Municipal Elections – Two-Child Norm – Disqualification – Clarificatory Amendment – Retrospective Effect – First Amendment (Act 3 of 1994) inserted Section 13A(1)(c) disqualifying persons with more than two living children; proviso (faultily drafted) used “after one year” from commencement – Second Amendment (Act 15 of 1994) substituted “after” with “upto” – Held: Substitution is declaratory/clarificatory, operates retrospectively from 05.04.1994 to give effect to original legislative intent; disqualification attracted on birth of third child after the one-year window from commencement; adoption does not efface disqualification – Appeal dismissed [Paras 2–6, 8–9, 22–27, 28].

Statutory Interpretation – Prospective vs. Retrospective – Curative/Explanatory Amendments – Courts may give retrospective effect where amendment supplies an obvious omission or cures absurdity; presumption against retrospectivity displaced by necessary implication and legislative purpose; applied canons from G.P. Singh, Craies, Maxwell, Heydon’s mischief rule; clarificatory amendments generally retrospective [Paras 13–21].

“Substitution” in Amendments – Legal Effect – Substitution repeals and replaces the earlier text; earlier provision ceases and new text governs as if always so – Authorities in West U.P. Sugar Mills, Mangilal Pindwal, Koteswar, Veerappa Chettiar applied – Hence “upto” reads as if it were originally enacted on 05.04.1994 [Paras 23–26].

Gestational Window – Evidence Act Section 112 – One-year grace period tied to gestation (280 days) with margin; supports purposive reading that only children born within one year from commencement are insulated; births thereafter attract disqualification notwithstanding adoption [Para 26].

Right to Contest – Nature – Not fundamental/common-law right; purely statutory; legislature competent to impose reasonable disqualifications to curb population growth; Javed followed [Paras 10, 26–27].

Precedent – Sunil Kumar Rana – Approved – Two-Judge bench view that the one-year period runs from commencement of Act 3 of 1994 affirmed; no reconsideration warranted [Paras 8–9, 28].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court decision sustained – Second Amendment held declaratory and retrospective from 05.04.1994 – Appellant validly disqualified under Section 13A(1)(c) [Para 28].

Apprentices Act, 1961 – Nature and Scope – Apprentice vs Workman – Whether non-registration of an apprenticeship contract renders the apprentice a workman – Held: Apprentices appointed under the Apprentices Act, 1961 are trainees and not workmen – Section 18 excludes application of labour laws to apprentices – Non-registration of the apprenticeship contract under Section 4(4) does not alter the apprentice's status – Such apprentices are governed exclusively by the Apprentices Act, and not by the Industrial Disputes Act or U.P. Industrial Disputes Act – Labour courts lack jurisdiction in such disputes [Paras 1–3, 18, 43, 51, 55, 56, 57].

Statutory Interpretation – Use of 'Shall' in Section 4(4) of Apprentices Act – Whether mandatory or directory – Held: Word “shall” used in Section 4(4) requiring registration of contract is directory, not mandatory – Registration is an administrative requirement – Its non-compliance does not invalidate the contract or change the apprentice’s legal status – Construing it as mandatory would defeat the beneficial purpose of the Act and operate against apprentices [Paras 52, 53, 54, 105, 110].

Labour Laws – Applicability of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Definition of 'Workman' – Held: Though 'apprentice' is included in definition of 'workman' under Section 2(z) of U.P. Act and Section 2(s) of ID Act, such inclusion is inapplicable to apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 – The latter being a special statute overrides general labour laws – Labour courts have no jurisdiction over disputes involving such apprentices [Paras 44–48, 56, 57, 89, 90, 129].

Dispute Resolution – Jurisdiction of Labour Court – Disputes arising from apprenticeship contract to be adjudicated by Apprenticeship Adviser under Section 20 – Labour Courts have no jurisdiction under U.P. ID Act or ID Act – High Court rightly set aside Labour Court orders assuming jurisdiction in such cases [Paras 29, 51, 57, 56, 129].

Judicial Precedents – Conflict of Views among High Courts – View of Rajasthan, Kerala, and Allahabad High Courts holding apprentices not to be workmen under Apprentices Act endorsed – Contrary views of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh High Courts not accepted [Paras 61, 125–127].

Individual Appeals – Apprenticeship Termination – In all appeals, respondents appointed as apprentices under designated trades (Boiler Attendant, Storekeeper, Clerk, etc.) for fixed terms – Their services terminated on completion of training – Labour Court treated them as workmen due to non-registration of contract – Supreme Court held: such non-registration immaterial – Respondents not entitled to benefits under ID Acts – Appeals allowed – Labour Court and High Court orders set aside [Paras 63–86].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961 are not workmen – Labour Courts and High Courts erred in treating them as such – Contract registration under Section 4(4) is directory – Labour laws do not apply – Labour Court awards and High Court orders reversed – No order as to costs. [Paras 55, 86, 130].

