Labour Law - Factories Act, 1948 – Overtime Wages – Interpretation of “Ordinary Rate of Wages” – Inclusion of Allowances – Appeals by Union of India challenging judgment of Madras High Court setting aside CAT order – Core issue whether compensatory allowances like HRA, TA, CWA and SFA form part of “ordinary rate of wages” under Section 59(2) – Held: Section 59(2) expressly includes basic wages plus such allowances as worker is entitled to, excluding only bonus and overtime wages – Executive instructions cannot introduce exclusions not contemplated by Parliament – High Court’s interpretation upheld – Appeals dismissed [Paras 2, 8, 15–17].

Statutory Interpretation – Beneficial Legislation – Literal Rule – Factories Act is a welfare legislation aimed at protecting workers from exploitation – Legislature consciously excluded only bonus and overtime wages – Principle that Legislature does not waste words applied – Any restrictive interpretation curtailing workers’ benefits must be avoided – Liberal construction in favour of employees reaffirmed [Paras 12, 13, 15].

Executive Instructions – Lack of Statutory Authority – Invalidity – Various Office Memorandums issued by Ministries of Defence, Labour and Finance excluding compensatory allowances from overtime calculation – Held: No power vested in Central Government or Ministries to issue clarifications altering Section 59(2) – Rule-making power lies exclusively with State Governments – Executive instructions without statutory backing cannot override the Act [Paras 9–11, 12.1].

Federal Scheme – Factories Act – Powers of State Government – Sections 64, 65, 112 and 113 examined – State Governments alone empowered to frame rules and issue exemptions under Chapter VI – Central Government limited to issuing directions to States for implementation – Ministries cannot assign divergent meanings to Parliamentary enactments [Paras 9–10].

Parity and Uniform Application of Law – Same statutory provision cannot be interpreted differently by different Ministries – Railway Ministry including HRA and TA for overtime calculation highlighted – Discriminatory interpretation by Defence Ministry rejected – Law must operate uniformly across establishments [Paras 14–14.1].

Precedents – Distinguishing Earlier Decisions – Bridge and Roofs Co. Ltd. case relating to production bonus under EPF Act held inapplicable – Govind Bapu Salvi and Suresh C. Baskey cases distinguished as relating to non-payment or notional inclusion of HRA where quarters allotted – None supported exclusion of allowances actually paid while computing overtime [Paras 11–11.2].

Overruling – Kerala High Court Judgment – Decision in V.E. Jossie & Ors. v. Flag Officers Commanding-in-Chief taking contrary view expressly held not to lay down correct law – Supreme Court affirms inclusion of compensatory allowances for overtime wages [Para 16].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Judgment of Madras High Court affirmed – Compensatory allowances includible in “ordinary rate of wages” for overtime computation – No order as to costs [Paras 17–18].

Family Law - Marriage – Irretrievable Breakdown – Article 142, Constitution of India – Divorce Granted Despite Opposition – Marriage solemnised in 2012 – Parties cohabited only for 65 days and living separately for more than a decade – More than 40 civil and criminal proceedings initiated inter se – Repeated failure of mediation including before Supreme Court – Held: Marriage completely shattered beyond repair – Continuation of marital tie would serve no purpose – Supreme Court competent to dissolve marriage notwithstanding lack of statutory ground under Hindu Marriage Act and despite objection of one spouse [Paras 10, 15, 20, 26].

Article 142 – Scope and Exercise – Complete Justice – Constitution Bench decision in Shilpa Sailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan followed – Supreme Court can dissolve marriage where factual foundation of irretrievable breakdown is firmly established – Factors such as long separation, multiplicity of litigation, bitterness, failure of reconciliation and absence of children considered – Discretion exercised to do complete justice [Paras 11–11.2, 15–16].

Multiplicity of Litigation – Abuse of Judicial Process – Matrimonial Disputes – Parties engaged in extensive civil, criminal and execution proceedings across multiple courts for over a decade – Courts cannot be converted into battlegrounds for settling personal scores – Such litigation chokes judicial system and extinguishes possibility of reconciliation – Strong caution sounded against criminalisation of matrimonial disputes [Paras 21–25].

