Employment Law – Dismissal and Reinstatement – Appellant, employed in the Assembly department of the respondent, dismissed after a departmental enquiry found him guilty of causing disruption of work – Labour Court found enquiry findings perverse, ordered reinstatement with 25% back wages – High Court affirmed reinstatement but denied back wages, erroneously stated Labour Court denied continuity of service – Supreme Court restored Labour Court's award of 25% back wages and continuity of service [Paras 2-9].

Labour Law – Industrial Disputes – Back Wages and Continuity of Service – Reinstatement naturally includes continuity of service unless explicitly denied – Back wages awarded considering partial gainful employment during dismissal period – High Court erred in setting aside 25% back wages awarded by Labour Court [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Review – Misinterpretation of Lower Court's Order – High Court misinterpreted Labour Court's order as denying continuity of service – Supreme Court corrects error, affirms reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages [Paras 6-9].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Appellant entitled to continuity of service and 25% back wages – Retiral dues and back wages to be computed and paid within three months [Para 9].

Environmental Law – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) – Appeal against prohibition on development of resort – CRZ Notifications 1991, 2011, and 2019 apply to backwater islands – High Court's findings upheld – Islands classified under CRZ categories due to ecological sensitivity – No new construction permitted within 20 meters from HTL under CRZ 2019 – Appeals dismissed [Paras 3-40].

Property Rights – Ecological and Environmental Restrictions – Right to develop property regulated by CRZ Notifications – Legitimate expectations and property rights subject to environmental laws – Ecologically sensitive areas given special protection under CRZ Notifications [Paras 13-17].

Judicial Review – Expert Testimony – High Court solicited expert opinion and conducted surveys to ascertain ecological status – Findings based on scientific evidence and field verification upheld – Appellant's objections to expert testimony and procedural aspects dismissed [Paras 14-15].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – High Court's prohibition on resort development upheld – CRZ Notifications 1991, 2011, and 2019 apply to the islands – New construction within 20 meters from HTL not permitted under CRZ 2019 – Environmental and ecological protections prioritized [Paras 39-40].

Criminal Law – Conviction and Sentencing – Conviction under Section 302 IPC challenged on the basis of the incident occurring on the spur of the moment – Conversion to Section 304 IPC sought – Incident involved altercation over excavation, leading to firing by appellant – High Court relied on eyewitness testimonies and medical evidence – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellant sentenced to ten years' imprisonment [Paras 3-7].

Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Credibility of the father of the deceased as an eyewitness accepted – Medical evidence corroborated eyewitness accounts – Presence and role of the appellant established through evidence [Paras 4-5].

Judicial Review – Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC considering the circumstances and nature of the incident – Sentence of ten years' imprisonment imposed [Paras 7-8].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC converted to Section 304 Part I IPC – Appellant sentenced to ten years' imprisonment [Paras 7-8].

Juvenile Justice – Heinous Offences – Interpretation of 'heinous offences' under Section 2(33) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 – Offences with maximum sentence more than 7 years but no minimum sentence or minimum sentence less than 7 years do not qualify as 'heinous offences' – Such offences are to be treated as 'serious offences' – Offences involving juveniles must consider the intent of the Legislature and the purpose of juvenile protection [Paras 2-35].

Judicial Interpretation – Legislative Intention – Courts cannot legislate or rewrite statutes – Gaps in legislation must be addressed by the Legislature, not the judiciary – Statutes should be interpreted based on their language and legislative intent, without adding or omitting words unless absolutely necessary to avoid absurdity [Paras 22-31].

Decision: Appeal disposed of – Offences with no minimum sentence or minimum sentence less than 7 years treated as 'serious offences' – Directions issued for legislative action – High Court to amend judgment to remove name of Child in Conflict with Law – Judgment to be sent to relevant authorities for addressing the issue legislatively or through an Ordinance [Paras 36-38].

Armed Forces Tribunal – Jurisdiction and Transfer of Cases – Appeal against a single judge's decision on Armed Forces personnel to be transferred to AFT – AFT's jurisdiction does not extend to writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 – Intra-court appeals from single judge decisions are not to be transferred to AFT – High Court retains writ jurisdiction over AFT decisions [Paras 2-17].

Judicial Review – High Court's Jurisdiction – Judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution – High Courts' jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be ousted – AFT decisions subject to High Court's writ jurisdiction [Paras 10-12].