Land Acquisition – Enhancement Parity After Co-claimants’ Remand – Review and Article 142 – Appeals Dismissed – Appellants’ High Court appeals concluded by common judgment dated 11.10.1984 at ₹4,000 per bigha – co-claimants (Pratap Singh & Ors.) alone appealed to Supreme Court, obtained remand, and later enhancement – Appellants filed belated reviews seeking parity or Article 142 relief – Held: their judgments had attained finality and could not be reopened via review or generalized parity – no ground to invoke Article 142 to override statutory scheme [Paras 5–7, 11, 16].

Section 28A – Not Available to Those Who Sought Section 18 Reference – Redetermination under Section 28A is confined to award-holders who did not seek a Section 18 reference and who apply within limitation – Appellants had sought Section 18 references, pursued appeals, and did not file Section 28A applications in time – Hence Section 28A relief is barred – Scheduled Caste Co-operative Land Owning Society Ltd., Bhatinda followed; Mewa Ram and Babua Ram applied [Paras 7, 13–15].

Finality of Judgments – No Review on Parity with Subsequent Awards – The fact that similarly notified lands later fetched higher compensation for other claimants upon remand does not by itself warrant review where the appellants’ own judgments became final and were never appealed – Review rightly dismissed [Paras 5–7, 15].

Article 142 – No Basis to Equalize Compensation – While Article 142 is wide, it is not to be exercised to defeat clear legislative limits under Section 28A or to reopen final judgments absent compelling grounds – Distinguishing B.N. Nagarajan, Shenoy & Co., Union Carbide – no omnibus extension of benefits beyond parties covered by the remand/appeal [Paras 8–12, 16].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – High Court orders refusing review affirmed – Section 28A relief unavailable – Article 142 not invoked – No order as to costs [Para 16].

Service Law – Termination – Industrial Disputes Act – Principles of Natural Justice – Workman remained absent without leave from May to August 1979 despite registered notice and newspaper publication – Services terminated on ground of absence – Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity and full back wages – High Court reduced back wages to 60% – Held: Termination without disciplinary proceeding may require compliance with service rules and Section 25F ID Act, but conduct of workman crucial – Workman remained absent despite opportunities and raised dispute after long delay – Grant of back wages unjustified [Paras 3–12, 19–20].

Industrial Disputes – Back Wages – Delay and Conduct – Demand notice made after nearly two years of termination – Reference after more than a decade – Workman did not perform duty since 1979 and failed to prove unemployment – Labour Court erred in awarding full back wages and High Court in granting 60% – Entitlement to back wages negated due to workman’s conduct and delay [Paras 11–13, 19–20].

Natural Justice – Compliance – Termination for Misconduct vs. Retrenchment – If termination is for misconduct, Section 25F ID Act not attracted – Only requirement is compliance with service rules framed under Article 309 – Where opportunity was granted through registered letter and public notice, non-joining of duty justified termination – Even assuming non-compliance with rules, back wages not automatic [Paras 11, 16, 20].

Reinstatement – Not Disturbed – Workman reinstated pursuant to Labour Court award and retired in March 2004 – Supreme Court refrained from interfering with reinstatement but set aside direction for back wages – Relief confined to wages only [Paras 9, 21].

Decision: Appeal by State allowed – Appeal by workman dismissed – Reinstatement not disturbed as workman had already retired – Award and High Court orders granting back wages set aside – No costs [Para 22].

Civil Writ - PIL - Urban Traffic & Parking – Judicial Directions – Calibration by Supreme Court – Parking charges and one-way systems – High Court’s directions modified – Chandigarh Administration to fix quantum of parking charges considering relevant factors – One-way traffic to be introduced where needed; relaxation only with recorded special reasons to be placed before High Court [Paras 5–7].

High Power Committee – Recommendations as Directions – Opportunity of Hearing – Suggestions of Committee not ipso facto directions – Administration to be heard; High Court to pass appropriate orders thereafter [Para 8].

Public Transport – CTU Inter-State Operations – Commercial Viability vs. Public Needs – Administration permitted to move High Court with factual particulars; HC to consider modification regarding utilization of CTU vehicles for inter-State routes [Paras 9–10].

Residential Parking Ban – Workability & Vulnerable Users – Blanket ban impracticable – High Court to consider viable arrangements keeping in view needs of elderly, disabled, women and children; lane parking where possible [Paras 11–13].

Protective Headgear – Women Riders – Statutory Exemptions Prevail – Where Rules grant exemption (e.g., Sikh women under applicable State/UT Rules), such exemption shall operate notwithstanding High Court’s general direction mandating helmets for all; directions aligned with Section 129 MV Act and relevant Rules [Paras 14–15].