Transfer Petition – Conversion into Final Relief – Though petition initially sought transfer of proceedings, Court proceeded to finally decide matrimonial dispute invoking Article 142 – All pending matrimonial, civil and criminal proceedings arising out of marital relationship directed to be disposed of to give quietus to dispute [Paras 18, 26–28].

Perjury Proceedings – Exception Carved Out – Sanctity of Justice System – Proceedings under Section 340 CrPC and Section 379 r/w 215 BNSS alleging perjury and fabrication of evidence directed to continue – Held: No party can be permitted to pollute the stream of justice – Perjury proceedings stand on independent footing and cannot be quashed merely due to dissolution of marriage [Paras 28–29].

Alimony – Waiver – Petitioner-wife made no claim for permanent alimony – All prior claims held settled – No further financial directions issued [Para 26].

Costs – Deterrence – Both parties penalised with costs of ₹10,000 each for indulging in prolonged and acrimonious litigation – Amount directed to be deposited with Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association [Para 32].

Decision: Marriage dissolved by decree of divorce under Article 142 – All matrimonial and allied proceedings disposed of except specified perjury proceedings – Transfer Petition disposed of – Costs imposed on both parties [Paras 26–33].

Writ Jurisdiction – Delay and Disputed Facts – Article 226, Constitution of India – High Court Erred – High Court entertained a writ petition filed after a gross and unexplained delay of over 10 years, involving seriously disputed questions of fact, despite previous similar litigation being withdrawn – Such belated petitions with disputed facts are generally not maintainable under Article 226 – The High Court's approach was self-contradictory and erroneous [Paras 30, 36, 41, 61, 70].

Contract Law – Apartment Buyers' Agreement – Fraud/Misrepresentation – High Court Erred – High Court's finding that developers duped buyers by misrepresenting facts in the Apartment Buyers' Agreement was conjectural and unsupported by foundational pleadings or credible evidence – The agreement itself was not challenged in the writ proceedings, and allegations of fraud were raised belatedly in a rejoinder – Such conclusions are unsustainable in law [Paras 61, 62, 77, 86-87].

Urban Planning Law – De-licensing of Land Use – Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 – Legally Permissible – High Court held that "de-licensing" of residential land for commercial purposes was without statutory authority – However, the DTCP's subsequent detailed reasoned order (5th August 2021) found such de-licensing and re-licensing for commercial use to be legally permissible, supported by prior legal opinion and retrospectively validated by Section 3(3A) of the 1975 Act, introduced by the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 2020 – The Supreme Court found the High Court's conclusion on this point erroneous [Paras 43-45, 51, 71, 83, 86].

Environmental Law – Jurisdiction of NGT – National Green Tribunal Act, 2010, Section 14 – NGT Lacked Jurisdiction – NGT intervened in issues related to building plan violations and land use changes that were already subject to High Court proceedings – The Supreme Court held that these issues did not constitute a "substantial question relating to environment" under Section 14 of the NGT Act, 2010, and were intrinsically connected to matters under adjudication before the High Court – NGT was not justified in interfering with such issues [Paras 94, 102, 104, 105, 107].

Criminal Procedure – CBI Investigation Direction – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 173(2) – Uncalled For – High Court's direction for a CBI investigation was based on unverified and inconclusive material – While CBI's subsequent chargesheet found misrepresentation in the Apartment Buyers' Agreement, it found no criminality in the de-licensing process – The direction was deemed uncalled for, and the High Court's judgment prejudiced the outcome of the pending criminal trial [Paras 37, 38, 75, 76].

Judicial Review – Effect of Subsequent Administrative Orders – Prejudice to Pending Litigation – High Court Erred – The DTCP, pursuant to a High Court direction in a connected writ petition, passed a detailed reasoned order on 5th August 2021, ruling out illegality in the developer's actions – This order is under challenge in a separate pending writ petition – The High Court's impugned judgment, by quashing the earlier orders, prejudiced the outcome of this pending writ petition and foreclosed available defenses of the appellants-developers [Paras 28, 39, 42, 63, 71, 74, 78].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment dated 10th July, 2020 rendered by the High Court is set aside – Proceedings before the NGT shall remain in abeyance till disposal of Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025 before the High Court, which shall proceed uninfluenced by this judgment – No order as to costs [Paras 77, 78, 79, 109, 110, 111].

