Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: H.B. Prabhakara Sastry, J. dismissed the petition under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for an offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

The facts of the case were that petitioner and the complainant had a quarrel with respect to the headphone. The petitioner, one night, assaulted the victim with a knife and inflicted several injuries upon him. It was the nearby public that rescued the victim from the fight and he was rushed to the hospital. The complainant received the phone call regarding the incident and rushed to the hospital and found the injured victim in ICU. The complaint was thus registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 307, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Srinivasa C., Advocate for the petitioner submitted that complaint was an exaggerated version of the simple altercation. It was further submitted that the accused and victim were relatives and were very much interested in living in a coordinated harmony. Therefore, prayed for the grant of the bail.

Divakar Maddur, High Court Government pleader argued that accused and victim were known to each other prior to the incident but the statement of the victim, who had attributed direct overt act against the petitioner as the one who stabbed him and caused several injuries with the help of the knife. It was further submitted that as the investigation was in process, the enlargement of the bail was not warranted and thus prayed for the dismissal of the present application.

The High Court after submission by the parties held that statement of the victim, that too, stated to have given in the hospital in the presence of the doctor to the police officer cannot be discarded at the stage of the investigation. Moreover, the investigation is said to be in progress. As such apprehension expressed by the prosecution that the enlargement of the accused on the relief of the bail may hamper the case cannot be ignored and hence rejected the present petition.[Mohd. Waseem v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 3215 of 2019, decided on 23-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Patna High Court: Mohit Kumar Shah, J. refused to grant relief to petitioner on humanitarian grounds contrary to the law.

Petitioner, a student of Damyanti Devi Mahila College, Patna pursuing B.Sc. course filed a writ petition seeking direction to Magadh University to publish results pertaining to the B.Sc. Part-III (Hons.) Examination, 2018. The petitioner submitted that her college was affiliated to the Magadh University, and after getting admitted to the college, she had been allotted a registration number by the University. After appearing for the B.Sc. Part-III (Hons.) examination, it came to her notice that even though the results of all other colleges affiliated to the Magadh University had been published, the results pertaining to her college had not been declared. Hence, she has approached this Court to direct the university to declare the results.

The respondent, Magadh University, filed a counter-affidavit wherein it affirmed that the petitioner was a student of the College in question. However, the Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that in pursuant to court orders and directions, the results of those colleges, not having affiliation from the State Government, shall not be published. Upon perusal of the official records, it was discovered that the petitioner’s college was unaffiliated, as far as B.Sc. (Hons.) The course is concerned. Hence, there was no publication of results. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, relied on the Supreme Court decision State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute, (1991) 3 SCC 87 wherein the Court had observed that any direction which permits the students to appear for the examinations without the institution being affiliated would amount to “clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations.” It stated that the Court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the rule of law.

The Petitioner was unable to refute that the college was not affiliated to the University for the said courses and thus the Court held that it cannot issue any direction to the University, contrary to law, especially when the Apex Court had deprecated the practice of granting relief on humanitarian grounds.[Priya Kumari Singh v. State of Bihar, 2019 SCC OnLine Pat 631, decided on 07-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A writ petition was entertained by a Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ. and subsequently dismissed in limine. 

The petitioner filed a writ seeking protection against a rival businessman; the protection was requested from the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of the said area. The learned counsel for petitioner Mr Sandeep Kothari, submitted that the accused businessman is a well known and powerful personality in the area and has instigated the local police officers and therefore they are putting a hindrance on the petitioner to carry on his business in a peaceful manner.  

The Court was concerned about the rights and safety of the petitioner but before granting any relief and for balancing of interest, the Court demanded a preliminary inquiry report from the learned Deputy Advocate General of State. The report stated that no FIR or complaint is lodged against the petitioner in the State of Uttarakhand but it was found that a criminal case was filed under Section 420 IPC and Section 5 of Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Act, 1978, in Assam and Madhya Pradesh. 

The petitioner contended that although the said cases are lodged against him, there is no veracity in it and the allegations are denied specifically by him. The learned counsel of petitioner further submitted that at the time of filing of the said petition he was not informed by the petitioner about the pending criminal proceedings against him, so he was unable to answer the questions of the Court with respect to the alleged report. 

