Facts:

M.L. Singla, an employee of Punjab National Bank (PNB), was dismissed from service based on charges of consuming liquor on duty and being responsible for a cash shortage of Rs. 35,000.

The bank conducted a departmental inquiry, found Singla guilty on both charges, and dismissed him from service.

Singla's appeal against dismissal was rejected, and he sought relief under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, leading to the matter being referred to the Labour Court.

The Labour Court ruled in Singla's favor, ordering his reinstatement with 50% back wages, but the High Court overturned this decision, upholding Singla's dismissal.

Issues:

Whether the domestic enquiry against Singla was legal and proper.

Whether the punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the charges.

Whether the Labour Court and the High Court erred in their respective approaches to the case.

Held:

The domestic enquiry against Singla was legal and proper, as he was given full opportunity to defend himself, and no procedural lapses were observed.

The punishment of dismissal was proportionate to the gravity of the charges, considering the serious nature of both charges.

The Labour Court committed errors in failing to determine the legality of the domestic enquiry, prematurely calling for evidence on all issues, and improperly evaluating the evidence. The High Court erred in focusing on the merits of the charges rather than addressing procedural errors. Therefore, the dismissal was upheld.

Facts:

Plaintiffs filed a civil suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed.

Trial court dismissed the suit, upheld by the first appellate court and the High Court.

Parties reached a compromise during the legal proceedings, leading to the disposal of the second appeal.

One defendant challenged the compromise, leading to an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court remanded the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration.

High Court proceeded to decide the second appeal on its merits without thoroughly examining the compromise's genuineness and legality.

Issues:

Interpretation of the Supreme Court's remand order.

Examination of the genuineness and legality of the compromise petition.

Proper procedural steps to be followed in dealing with the compromise petition.

Held:

The Court held that the High Court erred in not considering the genuineness and legality of the compromise petition as directed by the remand order. The failure to do so caused prejudice to the parties' rights. Consequently, the High Court's decision was set aside, and the case was remanded back to the High Court with specific directions. The High Court was instructed to reconsider the genuineness of the compromise and, if necessary, to refer the matter to the trial court for recording evidence.

Depending on the determination of the legality of the compromise, the second appeal would either be disposed of accordingly or heard on its merits. The Supreme Court urged the High Court to expedite the process and dispose of the matter within six months.

Facts:

The case involves an appeal against the decision of the High Court of Jharkhand, which upheld the reinstatement of 37 workmen with full back wages by setting aside their dismissal orders for contravening Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Issues:

Whether the lower courts were justified in awarding full back wages to the workmen after setting aside their dismissal orders.

Whether the principles established in previous cases regarding the awarding of back wages were properly applied in the present case.

Held:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and modified the decision of the lower courts. It was held that back wages cannot be awarded as a matter of right to the workmen solely based on setting aside their dismissal orders. The workmen must demonstrate with evidence that they were not gainfully employed during the period of dismissal. The employer also has the opportunity to prove otherwise.

The court awarded 50% of the total back wages to the workmen, considering the circumstances of the case and aiming to achieve substantial justice. This decision was made under the powers conferred by Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Facts:

The appellants (plaintiffs) filed a civil suit against the respondents (defendants) seeking various reliefs including a declaration of title, permanent injunction, and possession of the disputed property.

The respondents contested the suit, arguing that it was barred by limitation.

The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that the suit was filed within the applicable limitation period.

However, the High Court reversed this decision, holding that the suit was indeed barred by limitation.

Issues:

Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred by limitation.

Interpretation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act in the context of the facts of the case.

Held:

The plaintiffs filed the civil suit within 12 years from the date of the attachment order dated 23.12.1966, which was issued during proceedings under Section 145 of the CrPC.

The cause of action for the plaintiffs arose when the defendants asserted their rights over the property during the Section 145 CrPC proceedings, leading to the attachment order.

Therefore, the suit was filed within the limitation period prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act.

The plaintiffs had rightly filed the suit for declaration and possession in response to the defendants' assertions of rights over the property.

The High Court erred in its interpretation of the law regarding limitation, and its judgment on the question of limitation is legally unsustainable.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment on the question of limitation, and restored the Trial Court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

Facts:

The Una Nagar Palika (Municipality) denied pension benefits to five of its employees upon their reaching the age of superannuation.

The employees filed petitions in the High Court of Gujarat, seeking pension benefits, which were granted by the Single Judge. The Municipality appealed this decision before the Division Bench, which upheld the Single Judge's decision.

