Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 25F, 25G & 25H – Violation alleged – Worker failing to prove completion of 240 days of service in a calendar year – Court’s considered opinion that violation of Section 25F does not arise – No retrenchment of worker under Sections 25G & 25H – Muster roll employee paid wages as a daily wager due to administrative exigencies – Sections 25G & 25H not attracted – No entitlement to reinstatement. (Para 65 to 66)

High Courts’ Jurisdiction – Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India – Limitation on interference with findings of fact – Writ Court not acting as an appellate court – Interference permissible only in cases of error of law apparent on the face of the record – Findings of fact by inferior courts or tribunals not to be reopened or questioned – Scope of supervisory jurisdiction. (Para 67 to 70)

Writ of Certiorari – Issuance – Correction of error of law – Error must be manifest on the face of the record – Error of law apparent when conclusion based on obvious misinterpretation of statutory provision or in disregard of it – Finding of fact by tribunal not open to challenge unless perverse or based on no evidence – Interference permissible in case of illegality or violation of principles of natural justice. (Para 71 to 73)

Interference by High Court – Findings of fact by Labour Court – Conditions for interference – Award must be perverse, based on wrong legal principles, or not considering relevant facts – Adequacy or sufficiency of evidence within exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal – Writ Court must record reasons for reconsideration of a finding of fact – Absence of defects in findings precludes entry into factual disputes. (Para 75 to 76)

Supreme Court precedents – Judicial pronouncements dealing with High Courts’ supervisory jurisdiction – Limitation on interference by writ courts with factual findings – Court’s adherence to principles established in earlier judgments. (Para 78 to 79)

Criminal Law - Regular Bail - Petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail - Accused in custody for 2 years, 8 months, and 3 days - FIR registered under Sections 114, 216, 302, 120-B, and 34 IPC; Sections 30 and 25 of the Arms Act - Recovery of a different firearm from the petitioner compared to the alleged weapon used in the offense - Eight co-accused already granted regular bail by High Court and trial Court - Material witnesses not supporting prosecution's case - Petitioner on bail in other cases - Citing precedent Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and others, 2012(2) SCC 382. (Para 1, 2)

Grant of Bail - Factors considered - Role of accused in the case, possibility of fleeing jurisdiction, and criminal antecedents - Petitioner's long custody period, bail in other cases, and lack of support from material witnesses taken into account - Trial likely to take considerable time - Further incarceration not serving any useful purpose. (Para 6)

Bail Conditions - Conditions imposed on petitioner - Not to tamper with evidence during trial - Not to pressurize/intimidate prosecution witnesses - Mandatory appearance in trial Court - Not to commit similar offenses - Not to coerce or threaten witnesses - No misuse of liberty - Furnishing address and mobile number to the trial Court - No leaving the country without Court permission. (Para 7)

Observations - Limited scope - Observations made in the present proceedings not indicative of the merits of the case - Trial to proceed independently - State's liberty to seek bail cancellation in case of any breach of conditions. (Para 9)

Passport Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 3, Section 14(5)(d) and (e), Section 15(2) – Proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board – Whether constitutes ‘Criminal Court’ – Petitioner falsely implicated in criminal case – Juvenile at the time of occurrence – Applied for re-issue of passport – Passport withheld by authorities – Challenge to the action of respondents No.2 and 3 – Prayer for re-issuance of passport – Inquiry proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board stayed by Court – Whether proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board qualify as proceedings before Criminal Court – Whether Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act applicable – Observations of Court – Juvenile Justice Board has trappings of Criminal Court – Proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board attract Section 6(2)(f) – Office Memorandum exempting citizens with pending criminal proceedings from Passport Act’s provisions – Petitioner entitled to issuance of passport subject to appropriate orders from Juvenile Justice Board – Petition disposed of accordingly. (Para No.1- 16)

Passport Act, 1967 – Section 6(2)(f) – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – Section 3, Section 14(5)(d) and (e), Section 15(2) – Proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board – Whether constitutes ‘Criminal Court’ – Petitioner falsely implicated in criminal case – Juvenile at the time of occurrence – Applied for re-issue of passport – Passport withheld by authorities – Challenge to the action of respondents No.2 and 3 – Prayer for re-issuance of passport – Inquiry proceedings before Juvenile Justice Board stayed by Court – Whether proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board qualify as proceedings before Criminal Court – Whether Section 6(2)(f) of Passport Act applicable – Observations of Court – Juvenile Justice Board has trappings of Criminal Court – Proceedings pending before Juvenile Justice Board attract Section 6(2)(f) – Office Memorandum exempting citizens with pending criminal proceedings from Passport Act’s provisions – Petitioner entitled to issuance of passport subject to appropriate orders from Juvenile Justice Board – Petition disposed of accordingly. (Para No.1- 16)

Compensation awarded for erroneous examination result: In this Civil Writ Jurisdiction case, the Court granted compensation to petitioner no. 2 for the erroneous publication of her Secondary School Examination result, causing adverse effects on her career and future prospects. The Court held the Board liable for the inordinate delay in responding to the scrutiny request and condemned its irresponsible conduct. (Para 2, 10, 11)

Impact of delay and incorrect result on petitioner’s life: Due to the delay and incorrect result, petitioner no. 2 suffered mental agony, humiliation, and loss of valuable study time. This act of the Board significantly affected her life, leading to discontinuation of further studies and loss of two academic years. (Para 5, 6, 10)

Compensation amount: Taking into account the sufferance caused to the petitioner, the Court directed the Board to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation cost. (Para 12)

Inquiry and accountability: The Court granted the Board liberty to conduct an inquiry and fix responsibility upon the officials at fault. The Board was given the authority to recover the compensation amount from the responsible officials. (Para 14, 15)

Rejection of Leave under Section 80(2) C.P.C. – Trial court’s rejection of leave under Section 80(2) C.P.C., finding no necessity for urgent relief in the suit matter, held untenable. High Court emphasizes understanding the real spirit behind Section 80 C.P.C. and its sub-sections.