The Court observed, petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands, “He should have disclosed all these facts to this Court before seeking any relief from the Court.” The Court dismissed the aforementioned relief by the petitioner and refused to interfere in this regard due to the questionable character of the petitioner. [A. Tajuthin v. State of Uttrakhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 345, decided on 01-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: The Bench of Aniruddha Bose, C.J. and B.B. Mangalmurti, J. dismissed a petition claiming arrears of pension, post retrial benefits with statutory and penal interest.

In the present case the appellant was appointed as Chairman and later was appointed as Junior Account Clerk in Rural Works Department. After rendering a long length of service, he superannuated as Accounts Clerk. The respondents settled his pensionary benefits by paying his Government Provident Fund, Group Insurance amount, part of gratuity as per 5th Pay Revision Commission (old scale) and part of leave encashment as per 5th Pay Revision Commission (old scale). The appellant alleged that the respondent did not pay arrear and benefits of first, second and third financial upgradation under Assured Carrier Progression and the arrear of pay revision, gratuity and part of leave encashment as recommended by 6th Pay Revision Commission. And that he stands on equal footing with one of his colleague, Saryug Prasad, as when he approached the Court, the same was allowed and the respondent was directed to pay benefits of financial upgradation. The respondents controverted the claim as appellant did not pass a departmental examination which is mandatory and as such the case of this appellant is not similar to the case of Saryug Prasad. Moreover, after attaining the age of 50, the appellant did not approach his controlling officer for issuance of an order of waiver while he was in service.

The Court after considering the material facts and the papers attached therewith held that it was clear that the appellant did not pass the mandatory test which was a prerequisite. The Court relied on the case of U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 where the Court held that “…When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with this situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to persons similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement…”.

In such view of the matter, the Court held that no relief could be granted to the appellant.[Birendra Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 432, decided on 23-04-2019]

Bail Application
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Surya Kant, C.J. and Sandeep Sharma, J. dismissed a letters patent appeal finding no merit in the case as the issue stood settled between the parties in the earlier round of litigation.

In the pertinent matter, the respondent was a workman engaged on daily wage basis as a Beldar, who continuously worked for more than 240 days in each year. On 30-3-1996 he was allegedly retrenched. The respondent-workman, after 14 years, raised a Demand Charter, to give rise to conciliation of proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. However, the Labour Commissioner, vide order dated 30-6-2011, eventually declined to refer the matter to Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, as according to him, there was no justification to raise the dispute after a period of more than 14 years. The Reference was thus declined. The respondent-workman then approached the Court where the matter was ordered to be referred to Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal and the question of limitation of appeal was directed to be kept in view “while moulding the relief”. The appellants did not challenge the order and instead, the matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which further ordered the reinstatement of the respondent with seniority from the date of the demand notice was served and no back wages were granted. The Tribunal found that some juniors to the respondent were allegedly retained in the employment and this Principle of Last Come First Go was violated.

The impugned judgment was then challenged by the appellants-State before the learned Single Judge where the Court held that the State authorities, “cannot be permitted time and again to raise the plea of inordinate delay in raising the dispute”. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, in deference to those observations, denied the reinstatement or seniority to the respondent-workman from the date of alleged retrenchment and restricted those benefits from the date when the Demand Notice was served. Therefore, no unjust enrichment has been allowed by denying the back wages to the workman.

The Court opined that “True it is that unexplained and inordinate delay in raising the Industrial Dispute can be effectively fatal to the claim itself but this issue stands already settled between the parties in the earlier round of litigation”. Further, it held that any view contrary to the Judgment already given will nullify the mandate of the same.[Chief Secretary (PW) v. Ram Gopal, 2019 SCC OnLine HP 403, Order dated 03-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Rajiv Narain Raina, J., where allegation of submission of false certificates were made.

Facts of the case were such that petitioner and respondent both were selected on the post of Anganwadi Worker. Petitioner had alleged respondent of furnishing a false education certificate showing her to be 8th class pass. Respondent contended that petitioner herself had procured a false resident certificate of Haryana according to which she was not qualified to lay claim to the post of Anganwadi Worker.

High Court was of the view that on these recent developments in the case petitioner had no relief since her claim is based on falsehood. Court is not to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction in favour of a party who had relied on false documents, thereby misleading the authorities to obtain resident status. The Court, therefore, dismissed this petition with a view that it is for the State Government to consider if the respondent can be continued on the post of Anganwadi Worker. [Jeenat v. State of Haryana, 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 233, dated 08-03-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jharkhand High Court: The Bench of Dr S.N. Pathak, J., allowed a petition assailing the order and judgment passed by learned Railway Claims Tribunal.