Sun-Control Films – Visibility Standards – Rule 100(2) CMVR to Govern – High Court’s direction modified; enforcement to keep in view Rule 100(2) CMVR in addition to security requirements [Para 16].

Encroachments/Booths – Materials Not Before High Court – Administration may place materials before High Court; matter to be reconsidered; no opinion on merits expressed by Supreme Court [Paras 17–18].

Administrative Capacity Constraints – Haryana – Liberty to Seek Modifications – On staffing/implementation (direction nos. 20 & 24), State of Haryana may move High Court with supporting materials; HC to consider in proper perspective [Para 19].

Roadside Advertisements – Safety vs. Revenue – Affected parties need not always be heard in environmental/road safety matters; however, State/licencees may approach High Court to show absence of safety hazard; HC to consider such pleas [Para 20].

Signages – Phased Compliance – State may seek phased implementation/modification before High Court [Para 21].

Transport Permits – Section 66(3) Deleted – No Exemption – Plea of exemption under Section 66(3)(h) (MV Act, 1988) rejected as sub-section stood deleted w.e.f. 11.08.2000 – Appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 13994/1999 dismissed [Para 22].

Decision – Appeals disposed of with modifications/clarifications as indicated – No order as to costs (except SLP (C) No. 13994/1999 dismissed) [Para 23].

Service Law – Disciplinary Punishment – Proportionality – Compulsory Retirement Set Aside – Appellant (OS-II, Northern Railways) punished with compulsory retirement for supplying an absentee statement used in litigation – Document neither confidential nor privileged – Long unblemished service of 31 years – Held: Punishment shockingly disproportionate and arbitrary – Abuse of discretion; interference warranted – Appellant deemed on duty till superannuation with consequential benefits [Paras 12–17, 21–22].

Confidentiality / Right to Information (Departmental) – Nature of Document – Absentee statement containing ticket numbers of workers absent on a given date – Not a prohibited/confidential record – Furnishing caused no prejudice to administration beyond litigation inconvenience – Act done bona fide – Not misconduct or serious lapse in the facts [Paras 12–14].

Judicial Review – Reasonableness, Rationality, Proportionality – Courts may interfere with quantum of punishment where it is arbitrary or shockingly disproportionate – Standard reiterated with reference to Ganayutham – High Court and Tribunal erred in declining interference on proportionality despite mitigating facts [Paras 15–17].

Compulsory Retirement – Public Interest – Requirement – No material that action was in public interest – Case not one of doubtful integrity – Orders liable to be set aside when arbitrary or unsupported by evidence; principles in M.S. Bindra and Suryakant Chunilal Shah applied [Paras 18–21].

Admission of Guilt – Effect on Penalty – Confessional memo seeking leniency does not foreclose scrutiny of proportionality – Punishment must still align with gravity of lapse and surrounding circumstances [Paras 4, 15–16].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Orders of Tribunal and High Court affirming compulsory retirement set aside – Appellant deemed on duty from date of compulsory retirement till 31.05.2002 (superannuation) – All consequential monetary and retiral benefits directed to be paid within three months – No costs [Para 22].

Administrative Tribunals – Abolition of State Administrative Tribunal – Section 74(1) of M.P. Reorganisation Act – Constitutionality Upheld – Petitioners challenged the abolition of the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal and questioned the vires of Section 74(1) of the M.P. Reorganisation Act, 2000 – Held: Parliament was competent to enact the provision empowering successor States to mutually decide on the continuation or abolition of tribunals established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 – Such provision is conditional legislation and not excessive delegation – No violation of Article 323A or basic structure of the Constitution [Paras 34-38, 45-51].

Delegated Legislation – Excessive Delegation – Conditional Legislation Validated – The power given to State Governments to decide whether or not to continue a tribunal was held to be conditional legislation, not an abdication of essential legislative functions – The Court reaffirmed distinction between delegated and conditional legislation – Held: No excessive or unconstitutional delegation was made by Parliament [Paras 45-50].

Judicial Review – Implications of L. Chandra Kumar Judgment – State Justified in Abolishing Tribunal – Petitioners argued that the tribunal should not have been abolished due to continued need and workload – Held: After L. Chandra Kumar restored High Court jurisdiction under Articles 226/227, tribunals became an additional tier – State policy decision to abolish the tribunal on that ground was valid and not arbitrary or mala fide [Paras 37, 55-57].

Mala Fides – Abolition Alleged Due to Adverse Judicial Orders – Allegations Rejected – Petitioners relied on press reports to allege that tribunal was abolished due to unfavourable decisions against the government – Held: No evidence to prove mala fides – Cabinet decision pre-dated alleged adverse orders – Abolition was a policy decision based on relevant considerations including financial burden and judicial efficiency [Paras 69-71].

