Industrial Disputes – Retrenchment – Principle of law that re-employment of retrenched workmen does not entitle them to claim continuity of service applies only to bona fide retrenchments – The retrenchment followed by an offer of re-employment on new terms and conditions found not bona fide – Tribunal and High Court set aside retrenchment orders and reinstated employees with continuity of service and 75% back wages [Paras 1-18].

Re-Employment – Continuity of Service – Tribunal held retrenchment not bona fide – Employees entitled to continuity of service once retrenchment orders are set aside – Applicable principles reaffirmed from Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court and Anr. (2010) 15 SCC 754 and Maruti Udyog Ltd v. Ram Lal and Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 638 [Paras 16].

Back Wages – Proof of Unemployment – Tribunal and High Court correctly awarded 75% back wages based on the employees' consistent testimonies of being unemployed post-retrenchment – Employer failed to provide evidence of gainful employment for retrenched employees [Paras 17-20].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's judgment affirmed – Reinstatement with 75% back wages upheld – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 20].

Constitutional Law – Right of Persons with Disabilities – The downgrading of seniority of a physically disabled candidate transferred to his home district was held to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory – Supreme Court emphasized that any rule or executive instruction affecting seniority of disabled persons, when transferred for their benefit, would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 2-33].

Disability Rights – UNCRPD – The principles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) ratified by India were reiterated – State obliged to give effect to UNCRPD, ensuring that disabled persons are not marginalized or excluded from mainstream society – Fundamental rights to equality, life, and dignity extended to disabled persons [Paras 27-31].

Employment – Seniority – Supreme Court held that the transfer of disabled persons under beneficial circulars should not affect their seniority at the State level – The explanation to Sub-Rule (10) of Rule 29 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules, 1971, was held inapplicable to physically disabled candidates transferred under the circular [Paras 32-33].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of Single and Division Bench of High Court set aside – Office Order dated 11th September 2007, downgrading the appellant’s seniority, quashed – Respondents directed to restore the appellant’s seniority in the State list considering past service [Paras 34].

Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – High Court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that properties at villages Pirangut and Nande were joint family ancestral properties – Supreme Court held that the property at Pirangut was indeed ancestral based on evidence including a written memorandum of settlement and mutation records – The property at Nande was held as self-acquired by the defendant – Equal shares granted to all legal heirs in the Pirangut property [Paras 2-15].

Family Settlement – Evidence – Memorandum of settlement dated 23.12.1961 and mutation entry demonstrated the joint family nature of the Pirangut property – Testimonies of family members supported the claim – High Court’s findings on gift by Raghunath to Pandurang found unsupported by evidence [Paras 8-14].

Judicial Precedents – Legal Principles – Reaffirmed principles regarding ancestral property and partition as established in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. (2020) 9 SCC 1 and other relevant cases – Property distribution aligned with recent judgments ensuring equal rights to daughters in ancestral property [Para 15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Preliminary decree granted – All parties including daughters to receive equal 1/10th share in Pirangut property – Directions issued for final decree from competent court [Paras 15-17].

Land Acquisition – Compensation – The Union of India sought reduction of compensation, while the Company sought enhancement – Supreme Court upheld compensation for the land acquired, modifying the Reference Court’s award to Rs.19 per square feet – Compensation for severance of land awarded at Rs.9.5 per square feet for land on the eastern side, excluding statutory benefits under Sections 23(1-A) and 23(2) – Reference Court’s award for construction expenses maintained [Paras 1-30].

Land Utilization – Restricted Area – Compensation granted for land within 30 meters from the railway track – Compensation for land on the western side abutting the road denied as it could still be utilized for other purposes [Paras 14-20].

Market Value – Determination – Supreme Court emphasized using comparable sales and rejected reliance on developed land prices for determining undeveloped land value – Previous sales and specific local conditions considered for valuation [Paras 11-19].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Compensation determined as Rs.19 per square feet for acquired land, Rs.9.5 per square feet for severed land on the eastern side, and construction costs confirmed – Statutory benefits excluded for severance compensation [Paras 29-30].

Criminal Law – Murder – Life Imprisonment – Appeal against High Court’s reversal of acquittal under Section 302 IPC – Prosecution charged 22 accused with forming an unlawful assembly and committing murder – High Court acquitted 20 accused but convicted appellants (A1 and A2) under Section 302 – Supreme Court finds inconsistencies in prosecution's evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies – Acquittal by Trial Court was based on detailed assessment of evidence – High Court's conviction of appellants not sustained due to lack of cogent reasons to overturn acquittal [Paras 1-27].