In the pertinent case, the claimant was the father of the deceased, Anand Mandi, who after boarding the train, met with an accident by way of falling down from the train. After completing all the formalities, a compensation of Rs 4 lakhs was sought for. The same was contended by the respondent (Railways) that they were not responsible as neither was there any eye witness to corroborate the said incident nor any passenger ticket was recovered from the possession of the deceased. It was also argued that the applicant is also put to strict proof that the cause of death of late Anand Mandi does not fall in any of the exceptional clauses (a) to (e) of Section 124-A of the Railways (Amendment) Act, 1994.

The learned Tribunal framed the following three issues and the parties were put on trial:-

  1. Whether Anand Mandi was a bonafide passenger as alleged?
  2. Whether any untoward incident as defined under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 occurred?
  3. Whether the applicant is entitled for compensation as claimed and other relief, if any?

The Court held that by the preponderance of the probability deceased had died due to accidental fall from a passenger train and as such, the alleged incident falls within the purview of an untoward incident under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act and it was decided in favour of the applicant.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Rina Devi, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 507, where the Court opined that, “…However, mere absence of ticket with such injured or deceased will not negative the claim that he was a bonafide passenger. Initial burden will be on the claimant which can be discharged by filing an affidavit of the relevant facts and burden will then shift on the Railways and the issue can be decided on the facts shown or the attending circumstances…”.  And the Court held that it is a case of untoward incident falling within the purview of Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act. The Court is of the opinion that appellant is entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs 4 lakhs with 9% interest from the date of accident till the actual payment is made.[Dhuma Ram Mandi v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Jhar 188, Order dated 13-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., dismissed a petition that was filed by the petitioners on the apprehension that they might be transferred.

The petitioner’s claim was within reference to continuation as General Line Teachers at Government High School without any hindrance with reference to the application of Rehbar-e-Taleem Scheme and the condition of their regularization order. The relevant part of the scheme is that-“As a matter of policy and consistent with the imperatives of smooth working of Rural Schools, the Rehbar-e-Taleems so regularized shall not be transferred out.”

The High Court held after a perusal of the pleadings and documents on record that there was no order of transfer made by any of the respondents against the petitioners, which could form the basis for challenging the same. Petitioners had filed the petition merely on apprehension. The Court further stated that it is a well-settled law that no relief can be granted in the petition, which has been filed on apprehension. It relied on n the case of Chanan Singh v. Registrar, Co. OP. Societies, Punjab, (1976) 3 SCC 361 and Kunda S. Kadam v. K.K. Soman, (1980) 2 SCC 355. The petition was thus rejected. [Fayaz Ahmad Dar v. State, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 123, Order dated 13-02-2019]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai: The Bench Tarun Agarwala, Presiding Officer and Dr C.K.G. Nair, Member disposed of the appeal with a direction that the appellant made a representation before SEBI in a matter where the interest on an amount was held for 13 years. 

The facts of the case are that SEBI floated Securities and Exchange Board of India (Interest Liability Regularization) Scheme, 2004 wherein stockbrokers having outstanding fee liabilities could pay the entire outstanding amount of principal along with 20% of the outstanding interest in which case they would not be liable for payment of the balance 80% of the outstanding interest. Based on the scheme, SEBI issued a fee liability statement in October 2004. As per the statement, the appellant was required to pay a sum of Rs 3,32,016. The appellant paid a sum of Rs 2,12,921 towards the entire outstanding amount of principal along with 20% interest. Thereafter the appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal seeking relief for setting aside the impugned fee liability statement issued by SEBI. The Tribunal by an order disposed of the appeal directing SEBI to take a final decision after taking into account the payment made by the appellant and if the adjustment was required then SEBI was required to do so. In the meanwhile, during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant paid an amount of Rs 3,14,497 under protest pursuant to the fee liability statement dated March 16, 2005. The contention of the appellant was that the respondent had unlawfully withheld the amount of Rs 3,14,497 without any authority of law for a period of 13 years and, therefore, was entitled to interest as well as costs of litigation which the appellant had incurred.