Constitutional Courts – Independence and Hierarchy – High Courts as constitutional courts cannot be subordinate to AFT – Appeals from High Court single judge to Division Bench cannot be transferred to AFT [Paras 13-17].

Decision: Appeal dismissed on merits – Appellant failed to meet criteria for alternative appointment post-discharge – No merit found in the appeal [Paras 18-19].

Land Acquisition – Adverse Possession – Public Purpose – Appellant, an illiterate widow from a rural background, was divested of her property by the State in 1967 without compensation or legal sanction for the construction of a road – High Court dismissed her writ petition citing laches – Supreme Court finds continuing cause of action, orders compensation on same terms as a similar case – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-14].

Right to Property – Constitutional and Human Right – Appellant’s property taken when right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31 – Despite its conversion to a constitutional right under Article 300A, the obligation to pay compensation remains – State’s claim of adverse possession rejected as inconsistent with welfare state principles [Paras 10-11].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – Appellant’s delay in approaching the Court due to unawareness does not bar relief – Judicial discretion to condone delay exercised due to compelling circumstances – State’s inaction deemed unjust [Paras 10.7-11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – State directed to pay compensation as per Reference Court’s award in a similar case, including statutory benefits, within eight weeks – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded to appellant – High Court’s orders set aside [Para 13-14].

Compassionate Appointment – Gratuity and Scheme Applicability – Respondents sought compassionate appointment post demise of employee – Court affirms that only the scheme prevalent at the date of death applies – Scheme of 4.4.1979 applies, not subsequent schemes – Respondents opted for full gratuity; hence, compassionate appointment not available – Subsequent schemes do not apply retrospectively, nor do they provide for ex gratia payments if income exceeds benchmark – Appeal allowed [Paras 1-20].

Income Benchmark – Disqualification from Subsequent Schemes – Even under subsequent schemes, respondent's income disqualified them from benefits – Bank's call to apply under new schemes conditional on eligibility, which respondents did not meet – Non-disclosure of respondent’s employment further disentitles them [Paras 16-17].

Judicial Review – Court's Role – Courts cannot modify or extend schemes beyond their terms – Judicial review limited to ensuring adherence to existing scheme, not creating new benefits [Para 17].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court order set aside – Writ petition dismissed – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 20].

Arbitration Law – Interim Measures – Jurisdiction – Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 – Tribunal constituted under Section 3 has jurisdiction to grant interim measures under Section 17 of the A&C Act – Contractor’s remedy lies with the Tribunal – High Court’s order restraining recovery without adjudication set aside – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-22].

Statutory Arbitration – Consistency of Laws – A&C Act and Gujarat Act – No inconsistency in grant of interim relief under Section 17 of the A&C Act by the Tribunal – Gujarat Act’s provisions supplemented by Section 17 – Tribunal empowered to adjudicate disputes and grant interim measures [Paras 17-21].

Interim Injunction – Unilateral Recovery – State issued notice to recover alleged dues from other contracts – Contractor challenged notice – High Court relied on precedents to restrain unilateral recovery – Supreme Court finds Tribunal competent to decide legality and grant interim relief – High Court’s order reversed [Paras 6-22].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court’s judgments set aside – Contractor may approach Tribunal within two months – Tribunal to decide on merits without limitation bar [Para 22].

Consumer Law – Free Gifts – Appellant advertised a holiday voucher scheme with free gifts contingent on referrals – Respondent purchased vouchers but made no referrals – District Forum awarded free gifts (laptop, mobile, TV) and compensation – State Commission and NCDRC upheld the decision – Supreme Court examines scheme terms and finds gifts conditional on referrals – Appeal allowed, lower orders set aside [Paras 1-8].

Referral Scheme – Terms and Conditions – Appellant's scheme required referrals for free gifts – Respondent claimed entitlement without making referrals – Email communication clarified gift conditions – Supreme Court notes absurdity of awarding high-value gifts without fulfilling conditions – Orders against appellant reversed as contrary to scheme terms [Paras 2-7].

Jurisdiction and Evidence – Respondent argued email was not on record – Appellant countered it was referenced in District Forum reply – Supreme Court accepts appellant's evidence, finds no right to gifts without referrals – Appeal allowed, complaint dismissed [Para 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – NCDRC and lower orders set aside – Respondent's complaint dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 8].