Facts:

The insured's property was demolished by the Municipal Corporation, leading to a claim under an insurance policy. The insurer denied liability based on an exclusion clause stating that destruction by a lawfully constituted authority is not covered.

Issues:

Whether the exclusion clause in the insurance policy applied to the demolition carried out by the Municipal Corporation.

Held:

The Court analyzed the language of the exclusion clause and the circumstances surrounding the demolition. It found that there was no dispute that the demolition was carried out under the authority of the Municipal Corporation, which is a lawfully constituted authority under the Jammu and Kashmir Municipal Corporation Act 2000. Therefore, the destruction was by order of a lawfully constituted authority, and the exclusion under the insurance policy was attracted.

The Court referred to principles of insurance law from various cases, both Indian and international, to support its interpretation of the exclusion clause. It emphasized the duty of insurers to clearly define exceptions to their liability in insurance policies and the need to construe such clauses strictly against insurers.

Consequently, the Court held that the State Commission and the High Court were in error in allowing the insured's claim under the policy of insurance. The appeal filed by the insurer was allowed, and the insured's appeal was dismissed. The Court clarified that its decision in this case did not affect the merits of the pending suit filed by the insured against the Municipal Corporation.

FACTS:

The suit involved a dispute over the ownership of a property auctioned under the Punjab Package Deal Properties (Disposal) Act 1976. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent-plaintiffs, declaring a previous order by the competent authority as null and void and granting an injunction against the defendants. The appellate court overturned this decision, citing lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and failure to comply with notice requirements under Section 80 of the CPC.

ISSUES:

Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973?

Whether proper notice under Section 80 of the CPC was served before filing the suit?

HELD:

The court addresses the issue of jurisdiction under Section 16 of the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973. It states that every order made under the Act is final, and no Civil Court can entertain a suit challenging such orders. The Court held that the suit was barred from the jurisdiction of the Civil Court due to the provisions of Section 16.

The court discusses the failure to comply with notice requirements under Section 80 of the CPC. The Court agrees with the appellate court's finding that the suit was not maintainable due to this procedural lapse.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court, and consequently dismissing Civil Suit No. 496 of 1985.

REFERRED CASES:

State of Haryana and Others vs. Vinod Kumar and Others, (1986) 1 PLR 222

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a driver on a contract basis and faced a disciplinary inquiry.

Following the inquiry, his service was terminated, but he was later re-engaged on a contract basis.

The respondent approached the High Court seeking continuity of service from the date of termination until re-engagement.

The High Court granted his petition based on a previous judgment dealing with similar cases.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service could be granted to the respondent without challenging the termination or re-engagement orders.

Whether the principles of natural justice were followed in the disciplinary proceedings against the respondent.

Held and Decision:

The Court observed that continuity of service could only be granted when an order of termination is set aside. Since neither termination nor re-engagement was challenged, the grant of continuity of service was unwarranted.( Paragraph 7)

Granting continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct would be unfair and place him on the same footing as other employees with a clean record.( Paragraph 10)

The Court criticized the High Court for issuing a blanket direction without considering the specific facts of each case and emphasized the need for individual assessment.( Paragraph 12)

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court. The respondent's seniority was to be counted from the date of his fresh appointment.( Paragraph 13)

The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. No costs. .( Paragraph 14)

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a contract driver by the appellant corporation.

He underwent a departmental enquiry due to alleged misconduct.

Following the enquiry and rejection of appeals, his service was terminated.

The respondent challenged the termination in legal proceedings, ultimately approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service can be granted to an employee found guilty of misconduct.

Applicability of previous judgments in similar cases to the present situation.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service to the respondent was erroneous. The Court emphasized that continuity of service cannot be granted to an employee found guilty of misconduct unless the termination order is set aside.

Furthermore, the Court noted that such a decision would unjustly place the employee on the same footing as other contractual employees with a clean record. Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.

Facts:

The respondent was employed as a contract driver by the appellant corporation.

Following a departmental inquiry, the respondent's services were terminated due to misconduct.

The termination was upheld through departmental appeal and subsequent legal proceedings.