The Tribunal held that before approaching the Tribunal for payment of interest and costs, it would be appropriate for the appellant to approach SEBI for the said relief. The appeal was thus disposed of with such direction. [MLB Financial Services Ltd. v. SEBI, Appeal No. 313 of 2018, Order dated 01-02-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: A Single judge bench comprising of N.K. Sudhindrarao, J. while hearing a civil writ petition praying for quashing of criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner, held that relief under writ jurisdiction cannot be used to scuttle the investigation of a case.

The present petition had been filed praying for quashing of criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner in the trial court. Background of the matter is that the complainant (who had filed the case in trial court) alleged that the petitioner had falsely promised him to double a certain sum of money and on that pretext sent two people to obtain Rs. 15 lakhs from the complainant. It was alleged that those two people had fled away with the said money. On realizing that he had been duped, the complainant registered a criminal case for cheating against the petitioner for offence punishable under Section 420 of the  Penal Code, 1860.

Submission on behalf of the petitioner was that neither a complaint was filed nor an FIR was registered against him, but the petitioner was directly arrested and proceedings were started against him. The respondent submitted that since the matter was still under investigation, the proceedings against petitioner need not be quashed at this stage.

The High Court noted that a criminal proceeding starts with a complaint to set the criminal law in motion. Thereafter, an FIR is registered to register the commission of offence. However, it is not mandatory to mention the identity of accused in the FIR. It was observed that the scope of investigation and steps for investigation cannot be guided, controlled or stalled by filing a writ petition. Thus the Court held that a writ remedy cannot be resorted to in order to scuttle the investigation of a criminal case. [Ravi M.V. v. Amruthur Police, WP No. 49297 of 2018, decided on 16-10-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court whereby it allowed a letters patent appeal filed by the plaintiff in a partition suit.

The plaintiff filed a suit in regard to a property dispute wherein he prayed for partition of the subject property. The trial court decreed the suit, which decision was reversed by the first appellate court on an appeal by the defendant. The plaintiff then filed a letters patent appeal thereagainst which was allowed by the said Division Bench. The facts of the matter were that earlier, the defendant and father of the plaintiff were co-defendants in two original suits relating to the same subject property filed against them. In the said suits, the court had decided in favour of the defendant’s title over the subject property. Now, therefore, in the present suit, the defendant claims applicability of the doctrine of res judicata against the plaintiff as the father of the plaintiff was a co-defendant with him in the suits wherein his title was declared over the said property.

The Supreme Court, referring to a plethora of judgments reiterated the principles for the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. The Court cited Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail, (1995) 3 SCC 693 wherein the Supreme Court considering the applicability o the said doctrine between co-defendants held that the four conditions must be satisfied, namely-

  1. There must be a conflict of interest between defendants concerned;
  2. It must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give reliefs which the plaintiff claims;
  3. The question between the defendants must have been finally decided, and
  4. The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit.

The Court reiterated that if a plaintiff cannot get his claimed relief without trying and deciding a case between the co-defendants, the court will try and decide the case in its entirety including the conflict of interest between the co-defendants and the co-defendants will be bound by the decree. But if the relief given to the plaintiff does not require or involve a decision of any case between co-defendants, the co-defendants will not be bound between each other.

On the facts of the instant case, the Court found that all the above conditions were not present. Therefore, no res judicata was applicable between the parties. In light of the above and other holdings, the appeal was dismissed. [Govindammal v. Vaidiyanathan,2018 SCC OnLine SC 2117, decided on 23-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Meghalaya High Court: This petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Mohammad Yaqoob Mir, CJ, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Facts of the case were that an application was filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court seeking interim relief. An ex parte interim relief was granted directing status quo regarding subject matter to be maintained. Respondent submitted the existence of two title suits. It was submitted before Trial Court that preliminary decree was still operative not challenged by anyone and suit property was the same. Court observed that interim order cannot be extended beyond the date already mentioned by the court. Petitioner was aggrieved by the above order and thus filed petition before the High Court where petition’s maintainability was challenged as the petitioner had two alternate remedies available i.e. application for modification of interim relief under O. 39 R. 4 CPC and the second to file an appeal under O. 43 CPC. Respondent relied on the case of State Bank of Travancore v. Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85 where it was observed that relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.

