Termination & Reinstatement – Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 – Petitioner challenges Tribunal award granting reinstatement and back wages to respondent workman who was denied duty post-medical leave – Tribunal found the termination in violation of Industrial Disputes Act provisions – Held, termination was unjust, reinstatement ordered with 25% back wages – Fact of workman having secured employment elsewhere considered; on basis of his lower earnings at new job, tribunal deemed 25% back wages appropriate – [Paras 1-11]

Tribunal Findings – Evidence & Procedure – Tribunal relied on admissions from management and failure-report from conciliation proceedings; found management’s defense of workman abandoning job untrustworthy – Court upheld Tribunal’s approach and findings, affirming workman’s wrongful termination – [Paras 5-6, 10-11]

Compensation Modification – On appeal, High Court modifies relief; instead of reinstatement, grants lump-sum compensation considering the workman’s age, employment status, and management’s past conduct – Orders Rs. 3,30,000 compensation in lieu of reinstatement and continuity of service – [Para 12-14]

Property Dispute – Ownership and Encroachment – Appeal against First Appellate Court’s dismissal of suit – Trial court had decreed in favor of plaintiff, finding her the rightful owner in possession of the disputed property, an injunction was granted against encroachment claims by the defendants – Defendants contested, claiming encroachment on adjacent government property but failed to provide conclusive proof. [Paras 1-22]

Legal Admissions and Evidence – Defendants admitted plaintiff’s ownership in their written statement but contested the validity of ownership based on non-production of original sale deed and alleged encroachment – The appeal emphasized defendants’ failure to disprove plaintiff’s ownership or to substantiate claims of encroachment with credible evidence – Appeal restored trial court’s decree favoring the plaintiff. [Paras 11-14, 20-21]

Res Judicata – Suit not barred – Defendants unsuccessfully argued res judicata based on previous litigation against plaintiff’s husband which did not involve the plaintiff directly – Appellate court rejected res judicata application, aligning with plaintiff’s argument that judgments in personam affecting her husband did not bind her. [Paras 4, 16-17]

Decision:Appellate Judgment Reversed – High Court found First Appellate Court erred in its judgment – Recognized admissions by defendants and lack of substantial evidence against the plaintiff – Restored trial court’s judgment decreeing permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiff. [Para 22]

Transfer of Criminal Complaint – Jurisdiction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1991 – Petition filed by accused for transfer of complaint related to dishonoured cheque from Fazilka to Chandigarh, claiming that complainant’s bank account is maintained at Chandigarh – Controversy over actual maintenance location of the bank account whether at Chandigarh or Fazilka – Respondents provided certificate from Canara Bank, Muthianwali Branch, Fazilka confirming account maintenance at Fazilka – Court finds jurisdictional issue to be a matter of factual determination, inappropriate for decision at the stage of petition for transfer – Petition disposed of with liberty granted to petitioners to raise jurisdiction issue before trial court, which may decide the same at the outset after allowing parties to lead evidence if necessary. [Paras 1-7]

Second FIR – Prohibition – Petitioner seeks quashing of orders for registering a second FIR based on same transaction – First FIR registered by the bank involving allegations of financial misappropriation – Complaint by third party initiated subsequent proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. – Investigating officer had already considered the third party's complaint during the investigation of the first FIR – High Court references T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, emphasizes prohibition of multiple FIRs on same transaction – Orders for second FIR quashed [Paras 1-12].

Misuse of Process – Malicious Prosecution – High Court notes that permitting a second FIR would lead to abuse of judicial process and malicious prosecution – Upholds the principle that investigation and further evidence collection should be under the original FIR – Cites State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to support quashing orders that result in misuse of judicial process [Paras 7-10].

Decision: Application allowed – Orders dated 05.03.2016 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Saran at Chhapra and dated 21.01.2015 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra are quashed – Second FIR and all consequential proceedings set aside – Court reaffirms the prohibition against registering multiple FIRs for the same occurrence [Paras 11-12].
 

Cadre Restructuring – Judicial Review – Fundamental Rights - Petition challenging the revision of cadre strength in the BSF. Petitioner argued that the reduction in posts adversely affected promotional opportunities and violated fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court reiterated that the creation and abolition of posts fall within the exclusive domain of the employer and cannot be interfered with by the court unless there is a violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or manifest illegality [Paras 1-10].

Creation and Abolition of Posts – Domain of Employer - Supreme Court precedents confirm that the creation and abolition of posts are policy decisions of the employer, not subject to judicial interference unless arbitrary, mala fide, or unconstitutional. The court referenced ‘Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand’ and other cases, emphasizing limited judicial review in such administrative decisions [Paras 8-9].

Decision - Writ Petition Dismissed – The court found no manifest illegality or arbitrariness in the impugned notification. The reduction of posts did not substantively affect the petitioner’s rights, and the restructuring could potentially benefit her promotion prospects [Para 10].
 

