Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Mere Entry, Abuse Or Assault Is Not Civil Contempt – Willfulness And Dispossession Must Be Clearly Proved: Bombay High Court Magistrate Cannot Shut Eyes To Final Report After Cognizance – Supplementary Report Must Be Judicially Considered Before Framing Charges: Allahabad High Court Examination-in-Chief Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction Amid Serious Doubts: Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Grievous Hurt Case Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Cannot Reclaim Absolute Ownership After Letting Your Declaration Suit Fail: AP High Court Enforces Finality in Partition Appeal Death Due to Fat Embolism and Delayed Treatment Is Not Culpable Homicide: Orissa High Court Converts 30-Year-Old 304 Part-I Conviction to Grievous Hurt Fabricated Lease Cannot Be Sanctified by Consolidation Entry: Orissa High Court Dismisses 36-Year-Old Second Appeal Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Sentence Cannot Be Reduced to Two Months for Four Life-Threatening Stab Wounds: Supreme Court Restores 3-Year RI in Attempt to Murder Case Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Substitute Proof: Apex Court Reaffirms Limits of Section 106 IEA Accused at the Time of the Statement Was Not in the Custody of the Police - Discovery Statement Held Inadmissible Under Section 27: Supreme Court Failure to Explain What Happened After ‘Last Seen Together’ Becomes an Additional Link: Supreme Court Strengthens Section 106 Evidence Act Doctrine Suicide in a Pact Is Conditional Upon Mutual Participation — Survivor’s Resolve Reinforces the Act: Supreme Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 306 IPC Participation in Draw Does Not Cure Illegality: Supreme Court Rejects Estoppel in Arbitrary Flat Allotment Case Nepotism and Self-Aggrandizement Are Anathema to a Democratic System: Supreme Court Quashes Allotment of Super Deluxe Flats by Government Employees’ Welfare Society Liberty Is Not Absolute When It Becomes a Threat to Society: Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Alleged ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Mastermind Magistrate’s Power Is Limited — Sessions Court May Yet Try the Case: Supreme Court Corrects High Court’s Misconception in ₹6.5 Crore Fraud Bail Order Dacoity Cannot Be Presumed, It Must Be Proved: Allahabad High Court Acquits Villagers After 43 Years, Citing ‘Glaring Lapses’ in Prosecution Case When the Judge Signs with the Prosecutor, Justice Is Already Compromised: MP High Court Quashes Tainted Medical College Enquiry Strict Rules Of Evidence Do Not Apply To Proceedings Before The Family Court: Kerala High Court Upholds Wife’s Claim For Gold And Money Commission Workers Cannot Claim Status of Civil Servants: Gujarat High Court Declines Regularization of Physically Challenged Case-Paper Operators Non-Wearing of Helmet Had a Direct Nexus with Fatal Head Injuries  : Madras High Court Upholds 25% Contributory Negligence for Helmet Violation Only a ‘Person Aggrieved’ Can Prosecute Defamation – Political Party Must Be Properly Represented: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Rahul Gandhi

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Affirms Labour Court’s Altered Punishment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


New Delhi, September 14, 2023: The Supreme Court of India today dismissed an appeal filed by the Chief Manager of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) against a respondent who had passed away. The case had been ongoing for several years, involving an RSRTC employee who had initially been dismissed from service for operating a bus unauthorizedly.

Application for Substitution Allowed

The court began by allowing an application for substitution due to the passing away of both the original employee and his spouse, who had taken up the case after his demise. The delay in filing the application for substitution was also condoned by the court.

 Labour Court’s Decision Upheld

The Labour Court had earlier altered the punishment of the employee from dismissal from service to withholding one year’s salary with a non-cumulative effect. This decision was upheld by the High Court and has now been affirmed by the Supreme Court as well. The appellant had argued that the Labour Court’s decision should not stand as a writ petition filed earlier had been dismissed. However, the Court pointed out that the dismissal of the writ petition did not prevent the filing of an industrial dispute.

 No Ground for Interference

The apex court ruled that it found no ground for interfering with the impugned judgment and dismissed the appeal, directing parties to bear their own costs.

The order was passed by a bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Sudhanshu Dhulia. Dr. Ritu Bhardwaj represented the appellant, and Mr. Merusagar Samantaray represented the respondent.

This decision marks a significant ruling in the realm of industrial disputes, particularly regarding the scope and limitations in successive rounds of litigation.

Date of Decision: September 14, 2023

RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION vs CHETAN DEVI (DEAD)               

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/The_Chief_Manager_Rajasthan_vs_Chetan_Devi_14_September_20231.pdf"]         

Latest Legal News