Writ Jurisdiction – Abuse of Process – Civil Suit Pending – High Court allowed writ petition seeking demolition of appellant’s construction on disputed property without issuing notice – Held: Respondent No.1 had already filed a civil suit seeking identical relief – Filing writ petition was an abuse of process to bypass the suit – Petition not maintainable and liable to be dismissed [Paras 6–10]

Natural Justice – Violation – Appellant (respondent No.6 in writ petition) was not issued notice nor heard before adverse order passed – Held: Decision rendered without hearing affected party violates principles of natural justice – Impugned orders quashed [Paras 3, 7]

Civil Procedure – Order 2 Rule 2 CPC – Bar on Multiple Proceedings – Writ petition filed seeking same relief already claimed in pending civil suit – Held: Relief could not be pursued simultaneously in separate forums – Relief must be sought only through the suit [Paras 9–10]

Relief – Suit to Proceed Independently – Supreme Court clarifies that the suit before District Judge may continue unaffected by this decision – All actions taken pursuant to High Court order quashed – Appellant permitted to use premises subject to outcome of civil suit [Paras 12–14]

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court’s order in writ petition and review dismissed – Writ petition held to be an abuse of process – Suit may proceed independently – All consequential actions quashed – No costs imposed [Paras 10–15]

Prevention of Corruption Act – Jurisdiction of State ACB Over Central Government Employees – Sections 17 and 22 of PC Act read with Section 156 of Cr.P.C. – SLP Dismissed – Whether State ACB is authorised to register and investigate PC Act offences against Central Government employees and whether a chargesheet filed without CBI's consent is valid – High Court held "it is incorrect to say that it is only the CBI who could have instituted the prosecution" – Held: "We find no error, not to speak of any error of law, in the impugned judgment" – SLP dismissed [Paras 2–12].

DSPE Act – Permissive in Nature – Does Not Oust State Police Jurisdiction – The DSPE Act "does not either expressly or by necessary implication divest the regular police authorities of their jurisdiction" – Held: The Act is "only permissive or empowering" enabling the DSPE to investigate without impairing any other law empowering police to investigate offences – Section 17 of PC Act does not "exclude or prevent the State Police or a Special Agency of the State from registering a crime" against Central Government employees [Paras 8–10].

Cr.P.C. – General Law of Investigation – Cannot Be Displaced Without Express Exclusion – "The Criminal Procedure Code is the parent statute and unless there is specific provision in another statute to indicate a different procedure, the provisions of Cr.P.C. cannot be displaced" – The PC Act being silent on a separate investigation procedure, Section 156 of Cr.P.C. prevails – Offences under the PC Act being cognizable, the State Police or VACB can investigate subject only to the rank restriction under Section 17 [Paras 6–8].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – High Court's finding affirming State ACB jurisdiction to investigate PC Act offences against Central Government employees confirmed – Pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Direct Recruitment – Professor in Government Engineering Colleges – Applicability of AICTE Regulations – Advertisement dated 23.09.2015 issued by Gujarat Public Service Commission for direct recruitment under State Recruitment Rules – Candidate participated in interview-based selection and failed to secure minimum qualifying marks – Challenge raised post-selection invoking AICTE Career Advancement Scheme Regulations, 2012 – Held: AICTE Regulations are not recruitment rules but are confined to promotion and career advancement of incumbent or newly appointed faculty – They do not govern open competitive recruitment conducted by the State Commission – Division Bench erred in applying AICTE Regulations to initial appointment process [Paras 10–15].

Service Law – AICTE Act, 1987 – Scope and Object – Sections 10 and 23 – Power of AICTE to lay down norms and standards for technical education and career progression – Regulations framed to advance academic career and not to initiate entry into service – State Recruitment Rules and AICTE CAS Regulations operate in distinct and separate fields – No question of repugnancy or overriding arises in matters of initial recruitment [Paras 11–17].

