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].

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].

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].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 166 – Contributory Negligence – The deceased, a pillion rider on a motorcycle, was struck by a car – Tribunal awarded compensation for the accident caused by the car’s rash and negligent driving – High Court reduced the award by 10% due to alleged contributory negligence for having three persons on the motorcycle – Supreme Court holds no evidence supported contributory negligence finding – High Court’s reduction set aside [Paras 1-14].

Compensation Assessment – Employment and Income Proof – Tribunal accepted the testimony of the deceased’s employer regarding his monthly income – High Court rejected it due to lack of supporting records – Supreme Court reinstates Tribunal’s finding, noting employer’s testimony was credible and unchallenged – High Court erred in substituting minimum wage assumptions for proven income [Paras 15-18].

Multiplier Application – Age Factor – Tribunal applied a multiplier of 18 based on the deceased's age – High Court applied 14, considering the claimants' age – Supreme Court clarifies multiplier should be based on deceased's age per precedents (Reshma Kumari, Munna Lal Jain) – High Court’s application of lower multiplier incorrect [Paras 19-29].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Tribunal’s award restored – Compensation to be paid as originally determined by the Tribunal without deduction for contributory negligence – No order as to costs [Para 29].

Service Law – Border Security Force Act, 1968 – Misconduct – Appellant, a BSF constable with 17 years of service, dismissed for overstaying leave – Applied for leave extension due to family emergency but rejoined late – Summary Security Force Court convicted and dismissed him – Statutory petition dismissed by Director General BSF – High Court reversed Single Judge’s order for reconsideration of punishment – Supreme Court modifies penalty to discharge enabling pension eligibility after 20 years of service [Paras 1-7].

Leave Extension – Communication and Evidence – Appellant contacted Unit Adjutant for leave extension due to niece's abduction – Adjutant acknowledged communication and advised extension – Single Judge noted appellant's oral statement corroborating circumstances – Division Bench observed belated application but didn't find explanation false – Supreme Court considers 17 years of service and peculiar facts for lenient view [Paras 3-7].

Proportionality of Punishment – Discharge vs. Dismissal – Appellant had prior penalties for unauthorized absence – Supreme Court declines reinstatement but finds dismissal disproportionate – Orders discharge with effect from completion of 20 years for pension eligibility – No back wages awarded for interim period [Paras 7].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Appellant to be treated as discharged from service from date of completing 20 years for pension eligibility – No back wages between dismissal and pension eligibility date – Arrears of pension to be paid within three months [Para 7].

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].

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].

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].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Authority to Impose Penalties – Appeal against High Court's decision quashing punishment order – Regulation 5(3) of Discipline and Appeal Regulations 1976 allows the Disciplinary Authority or any higher authority to impose penalties – General Manager imposed punishment on respondent, originally initiated by Deputy General Manager – Supreme Court found Division Bench erred in holding General Manager lacked authority – Appeal allowed, order of Single Judge restored, matter remitted to Appellate Authority for reconsideration [Paras 1-14].

Misconduct – Departmental Proceedings – Respondent, a Scale I officer, suspended and charged with misconduct – Inquiry report found respondent guilty – Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed by General Manager – Division Bench quashed the order citing lack of authority, remitted to Deputy General Manager – Supreme Court clarifies General Manager's authority per Regulation 5(3) [Paras 2-13].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Order of Division Bench set aside – Order of Single Judge remitting matter to authorized Appellate Authority restored – Costs to be borne by respective parties [Paras 14-15].