Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

Supreme Court Invokes Art. 142 to End Non-Ending Litigation in Labor Case – Directed To Pay Rs 10 Lakh lumpsum

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of India invoked its "Extraordinary Jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India" to resolve a protracted labor dispute case. The apex court passed the order in a civil appeal between Maharashtra State Electricity Transmission Company Limited (Appellant) and Vasant Kisanrao Deshpande & Others (Respondents).

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay S. Oka and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal presided over the case, expressing concern over the "classic case which shows that Judicial delays lead to a situation where this Court is compelled to find a solution."

The case involved the dismissal of service of the first respondent, Vasant Kisanrao Deshpande, in June 2001. Deshpande had filed a complaint before the Labour Court at Aurangabad, which led to a 14-year-long judicial battle. The Labour Court had initially ordered his reinstatement with back wages. Further appeals and revisions led to an order of remand from the Industrial Court and subsequent confirmation by the High Court.

Adding a layer of complexity, the court noted that Deshpande had reached the age of superannuation in December 2006. The justices found it "very difficult to imagine when the main litigation...will come to an end" and noted the burden of ongoing litigation costs on both parties.

In a move to put "an end to the non-ending litigation," the bench exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. It directed the appellant company to pay a lump sum of Rs. 10,00,000 (Rupees ten lakhs) to Deshpande within a period of two months.

The decision has been hailed as a pragmatic approach to tackle judicial delays and pendency, with the court taking a decisive stand to close a case that had dragged on for over two decades. This judgment is expected to set a precedent for similar cases mired in judicial backlog.

Date of Decision: October 20, 2023

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION COMPANY LIMITED vs VASANT KISANRAO DESHPANDE & ORS.

Latest Legal News