Selection Process – Interview as Mode of Assessment – Validity – Advertisement and general guidelines expressly prescribed interview with minimum qualifying marks – Assessment carried out by expert committee – Candidate secured only 28 marks against prescribed 45 marks – No arbitrariness or illegality shown – Courts should not interfere with expert evaluation in recruitment matters [Paras 4, 6, 18].

Estoppel – Participation in Selection without Protest – Challenge after Failure – Settled principle reiterated that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of criteria cannot challenge the same after being declared unsuccessful – Invocation of a different regulatory framework post-failure impermissible – Reliance placed on Anupal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh [Para 18].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Matters – Limited Scope – Courts do not make appointments – Recruitment concluded in 2015 cannot be reopened in 2025 on basis of inapplicable regulations – Academic merit and research credentials cannot override binding recruitment rules [Para 19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court dated 20.08.2025 set aside – Recruitment process pursuant to advertisement dated 23.09.2015 upheld – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Jurisdiction to Investigate – Central Government Employee – State Anti-Corruption Bureau – Question whether State ACB has authority to register FIR, investigate and file charge-sheet under the PC Act against a Central Government employee within the territorial jurisdiction of the State – Held: State ACB has jurisdiction to investigate offences under the PC Act even against Central Government employees – Jurisdiction not exclusive to CBI [Paras 2–5, 8].

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 4 and 156 – General Power of Investigation – CrPC is the parent statute governing investigation and trial of offences – Unless special law expressly or impliedly excludes CrPC, provisions of CrPC continue to apply – PC Act does not exclude application of Section 156 CrPC – Any police officer in charge of a police station may investigate cognizable offences subject to statutory limitations [Paras 6–7].

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 17 – Persons Authorised to Investigate – Section 17 prescribes rank of police officer competent to investigate PC Act offences – No provision barring State Police or State Anti-Corruption Bureau from investigating offences against Central Government employees – Only requirement is compliance with rank and authorization prescribed under Section 17 [Paras 7–8].

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – Scope and Effect – DSPE Act is enabling and permissive in nature – It empowers CBI to investigate specified offences but does not divest State Police of jurisdiction to investigate offences under other competent laws – Constitution of CBI does not create exclusive investigative domain [Paras 4–5, 9].

Anti-Corruption Bureau – State Police – Jurisdiction – VACB/ACB is a wing of State Police – PC Act offences are cognizable – State Police or ACB may investigate such offences provided officer is of requisite rank – Coordination between CBI and State agencies is administrative and not jurisdictional [Paras 8–9].

Precedent – Investigation by State Agency Against Central Government Employees – Reliance placed on A.C. Sharma v. Delhi Administration – Investigation by State agency upheld – DSPE Act does not exclude jurisdiction of regular police – High Court decisions of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh approving State police investigation against Central Government employees affirmed [Paras 9–10].

Special Leave Petition – Scope – No error of law found in judgment of High Court – View taken by High Court consistent with statutory scheme and binding precedents – Held: No ground made out for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution [Paras 11–12].

Decision: Special Leave Petition dismissed – Judgment of Rajasthan High Court upheld – State Anti-Corruption Bureau has jurisdiction to investigate offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act against Central Government employees without prior consent of CBI – Pending applications disposed of.

Reservation – Public Employment – Migration of Reserved Category Candidates – Selection on Own Merit – Appointment Against Unreserved Posts – High Court Interference Set Aside – Recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) in Airport Authority of India – Reserved category candidates selected against unreserved posts on basis of higher or equal merit without availing any relaxation – High Court directed appointment of writ petitioner and reworking of roster – Supreme Court held that a reserved category candidate securing marks higher than or equal to general category candidates must be treated as an unreserved candidate – Appointment against unreserved post on own merit valid – High Court orders unsustainable [Paras 18, 27–34].

Reservation Roster – Nature and Purpose – Not a Tool for Selection – Reservation roster is a post-based administrative mechanism to monitor cadre strength and identify future vacancies – Roster comes into operation only after completion of selection and joining of candidates – Roster cannot be applied as a parallel or overriding selection mechanism – Division Bench erred in applying roster at the selection stage [Paras 19, 28–30].