The Municipality contended that employees directly appointed by it should not be entitled to pension benefits, unlike those who were originally working with the Panchayat and later became municipal employees.

The High Court relied on a previous judgment in Chief Officer vs. Mohamed Irshad Husenbhai Baloch and Others, which held that municipal employees are eligible for pension benefits.

Issues:

Whether municipal employees, directly appointed by the Municipality, are entitled to pension benefits.

The relevance of the distinction made by the Municipality between employees who were originally working with the Panchayat and those directly appointed by the Municipality.

Held:

The Court held that the distinction made by the Municipality between different categories of employees was insignificant. The employees were deemed eligible for pension benefits based on their qualifying service. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by Una Nagar Palika and directed the Municipality to finalize the pension cases of the respondents and release the pension amounts within four months from the date of the order.

Facts:

The appellant was convicted under Sections 302/307/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the High Court, reversing her acquittal by the trial court.

The incident occurred on 27th March 2006, resulting in the death of two individuals and injuries to another.

Witness testimonies, particularly that of the injured witness (PW2) and the appellant's daughter (PW4), played a crucial role in establishing the appellant's guilt.

Issues:

Whether the appellant's conviction under Sections 302/307/34 IPC was justified.

Whether differential treatment in sentencing the appellant compared to other co-accused was warranted.

Held:

The credibility of witnesses, including PW2 and PW4, was emphasized. Minor discrepancies or inconsistencies in their testimonies were considered insignificant.

The injured witness's testimony was deemed reliable despite her young age and emotional distress during cross-examination.

The court upheld the appellant's conviction under Sections 302/307/34 IPC, considering the corroborative evidence provided by PW4 and the injured witness (PW2).

The principle of proportionality in sentencing was applied, and differential treatment of the appellant compared to other co-accused was deemed unjustified.

The direction to deny remission to the appellant for twenty-five years was set aside.

The appeal was allowed only to the extent of setting aside the direction for denial of remission to the appellant for twenty-five years.

Facts:

The appellant, Meena Verma, was appointed as a part-time female member in the Himachal Pradesh Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.

The second respondent challenged this appointment through a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, alleging discrimination.

The High Court quashed Meena Verma's appointment and directed the Commission to reconsider the appointment of the writ petitioner.

Issues:

Whether the State Government's appointment of Meena Verma was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Whether the Selection Committee's recommendation was disregarded in making the appointment.

Held:

The Court held: "In the absence of any Rule or any executive instruction, when the Committee had drawn a panel on the basis of performance and placed the candidates in seriatim on the basis of the said performance, we are disposed to think that the High Court correctly expressed the opinion that the addition of public experience was uncalled for."

Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to quash Meena Verma's appointment, finding no merit in her appeal. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.

Facts:

The case pertains to a dispute involving disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958. The encroachment in question was not directly by the candidate herself but by her husband and father-in-law.

Issues:

Whether the disqualification under section 14(1)(j-3) is applicable when the encroachment is by individuals associated with the candidate rather than the candidate herself.

The scope of interpretation regarding the term "person" in section 14(1)(j-3) and its relevance to encroachment.

Held:

The court, after considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1958, including Sections 10, 11, and 53, emphasized the duty of elected Panchayat members to address encroachments on government or public land.

The term "person" in Section 14(1)(j-3) should not be narrowly construed, as it would render the issue of encroachment redundant. The legislative intent is to address encroachment strictly, with the Panchayat having the power to remove such encroachments.

Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and held that a candidate sharing an encroached property and continuing to reside there should be considered disqualified under section 14(1)(j-3). This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent to prevent conflicts of interest and protect public properties.

Facts:

The deceased was involved in a fatal accident while riding his motorcycle.

His family filed a claim petition seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT) awarded compensation, which was later appealed to the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The High Court enhanced the compensation, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court by the Insurance Company.

Issues:

Assessment of compensation in a fatal accident case under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Validity of the High Court's enhancement of compensation.

Determination of the deceased's dependents and their entitlement to compensation.

Held:

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's decision regarding the percentage of future prospects, reducing it to 40% instead of 50%.

The deduction from the deceased's income at 1/3rd was upheld, considering the circumstances of the family.

The Court affirmed the High Court's decision on the assessment of the deceased's income and the status of his dependents.

Compensation under the heads of Loss of Estate and Loss of Filial Consortium, not awarded by the lower courts, were granted by the Supreme Court.

The total compensation awarded was revised, and the Insurance Company and the driver of the vehicle were held jointly and severally liable to pay it.

The appeal was disposed of by the Supreme Court in the terms mentioned in the judgment.