Labour Law – Bonus – Applicability of Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 – Appellant trust engaged in rehabilitation of leprosy-cured and specially-abled persons – Since 1985 also engaged in commercial manufacturing of automobile and industrial parts generating profits – Workers, though beneficiaries of rehabilitation, employed in manufacturing activities in factories covered under Factories Act – Tribunal, Single Judge, and Division Bench of High Court held that Bonus Act applies – Appellant not entitled to exemption under Section 32(v)(a) or (c) of the Bonus Act – Workers entitled to minimum bonus of 8.33% subject to adjustment of already paid ex-gratia [Paras 3 to 19]​.

Exemption – Claim of exemption under Section 32(v) – Appellant claimed to be like Indian Red Cross Society or institution established not for profit – Held: Appellant severed links with Red Cross in 1989 – Since engaged in commercial activities with profit generation – Factories governed by labour laws – Cannot claim exemption merely due to charitable objects – Bonus Act applicable [Paras 12 to 16]​.

Bonus vs Ex-Gratia – Appellant contended existing ex-gratia payments substitute bonus – Held: Ex-gratia is voluntary, bonus is statutory – Payment of bonus under Bonus Act mandatory irrespective of ex-gratia – Adjustment of ex-gratia permissible as directed by High Court [Paras 17 to 18]​.

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Appellant directed to pay bonus from 1996-97 onwards within one month – Workmen entitled to statutory bonus in accordance with law [Paras 19 to 22]​.

Civil Law - Partition Suit – Oral Partition of 1968 – Limitation – Suit Barred - The suit for partition filed by the plaintiffs (respondents) was barred by limitation as the oral partition took place in 1968 and registered sale deeds were executed in 1978 – Plaintiffs failed to plead when they became aware of the sale deeds – The registered sale deeds provided constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act – Held: Plaint filed in 2023 after 55 years was hopelessly barred by limitation [Paras 12-13, 17-18].

Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Rejection of Plaint – Valid – The Trial Court rightly rejected the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as it disclosed no cause of action and was manifestly barred by limitation – Appellate Court erred in remanding the matter to the Trial Court despite clear legal bar – Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s order [Paras 10, 17-18].

Registered Sale Deeds – Constructive Notice – Registered documents are deemed to give notice to the world unless fraud, coercion, or minority is pleaded – Plaintiffs neither challenged the sale deeds timely nor explained suppression of knowledge – Suit held to be sham litigation aimed at protracting proceedings [Paras 9, 12, 13].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – The appeals were allowed and the High Court’s order remanding the matter was set aside – The suit was finally dismissed as barred by limitation and lacking cause of action [Para 18].

Service Law – Removal with Terminal Benefits – Entitlement to Pension – Pension Directed - The respondent, a bank employee, was removed from service on charges of gross misconduct, with appellate authority modifying dismissal to removal with entitlement to terminal benefits – Held: Removal with terminal benefits under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite

Settlement allows pension if qualifying conditions under the Pension Regulations are met – The respondent having completed requisite qualifying service was entitled to pensionary benefits [Paras 17-22].

Industrial Disputes Act – Power under Section 11A - Labour Court’s award substituting removal with lesser penalty was set aside - High Court rightly confined relief to enforcing the terminal benefits as ordered by the appellate authority – Labour Court's interference with the penalty of removal was held unjustified in earlier round [Paras 7-9].

Pension Regulations vs. Bipartite Settlement – Harmonious Construction Favoured - Regulation 22(1) disentitles employees dismissed or removed from service from pension – However, Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement permits pension where removal is with terminal benefits – Held: Both provisions must be harmoniously construed – Employee removed with terminal benefits remains entitled to pension if eligible under pension regulations – S.K. Kool (2014) 2 SCC 715 applied [Paras 21-22].

Doctrine of Finality – Unchallenged Appellate Order – Binding Effect -

The appellate authority's order granting terminal benefits to the respondent was never challenged and attained finality – The High Court correctly enforced the benefit flowing from the said order [Paras 19-22].

Final Decision – Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court – Respondent entitled to pension and terminal benefits – Appeal dismissed without costs [Para 23].

Arbitration – Power to Grant Interest – Clause 22 – No Express Bar on Pendente Lite Interest – The clause barring the contractor from claiming interest on payments, arrears or balances due does not amount to an express bar on the arbitrator’s power to award pendente lite interest – Held: Under the 1940 Act, absence of a specific prohibition on the arbitrator’s power suffices to sustain such interest – Reliance Cellulose and First Ambica Construction cases applied [Paras 14-15].