Purpose of Section 80 C.P.C. – Section 80 C.P.C. mandates a two-month notice in writing before suing the Government or a public officer for acts in their official capacity. Sub-section (2) allows suits without prior notice if “urgent and immediate relief” is necessary.

Protecting the Plaintiff’s Interest – Sub-section (2) protects the plaintiff’s interests from emergent dangers or invasions of valuable rights. Court to consider the need for urgent relief over rigid compliance with two-month prior notice.

Subjective Satisfaction and Probability of Irreparable Injury – Court should assess the need for urgent relief based on subjective satisfaction and the probability of irreparable injury at the initial stage.

Section 80(2) C.P.C. as a Precautionary Measure – Section 80(2) C.P.C. is a precautionary measure to resolve grievances without litigation. Not an absolute condition precedent in all cases.

Overlooking the Cardinal Principle – Trial court overlooks the cardinal principle behind Section 80 C.P.C., returns suit without considering the application for urgent remedy. High Court sets aside the decision and restores the suit.

Restoration of the Suit – High Court restores the suit to the trial court for further consideration. Parties to appear before the trial court on 25/07/2023. Trial court to reconsider grant of leave and pass necessary orders.

Anticipatory Bail Application – Seizure of prohibited substances from a co-accused – Allegations of involvement in the supply of banned substances – Detailed investigation required to uncover potential substance-related racket – Identity of purchasers to be ascertained – Criminal antecedents of the applicant – Previous cases denying similar relief to applicants facing comparable charges – Prohibition under Food and Safety Standards Act, 2006 – Refusal to grant pre-arrest protection. (Para No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10)

Marriage – Dissolution of marriage – Appeal against the judgment of the Family Court – Petition for divorce on grounds of cruelty – Allegations of improper behavior, refusal to cohabit, and making unreasonable demands – Examination of evidence – Failure to prove specific allegations of cruelty – No ground for dissolution of marriage. (Para 10)

Desertion – Not made out – Petition for divorce filed within two years of marriage – Requirement of continuous desertion for not less than two years – Absence of such continuous desertion. (Para 8)

Inability to bear children – Not a ground for dissolving the marriage – Parties may consider alternative means such as adoption for having children. Marital duty – Duty to co-operate and support a spouse in times of illness or difficulties – Developing a disease during marriage not within the control of any spouse. Motive for divorce – Seeking divorce with the intent to remarry and have children with another person – Motive not recognized as a valid ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.  (Para 11)

Bail - Constitutional Law – Personal Liberty – Arrest – Necessity for justification – Arrest and detention in police lock-up causing harm to reputation and self-esteem – Arrest cannot be made in a routine manner on a mere allegation of offense – Justification required for arrest apart from the power to arrest – Arrest to be avoided if reasonable satisfaction as to the genuineness and bona fides of complaint and person’s complicity reached after investigation – Personal liberty being an important aspect of constitutional mandate. (Para 26.1)

Criminal Procedure – Remand – Application of mind by the court – Fundamentally a judicial function – Obligation on the Magistrate to satisfy himself of reasonable grounds for remand – Purpose of remand under Section 167 of CrPC – Investigating agency to send case diary with remand report for Magistrate’s appreciation – Remand not to be ordered automatically or in a mechanical manner. (Para 26.2)

Interpretation of Statutes – Distinction between arrest and remand – Accused already under incarceration – No need for further arrest – Custody not limited to police or judicial custody but presentation before the court – Pari materia provision having same effect as Section 167(2) CrPC – Accused entitled to default bail under appropriate satisfaction – Incarceration meaning confinement in jail or preventing someone from leaving a closed place. (Para 26.3)

Companies Act – Twin-conditions for bail under Section 212(6) – Accused not arrested before stage of cognizance – Summons issued instead of arrest warrants – Investigating officer not seeking police custody or judicial custody – Failure to record satisfaction that accused is guilty of offenses charged – Misdirection by court in applying twin-conditions – Flawed premise for remanding accused to judicial custody. (Para 27.7)

Bail – Seriousness of allegations not sole test for denial of bail – Gravity of allegations determining length of sentence upon conviction – Accused’s right to expeditious trial not to be undermined – Pre-trial detention to be limited – Justifiable reasons required for remand and articulation based on material against accused. (Para 27.9)

Conditions for bail – Personal bond, sureties, and compliance with court orders – Active cell-phone contact, surrender of passport, non-contact with witnesses, and evidence tampering prohibition – Restriction from contact or transaction with officials/employees concerned with the case – Issuance of Look-out Circular to prevent accused from leaving the country. (Para 28)

Economic Offenses – Severity of allegations not justification for pre-trial incarceration – Punishment to follow conviction – Importance of ensuring due process and safeguarding personal liberty. (Para 30)