Penal Code 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Conviction for Murder – Analysis of evidence by Trial Court versus High Court – Importance of consistent witness testimonies and reliable evidence – Supreme Court emphasizes need for stronger rationale to reverse acquittal [Paras 17-25].

Principle of Falsus in Uno, Falsus in Omnibus – Application in criminal jurisprudence – Supreme Court acknowledges principle does not strictly apply but emphasizes need to separate credible evidence from falsehoods – High Court's selective reliance on inconsistent witness testimony criticized [Para 23].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Acquittal by Sessions Court restored – Appellants to be released unless required in other cases [Para 27].

Contempt of Court – Summary Proceedings – Denial of Trial – Appeal against CAT’s conviction for contempt under Section 14 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Appellant denied charges and sought trial – CAT proceeded without trial, relying on behavior observed in court – Supreme Court finds denial of trial improper under Section 14 and Rule 15 of the CAT Rules – Conviction set aside, direction to forward case to Bar Council of India quashed [Paras 1-28].

Judicial Process – Right to Trial – Contempt in the Face of Court – Supreme Court emphasizes necessity of trial when charges are denied – Distinguishes from cases where contemptuous behavior is admitted or incontrovertible – Ensures procedural fairness in contempt proceedings [Paras 14-28].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Conviction and directions to Bar Council quashed – Case underscores procedural fairness in contempt adjudications [Paras 28-29].

Motor Vehicle Laws – Accident Compensation – Appeal against High Court’s reversal of MACT’s compensation award – High Court erred in doubting the link between the accident and the offending vehicle – Tribunal’s findings based on credible witness testimony – Supreme Court reinstates compensation with recalculations in line with Pranay Sethi judgment [Paras 1-16].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 166 – Application for Compensation – Evidentiary standards for criminal trials not applicable to summary proceedings under Section 166 – Supreme Court emphasizes reliance on evidence presented, not potential criminal trial evidence – Compensation recalculated to include spousal and parental consortium but excludes loss of love and affection [Paras 10-13].

Judicial Review – Recalculation of Compensation – Supreme Court recalculates compensation considering future prospects and other damages per Pranay Sethi – Enhanced compensation awarded using judicial discretion under Article 142 of the Constitution [Paras 12-15].

Decision: High Court order set aside – Compensation recalculated and awarded with 7% interest p.a. from the claim application date till realization [Para 16].

Environmental Law – Closure Order – Environmental Clearance – Appeal against closure of Cold Steel Rolling Mill lacking prior Environmental Clearance – National Green Tribunal (NGT) granted one-year period for compliance – Supreme Court upholds NGT’s decision citing ambiguity in EIA notifications and subsequent amendment – Closure order quashed, unit allowed time for compliance [Paras 1-25].

Environmental Clearance – EIA Notification Ambiguity – Numerous Cold Steel Rolling Mills operated under Consent to Establish (CTE) and Consent to Operate (CTO) without prior EC due to notification ambiguity – NGT granted one-year grace period for compliance – Supreme Court supports this approach to avoid economic and social disruptions [Paras 11-18].

Judicial Review – Tribunal Powers – Sustainable Development – NGT’s power to issue compliance periods under Section 21 of the NGT Act recognized – Supreme Court cites suo moto jurisdiction and need for pragmatic environmental governance balancing development and compliance [Paras 19-23].

Decision: Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 2020 dismissed – Closure notice issued by Gujarat State Pollution Control Board quashed – Civil Appeal No. 3576 of 2020 disposed of accordingly [Para 25].

Service Law – Promotion Guidelines – Difference between Backlog Vacancies and Regular Promotions – Appeals challenge High Court orders requiring separate zones of consideration for SC/ST promotions – Supreme Court distinguishes special drives for backlog vacancies from regular promotions – Regular promotions involve DPC evaluation; backlog promotions focus solely on reserved category candidates – Tribunal and High Court misapplied ad-hoc promotion criteria to regular promotions – Orders for regular promotions by extending zone of consideration set aside [Paras 1-30].

Promotion Criteria – Separate Zone of Consideration – High Court orders for separate zone of consideration for SC/ST candidates in promotions challenged – Supreme Court holds Office Memorandum for backlog vacancies distinct from regular promotion procedures – Regular promotions guided by seniority and merit; backlog vacancies follow special drive policies [Paras 25-28].

Judicial Review – Misapplication of Promotion Rules – Tribunal and High Court erred by not addressing special recruitment drive and misapplying ad-hoc promotion rules – Supreme Court sets aside erroneous orders, upholding structured promotion guidelines [Paras 28-29].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court orders set aside – Regular promotion criteria upheld, special drive guidelines for backlog vacancies distinguished [Para 30].