duties as permanent employees – Court held that issues of regularization and employer-employee relationship should be determined by an industrial tribunal – Writ Petition seeking regularization under Article 226 dismissed – Recruitment notification kept in abeyance for one month for review of contract workers’ status [Paras 1-20].

Jurisdiction – Contract Labour Act – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act provides a complete code – Questions of employer-employee relationship and regularization fall within the domain of industrial tribunals – Court lacks jurisdiction to regularize employment directly [Paras 12-19].

Recruitment Notification – Fairness and Transparency – Recruitment process for Group-C positions questioned for fairness as existing contract workers with similar qualifications were not considered – Court directed a review of the contract workers’ eligibility for regularization and ensured recruitment process fairness [Paras 19-20].

Decision: Writ Petition Partly Allowed – Regularization issue referred to appropriate forum – Recruitment notification kept in abeyance for one month – Directed review of contract workers’ status and transparency in recruitment [Para 20].

Criminal Law – Formation of Unlawful Assembly – Conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 324 read with Section 149 IPC upheld – Appellants’ involvement in group violence following a football match – Evidence established presence and participation in the unlawful assembly [Paras 1-13, 16].

Criminal Law – Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder – Conviction under Section 302 IPC modified to Section 304 Part I IPC for accused 1 to 3 – Evidence showed that the accused inflicted head injuries likely to cause death – No premeditated intention to kill established – Appellants already served more than 7½ years [Paras 9, 17-19, 22].

Witness Testimony – Identification and Credibility – Multiple witnesses identified the appellants – Witnesses’ injuries corroborated by medical records – Arguments challenging credibility dismissed due to corroborative evidence and procedural correctness in witness examination [Paras 8, 10-11, 15-16].

Evidence – Omission and Contradiction – Arguments on omissions in witness statements rejected – Omission not brought up during cross-examination under Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act not treated as material contradiction [Para 15].

Conspiracy – Insufficient Evidence – Conviction under Section 120B IPC set aside – No evidence of premeditated agreement to commit murder – Incident considered as a spontaneous clash rather than a planned conspiracy [Paras 17-18, 22].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Conviction under Sections 143, 147, 148, and 324 read with Section 149 IPC upheld for all appellants – Conviction under Sections 302 and 120B read with Section 149 IPC set aside for accused 5, 6, 8, 11, and 12 – Conviction for accused 1 to 3 modified to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellants’ imprisonment already served considered sufficient – Release ordered if no other cases pending [Paras 22-24].
 

Payment of Gratuity – Definition of Employee – Trainee vs. Apprentice – Petitioners challenged the orders affirming gratuity payments to employees, arguing exclusion of apprenticeship period under the 1961 Act. The High Court held that only apprentices undergoing training under the Apprentices Act are excluded from the Payment of Gratuity Act, whereas trainees outside its purview are considered employees entitled to gratuity [Paras 12-20].

Scope of Judicial Review – Findings of Fact – The High Court emphasized the limited scope of interference under Article 226, stating that findings of fact by lower authorities should not be disturbed unless based on no evidence, inadmissible evidence, or exclusion of admissible evidence. The Court upheld the findings of the Controlling and Appellate Authorities regarding the continuous service and entitlement of the respondents to gratuity [Paras 26-33].

Calculation of Gratuity – Continuous Service – The Court affirmed the authorities’ application of the Payment of Gratuity Act’s provisions, including definitions of “completed year of service” and “continuous service.” The Court found no break in service for the respondents, validating their continuous employment and eligibility for gratuity from the date of joining [Paras 34-37].

Decision: Writ petitions dismissed. Orders of the Controlling and Appellate Authorities affirmed. No order as to costs [Para 40].