Condonation of Delay – Jurisdiction of Appellate Authority – Petition filed under Article 226 challenging the Appellate Authority's refusal to condone delay in filing the appeal – Held, Limitation Act provisions not applicable to quasi-judicial authorities unless expressly provided – Appellate Authority correctly held it lacked jurisdiction to condone delay – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-16].

Interpretation of Limitation Act – Applicability to Tribunals – Section 29(2) of Limitation Act applies only to suits, appeals, or applications filed in courts, not to quasi-judicial bodies or tribunals – Supreme Court judgments affirm non-application of Limitation Act to tribunals, reinforcing the Appellate Authority's decision [Paras 7-10].

Judicial Legislation – Constitutional Limits – Court cannot confer powers on authorities that are not legislatively granted – Judicial direction to condone delay amounts to unconstitutional judicial legislation – Established principle that courts cannot legislate or compel legislative action through judicial orders [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Held, Appellate Authority rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay due to lack of jurisdiction – No judicial order can compel the authority to consider condonation of delay without legislative provision [Paras 14-16].

Suit for Declaration and Injunction – Plaintiff seeks declaration that share transfer to defendant under a Letter Agreement dated 03.12.2018 is void due to non-payment and to restrain defendant from rights over said shares – Agreement was for 1611 equity shares at ₹5,500 per share, wrongfully recorded as ₹31,516 per share in the agreement – Defendant recorded as owner in company’s register despite non-payment – Interim injunction sought to prevent defendant from alienating shares or exercising ownership rights. [Para 1]

Facts and Agreement Details – Plaintiff, a founder of a company that created BharatPe, transferred shares to defendant under pressure to clear way for U.S. investment due to past legal issues in the USA – Transfer was meant to be temporary with a call option for repurchase by plaintiff – Defendant has not paid for the shares, leading to the plaintiff declaring the agreement and share transfer form void and seeking legal reassertion of ownership. [Para 2, 5]

Defendant’s Response and Court’s Analysis – Defendant claims payment was made through alternative means like usage of property and cash, not directly traceable to the share purchase – Court finds prima facie case that the sale consideration was not paid, hence property in shares did not pass to defendant, leading to interim injunction granted against defendant preventing any transfer or creation of rights in the disputed shares until the disposal of the suit. [Para 3, 24, 28]

Decision – Interim Injunction Granted – Court finds prima facie case that share ownership did not pass to defendant No. 1 due to non-payment. Injunction issued against defendant No. 1 to prevent any transfer or creation of third-party rights in the disputed shares pending final resolution. [Paras 29-30]

Detention Order and Background – Petitioner, previously involved in three cases under the NDPS Act and various IPC matters, challenges the legality of his detention order – background includes previous acquittal and ongoing trials where the petitioner is either bailed or acquitted [Paras 3-7].

Authority’s Justification – Detaining authority’s order emphasized ongoing and planned illicit activities by the petitioner, deemed a continuous threat to national health and security; basis of detention scrutinized [Paras 8, 24].

Legal Challenge – Primary contention is the improper use of detention despite existing custody without adequate justification of future conduct or risk upon release; issues of past case acquittals and misuse of authority also argued [Paras 11, 27-28].

Court’s Analysis and Conclusion – High Court finds detention order unjustified given the petitioner’s existing custody and lack of concrete evidence or reasoning for imminent release and re-engagement in illicit activities; detention order and confirmation order quashed [Paras 22-30].

Tender Process and Disqualification - Akash Construction appeals against orders qualifying S.B. Construction and Stone Concern Infrastructure as tenderers for road work - Electronic Notice Inviting Tender No. 12/2023-2024 for road widening and strengthening was contested due to technical disqualifications which were later overturned - Authorities initially disqualified the respondents at the technical bid stage, which was challenged and set aside by a Single Judge directing that they be treated as technically qualified - Appeal challenges the Single Judge's order for procedural irregularities and misinterpretation of eligibility criteria [Paras 1-7, 22-26].

Judicial Review in Tender Processes - Citing Supreme Court precedents, appellant argues for limited judicial interference in tender decisions unless marked by arbitrariness or illegality - Stresses that the authority floating the tender is the best judge of its requirements and that the Single Judge improperly substituted the authority's interpretation of technical qualifications - Appeals contend the respondents did not meet specific experience criteria for ICBP work as per tender requirements, critical to the project's scope [Paras 9-10, 27-38].

Decision - Court allows appeals, setting aside the Single Judge’s rulings that qualified the respondents as technically eligible - Upholds the original disqualification by tender authorities, emphasizing adherence to stipulated technical criteria without undue judicial alteration of tender processes - Judicial review found to be overreaching in substituting administrative expertise and tender interpretation [Para 38].