Merit List – Inclusion of Reserved Category Candidates in Unreserved List – Legally Permissible – All candidates initially considered on merit – Reserved category candidates who did not avail any concession and outperformed general category candidates rightly included in unreserved list – Remaining candidates considered for respective reserved categories – Selection methodology upheld as consistent with DoPT instructions and settled law [Paras 27–31].

Reservation Law – Migration on Merit – Settled Legal Position Reaffirmed – Supreme Court relied upon Indra Sawhney, Saurav Yadav and Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav – Open category is not a quota but is open to all candidates irrespective of caste or category – Merit alone governs appointment to unreserved posts – Concept of “migration” clarified as merit-based adjustment and not conferment of double benefit [Paras 32–33].

Judicial Review – Recruitment Process – Limits on Court’s Power – Courts should not interfere with recruitment conducted strictly as per rules and settled reservation principles – No vested right to appointment merely because reserved vacancies remain unfilled – High Court erred in directing appointment when all unreserved posts were filled strictly on merit [Paras 33–34].

Delay and Laches – Challenge to Selection – Though issue of delay was raised, Supreme Court decided the matter on merits in view of crystallised law governing migration and merit-based selection [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 allowed – Judgment of Single Judge and Division Bench of Kerala High Court set aside – Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12937 of 2021 dismissed – No order as to costs.

Service Tax – Event Management Service – Reverse Charge Mechanism – Classification of Service – Booking of Foreign Speakers for Leadership Summit – Demand of Service Tax Set Aside – Appellant conducted annual “Hindustan Times Leadership Summit” and engaged foreign speakers through international booking agents – Revenue sought to levy Service Tax under Section 65(105)(zu) treating booking agents as “event managers” – Tribunal upheld tax demand for normal limitation period – Supreme Court examined statutory definitions of “event management” and “event manager” – Held: Mere booking of speakers and facilitation of their appearance does not amount to planning, promotion, organizing or presentation of an event – Booking contracts were not event management contracts – Levy under “Event Management Service” unsustainable [Paras 21–41].

Taxation – Strict Interpretation of Charging Provisions – Scope of Taxing Statute – Court reiterated that taxing statutes must be strictly construed – If activity does not fall squarely within charging provision, tax cannot be imposed by inference or analogy – Revenue failed to establish that service in question falls within four corners of Section 65(105)(zu) – Benefit of strict interpretation goes to assessee [Paras 42–44].

Service Tax – Role of Booking Agents – Principal–Agent Relationship Irrelevant for Classification – Revenue focused on absence of principal–agent relationship between speakers and booking agents – Supreme Court held that such inquiry was irrelevant – Core issue was nature of service rendered – Booking of speakers for participation cannot be equated with management of the event itself – Participation in event is not management of event [Paras 39–41].

Circulars – Binding Nature – TRU Circular dated 08.08.2002 – Circular clarifies that event managers are engaged in managing venues, logistics, publicity, stage arrangements and overall execution of event – Booking agents performed none of these activities – Circular supports assessee’s contention and limits scope of taxable event management services [Paras 28, 43–44].

Service Tax – Classification Dispute – Manpower Recruitment or Supply Service – International Merchandising Case Distinguished – Appellant relied on International Merchandising Company LLC v. CST to argue alternative classification – Supreme Court held that while dual classification is impermissible, facts of present case are distinguishable – Nevertheless, even without reclassification, levy under event management fails on merits – Revenue cannot sustain demand merely by rejecting alternative classification [Paras 45(a)–(e)].

Interpretation – Common Parlance Test – Meaning of Event Management – Applying common parlance test, Court held that event management is ordinarily understood as comprehensive organization and execution of events – Individual contracts for booking speakers are not commonly understood as event management – Supports exclusion of impugned service from taxable category [Paras 46–48].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment of CESTAT dated 31.08.2017 set aside – Demand of Service Tax under “Event Management Service” quashed – No Service Tax payable on booking of speakers for Leadership Summit.