Interpretation of Clause – Strict Construction Required – Bar on interest must be expressly linked to disputes or arbitrator’s jurisdiction – Clause 22 only restricts contractor’s entitlement to claim interest directly under the contract, but does not oust the arbitrator’s power – Held: Arbitrator was competent to award pendente lite interest [Paras 9-15].

Arbitration – Modification of Interest Rate – Discretion Exercised – Considering the passage of time, partial payments already made, and post-award interest paid, Supreme Court exercised its jurisdiction under the 1940 Act to reduce the pendente lite interest from 15% (as awarded by the arbitrator) to 9% – Directed payment within 60 days [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court and District Judge’s orders set aside – Arbitral award restored with modification in interest rate – Pendente lite interest payable @ 9% from 18.12.1991 till 07.03.1995 [Para 16].

Civil Law - Dealership - Retail Outlet Dealership – Declaration of Group in Application – Change Not Permissible – Respondent Bound by Own Declaration – Respondent initially applied under Group 2 for BPCL dealership but later sought change to Group 1 claiming error – Held: Selection guidelines, advertisement, and application form strictly bind applicants by their original declaration and supporting documents – No provision allows subsequent change of group – High Court erred in permitting change [Paras 35, 15-18].

Writ Jurisdiction – Limited Interference in Contractual Matters – Courts to Refrain from Rewriting Contractual Terms – Held: Tender conditions constitute binding rules – Judicial interference permissible only when arbitrariness, mala fides, or violation of Article 14 is proved – No such violation found – Respondent took a chance and cannot seek correction after submission [Paras 12-14].

Doctrine of Public Trust – Applicability in Dealership Selection – Strict Compliance Required – Held: Petroleum and natural resources are governed by public trust doctrine – BPCL obligated to adhere strictly to prescribed norms to ensure fairness and transparency – Relaxation of conditions for individual sympathy is impermissible [Paras 16-17].

Sympathy Not Ground for Relaxation – Repeated Litigation Deprecated – Held: Prolonged and repeated writ petitions filed by respondent on untenable grounds wasted judicial time and delayed public interest project – Sympathy alone cannot justify deviation from mandatory selection norms [Paras 18-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court Orders Set Aside – BPCL Directed to Continue Dealership Selection as per Rules without Entertaining Respondent’s Application Under Group 1 [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law - Summoning of Additional Accused – Scope of Section 319 Cr. PC – Satisfaction beyond Prima Facie – Summoning Restored – The Sessions Judge allowed the appellant’s application under Section 319 Cr. PC to summon Rajesh Kumar and Neeraj as additional accused based on PW-1’s evidence alleging their direct involvement – The High Court reversed the order, citing lack of corroboration from medical evidence and police investigation reports – The Supreme Court held that the Sessions Judge’s satisfaction was higher than prima facie and consistent with settled law under Hardeep Singh’s case – Police reports alone cannot conclusively negate involvement when direct evidence exists – Held: High Court’s interference unwarranted; Sessions Judge’s order restored [Paras 16-19].

Section 319 Cr. PC – Nature of Power – Discretion Not Mechanical – Application Restored – Power under Section 319 is discretionary and should not be exercised mechanically but requires satisfaction higher than prima facie but below proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt – The High Court overlooked the principle that the trial court’s discretion should not be lightly interfered with unless perverse – Held: The Sessions Judge had correctly exercised discretion and reached a plausible conclusion – Appeal allowed [Paras 17-19].

Decision – High Court Order Set Aside – Sessions Judge Order Restored – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the order of the Sessions Judge summoning Rajesh and Neeraj to face trial along with Mukesh – Trial directed to proceed expeditiously [Paras 19-21].

Civil Law - Deemed Conveyance – Maintainability of Successive Applications – Bar of Res Judicata – The Competent Authority, in its earlier order dated 22.02.2021, directed the Respondent-Society to first resolve legal complications regarding ownership, leasehold rights, and validity of the lease before seeking deemed conveyance – Without resolving these foundational disputes, the Society filed a fresh application under Section 11 of the 1963 Act – Held: Such successive application is barred by principles of res judicata – The Competent Authority, being a quasi-judicial body, has no power to review its earlier final decision, directly or indirectly – The second order granting deemed conveyance is unsustainable and without jurisdiction [Paras 5(i), 5(ii), 12-14].

Powers of Competent Authority – Limited to Adjudication, No Review Jurisdiction – The Competent Authority under Section 11 of the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act has no express or implied power of review – Once an issue has attained finality, the Authority cannot entertain a fresh application on the same cause unless permitted by statute – The High Court erred in affirming the second application without examining the lack of statutory review powers [Paras 5(ii), 12-14].