Ultra Vires – Sections 74(2) and (3) – Provisions Struck Down – The Court upheld the High Court's decision declaring Sections 74(2) and 74(3) of the M.P. Reorganisation Act as unconstitutional – Held: Provisions violated Articles 14, 16, and 21 by denying compensation and remedy to affected tribunal members and staff [Para 20].

Executive Interference in Judiciary – No Violation of Judicial Independence – P. Sambamurthy Distinguished – Petitioners invoked precedent to allege interference with judicial functioning – Held: The decision did not interfere with specific judicial orders but was a structural change in tribunal system – No breach of judicial independence or rule of law [Paras 63-64].

Central Government Notification – Procedural Requirements – Role Clarified – The Court clarified that while Central Government must issue notification under the Administrative Tribunals Act for abolition, it has no discretion once mutual decision of both States is made – Section 74(4) does not override or control Section 74(1) [Paras 67-68].

Final Decision – Abolition of M.P. State Administrative Tribunal Upheld – Constitutional challenge to Section 74(1) dismissed – Appeals and writ petitions rejected – Held: Decision of State to abolish tribunal is lawful, rational, and within power conferred by Parliament [Paras 74-75].

Land Acquisition – Section 17(4) – Dispensation of Section 5A inquiry – Non-application of mind – Invalid – Section 5A inquiry embodies a valuable right to object and persuade authorities against acquisition – Power to exclude it under urgency clause must be exercised with conscious application of mind – Mere existence of urgency under Section 17(1) or unforeseen emergency under Section 17(2) does not automatically justify dispensing with inquiry under Section 5A – Lt. Governor’s order showed no independent consideration; relevant facts like prior lapse of acquisition proceedings were not placed before him – Held: Decision to exclude Section 5A inquiry vitiated [Paras 32–37].

Land Acquisition – Scheme of Act – Interplay of Sections 4, 5A, 6, 9, 11, 16 and 17 – Section 17 operates as an exception allowing urgent possession before award – But Section 17(4) requires a separate satisfaction that urgency cannot brook even minimal delay of Section 5A inquiry – Absence of material showing such consideration invalidates dispensation of inquiry [Paras 28–33].

Right of Hearing – Section 5A – Scope – Limited statutory right to object is substantive, not illusory – Can be taken away only for good and valid reasons – Application of mind is mandatory before excluding it – Courts must ensure this safeguard is respected [Paras 35–36].

Judicial Review – Subjective satisfaction – Limited scope – Courts will not substitute their opinion on urgency but will examine whether authority applied mind to need for exclusion of Section 5A – In present case, High Court rightly held exclusion invalid – Appeals dismissed [Paras 31–37].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Findings of High Court upholding invalidity of dispensation of Section 5A inquiry confirmed – Acquisition proceedings to continue afresh from stage of Section 4(1) notification with due inquiry [Paras 37].

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal Against Acquittal – Scope of Interference – Conviction Restored – Trial court acquitted all accused on conjectures (age/incapacity, alleged ante-timed FIR, private defence) – High Court reappreciated clear eye-witness evidence and reversed acquittal – Supreme Court: appellate interference justified where trial court ignores admissible evidence or takes an unreasonable view; presumption of innocence cannot shield perverse appreciation – Conviction of Anil Kumar under Section 302 IPC and 302/34 IPC upheld [Paras 6, 8, 9, 12–13].

Injuries on Accused – Non-Explanation – Legal Effect – Not an Invariable Rule – Failure to explain minor/superficial injuries on accused does not ipso facto vitiate prosecution – Where prosecution evidence is clear, cogent and credible, omission is inconsequential; defence version must competitively probabilise genesis – Applied principles from Mohar Rai; Lakshmi Singh; Vijayee Singh – Injuries on Anil Kumar/Navin Chandra found trivial and belatedly recorded; no dent to prosecution [Paras 10–11].

Private Defence – Section 313 Statement – Burden and Proof – Mere assertion in Section 313 CrPC is insufficient; plea must be established from probabilities/evidence – On facts, claim that accused fired in self-defence rejected; prosecution eye-witnesses proved homicidal firing by Anil Kumar; defence failed to examine material witnesses (driver Navin Chandra/Virendra) [Paras 6–7, 12].

FIR – Allegation of Ante-Timing – Rustic Witness – Minor Variance Not Fatal – Trial court’s inference of ante-timing based on hyper-technical reading of PW-3 (illiterate rustic lady) unsustainable; FIR promptly lodged; minor discrepancies after lapse of time not decisive [Paras 6, 12].

Ocular vs Medical Evidence – Primacy of Credible Ocular Testimony – Medical variance not decisive unless it completely improbabilises the prosecution version; here it did not – Conviction can rest on trustworthy eye-witnesses [Para 12].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court’s conviction of Anil Kumar affirmed; no interference warranted [Para 13].