The respondent approached the High Court seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court, relying on a previous judgment, directed the corporation to reengage the respondent and grant him continuity of service from the date of termination.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service to the respondent was valid.

Whether the previous judgment cited by the High Court was applicable to the present case.

Whether the individual facts of the case were adequately considered by the High Court.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the grant of continuity of service to the respondent was erroneous for several reasons. Firstly, continuity cannot be granted unless the termination order is set aside. Secondly, granting continuity to someone found guilty of misconduct would unjustly place them on par with other contractual employees with a clean record.

Additionally, the High Court failed to properly consider the individual facts of the case and instead issued a blanket order based on a previous judgment that was inapplicable.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the judgments of both the Division Bench and the Single Judge were set aside.

Facts:

The respondent, M. Maruthi, was terminated from his employment as a contract conductor at the Cantonment Depot, Hyderabad, following a departmental inquiry that found him guilty of misconduct.

Despite dismissal being upheld in subsequent appeals and industrial disputes, Maruthi filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court. The Single Judge relied on a previous judgment from 2012, directing the appellant, Depot Manager of APSRTC, to reengage Maruthi with continuity of service solely for the purpose of future regularization, without monetary benefits. The Division Bench affirmed this decision in a writ appeal.

Issues:

Whether the Division Bench erred in confirming the Single Judge's order without considering the distinguishing facts of the present case.

Held:

The Division Bench failed to adequately consider the specific facts of the present case in comparison to the previous judgment upon which the decision was based. The circumstances of the earlier case were different from the current situation.

Therefore, the Division Bench erred in confirming the Single Judge's order without proper review. Consequently, the appeals were allowed, setting aside the orders of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench, thereby upholding the appellant's termination of Maruthi's employment.

Facts:

The respondent, a contract driver employed by the appellant corporation, faced a departmental inquiry for unauthorized absence, leading to his termination.

Upon a departmental review, the respondent was re-engaged on contract.

Subsequently, the respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking continuity of service and consequential benefits.

Issues:

Whether continuity of service can be granted without challenging the termination or fresh appointment.

Whether granting continuity to an employee found guilty of misconduct would be appropriate.

Held:

Continuity of service couldn't be granted without challenging the termination or fresh appointment. Granting continuity to an employee found guilty of misconduct would place him on par with other contract employees without blemish records (para. 9-10).

The judgments failed to consider the individual facts of each case and wrongly applied a common order to the entire batch of cases (para. 12).

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, setting aside the judgments of the Single Judge and the Division Bench. The seniority of the respondent workman should be counted from the date of his fresh appointment in the corporation's service. No costs were awarded in the matter (para. 13-16).

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a contract conductor with the appellant corporation (APSRTC).

A departmental inquiry was initiated against the respondent, leading to his termination.

The respondent appealed against the termination and was later granted a fresh appointment.

The respondent approached the High Court seeking continuity of service.

Issues:

Whether the grant of continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct is valid.

Whether the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service was justified.

Held:

Continuity of service cannot be granted to an employee found guilty of misconduct unless the termination order is set aside.

Granting continuity to such an employee would be unjust, as it would place them on the same footing as other contractual employees with a clean record.

The High Court's decision to grant continuity of service was manifestly misconceived.

The seniority of the respondent should be counted from the date of his fresh appointment.

The appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the respondent's seniority was to be counted from the date of his fresh appointment. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms.

Facts:

The respondent was appointed as a contract conductor by the appellant corporation.

Following a departmental inquiry, the respondent's services were terminated due to misconduct.

The respondent approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Single Judge of the High Court directed the corporation to reengage the respondent in service and grant continuity of service.

The Division Bench affirmed the Single Judge's order.

Issues:

Whether the High Court's decision to grant continuity of service to the respondent was justified.

Whether the High Court properly considered the individual facts of the case.

Held:

The Court ruled that continuity of service cannot be granted unless the termination order is set aside. It emphasized the importance of ensuring there is no gap in service.

Granting continuity of service to an employee found guilty of misconduct would place them on the same footing as other contractual employees with a clean record.

The Court found that the High Court failed to properly consider the individual facts of the case and erred in issuing a common order for all cases.

As a result, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of both the Division Bench and the Single Judge.