Unauthorized Construction – Effect on Deemed Conveyance – The subject building was constructed without any sanctioned plans, building permission, or commencement certificate – In absence of compliance with statutory building norms, no vested right for deemed conveyance accrues to the Society – The Competent Authority overlooked this crucial fact while passing the impugned order – Grant of deemed conveyance in such circumstances is legally impermissible [Para 5(iii)].

Minority Rights of Flat Purchasers – Role of Competent Authority – The Competent Authority under Section 11 is bound to protect the interests of all flat purchasers, including those not party to the Society or the application – Passing a deemed conveyance order affecting third parties, without resolving inter-se ownership disputes, is contrary to the statutory mandate and principles of natural justice [Paras 5(iv), 6, 9].

Judicial Discipline – Binding Precedent and Continuity of Orders – Once the Competent Authority had finally directed the resolution of ownership issues before any further application, the subsequent order ignoring the earlier direction amounts to judicial indiscipline – Orders of quasi-judicial authorities must maintain consistency unless validly reviewed or set aside by a higher court [Paras 5(i), 7-9].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – The impugned orders dated 05.10.2021 and 15.06.2023 passed by the Competent Authority and the High Court respectively are quashed – Liberty is granted to the Respondent-Society to approach the Competent Authority afresh only after resolving legal complications before a competent civil court – Appeal stands allowed [Paras 15-16].

Service Law – Pay Scale Dispute – Assistant Professors – Appellant-Society managing private engineering colleges challenged the Bombay High Court's order granting 6th Central Pay Commission benefits to Respondent-teachers – The High Court directed re-designation of certain teachers as Associate Professors with pay band Rs. 37,400-67,000 and AGP Rs. 9,000 – Appellant contended Respondents lacked the essential Ph.D. qualification prescribed by AICTE post 15.03.2000 – Held: Teachers appointed prior to 15.03.2000, when Ph.D. was not mandatory, are entitled to benefits – Teachers appointed after 15.03.2000 without Ph.D. or who failed to acquire it within 7 years are not entitled [Paras 2, 16, 17, 27, 28].

AICTE Regulations – Qualification Requirements – AICTE, as the statutory body under the 1987 Act, has authority to prescribe qualifications – Notifications of 2000, 2005, and 2010 make Ph.D. mandatory for Assistant Professors appointed after 15.03.2000 – Teachers who fail to acquire Ph.D. within 7 years face stoppage of increments and ineligibility for higher pay scales – 2016 Clarification merely reiterated existing rules, did not relax them – Supreme Court upheld AICTE’s standards as neither arbitrary nor unreasonable [Paras 4-12, 18-24].

Judicial Review – Limits – Supreme Court reiterated that Courts should defer to the expertise of statutory academic bodies like AICTE unless the prescribed qualifications are arbitrary or unlawful – The distinction between teachers with and without Ph.D. is reasonable and serves to maintain academic standards – Teachers who later obtain Ph.D. can seek benefits prospectively upon compliance [Paras 25, 26, 29].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Teachers appointed prior to 15.03.2000 and one teacher who later acquired Ph.D. entitled to benefits – Others denied – Higher pay scale with 7.5% interest on arrears to be paid within 4 weeks or interest to rise to 15% – Review petitions before High Court to be decided considering this judgment [Paras 28-31].

Service Law - Departmental Proceedings – Quasi-Judicial Function – Judges Protection Act – Protection granted – Appellant acted in quasi-judicial capacity as Tehsildar under Section 57(2) of the MP Land Revenue Code – No allegations of mala fide, extraneous consideration, bribery, or corruption – Mere irregularity or erroneous decision without dishonest intent not actionable departmentally – Held: The departmental proceedings are barred by the Judges Protection Act [Paras 5-17].

Delay in Disciplinary Action – 14 years delay unjustified – Proceedings quashed – No explanation for inordinate delay in issuance of chargesheet – Such delay violates principles of natural justice and causes prejudice – Held: Disciplinary proceedings quashed on the ground of delay alone [Paras 17-18].

K.K. Dhawan Principles – Not attracted – The exceptions laid down in Union of India v.

K.K. Dhawan (1993) regarding when disciplinary action may be initiated against officers discharging quasi-judicial functions not applicable – No evidence of misconduct beyond an erroneous order – Held: Disciplinary proceedings unsustainable [Paras 15-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Chargesheet and departmental proceedings quashed – Division Bench judgment set aside – Single Judge’s judgment restored – No order as to costs [Paras 19-21].