High Court was of the view that respondents have not yet filed objections before the court. After the respondent file their objection the trial court ought to hear both parties in few weeks and then decide the matter. The petition was thus dismissed. [Md. Saquib v. Md. Ilyas,2018 SCC OnLine Megh 177, order dated 28-09-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Biswajit Basu, J. dismissed a civil revision pertaining to grant of relief under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

The suit under the said section was filed by the petitioner alleging that he was the tenant in the suit property. That he was dispossessed from the same without his consent and without due process of law. The suit was filed for the relief of reclaiming the possession. The trial court, vide the order impugned, dismissed the suit of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved thereby, the instant revision was filed.

The High Court perused the record. It was observed that Section 6 provides a special and speedy remedy for a particular kind of grievance to place back in possession a person who had been evicted from the immovable property of which he had been in a possession, otherwise than by process of law. Therefore, possession of the plaintiff over the immovable property on the date of dispossession is the condition precedent to invoke jurisdiction of Section 6. Investigation into the title favouring such possession is irrelevant in the proceeding of such nature. In the facts of the present case, it was clear that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit property on the date on which the unlawful dispossession was alleged. Therefore, the Court held that no interference was called for in the order impugned passed by the trial court. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed. [Ramesh Chand Koiri v. Chandan Koiri,2018 SCC OnLine Cal 6471, dated 19-09-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The vacation bench comprising of Vandana Kasrekar, J. allowed the writ petition filed by a rape victim for termination of her pregnancy.

The petitioner was an unmarried girl, who became pregnant as a result of rape committed on her. She was raped by the accused who initially expressed the desire to marry her, however afterwards, he refused. FIR was filed against the accused of the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. During the investigation, MLC was conducted and it was found that the petitioner was carrying a pregnancy of 8-9 weeks. The petitioner submitted an application before the Additional Sessions Judge under Section 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971, for termination of her pregnancy praying that she did not want to give birth to such unwarranted baby. The Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the application on the basis of the report of Respondent 6 that the petitioner was carrying a pregnancy of more than 10-11 weeks. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed the instant writ.

The High Court, on 7-6-2018, had directed the Government Advocate to examine the petitioner before the District Medical Board. In pursuance of the said direction, the petitioner was examined by the District Medical Board on 11-6-2018. The report of the Board was placed on record by the learned Government Advocate. The Court perused the report and found that no such fact was mentioned in the report which would compel the Court not to grant relief to the petitioner. On the basis of the opinion of the Board, the High Court held that there was no impediment to order termination of petitioner’s pregnancy. Accordingly, the petition was allowed and the order passed by Additional Sessions Judge was set aside. The respondents were directed to provide proper medical facilities to the petitioner for terminating her pregnancy by a team of doctors. [‘X’ v. State of M.P., WP No. 12463 of 2018, decided on 14-06-2018]

Bail Application
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: A petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order of the Additional District Judge whereby he allowed respondents’ application for adducing additional evidence, was allowed by a Single Judge Bench comprising of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

The matter related to a Will and mutation of certain properties. The parties were contending a suit in regard to the same in the lower courts. In the said suit, the respondents filed an application before the Additional District Judge for adducing additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC which was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred the instant petition.

The High Court perused the record and found that earlier the respondents had filed an application before the trial judge for producing the mutation under Order 8 Rule 1-A of CPC which was dismissed. Hence, the same applied as res judicata against the similar relief sought in subsequent application as the order of trial court was never assailed by the respondents. Further, the documents sought to be produced now were already in the knowledge of the respondents being public documents as asserted by the respondents themselves. The Court held that for seeking relief under Order 41 Rule 27, it was necessary for the party seeking such relief to have exercised due diligence in not having faulted to produce documents at an earlier stage. Duly diligent efforts are the requirement for a party seeking to use the adjudicatory mechanism to attain an anticipated relief. However, in the instant case, as noted above, the respondents were not diligent in producing the documents at the appropriate stage even when it could have been done. Thus, the Court found that it was not a case where benefit under Order 41 Rule 27 ought to have been granted to the respondents. Hence, the petition was allowed and the impugned order was set aside. [Rattan Chand v. Duni Chand, 2018 SCC OnLine HP 613, dated 21-5-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gauhati High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Michael Zothankhuma, J. declined to grant relief to the petitioner under the writ petition, in light of the facts that he had an alternate remedy to approach the Educational Tribunal for settling the dispute.

The petitioner was aggrieved by non-provincialisation of his services as an Assistant Teacher in the Raisen ME School. Petitioner’s grievance was that his services were not provincialised in spite of vacant post of science teacher; whereas, Respondent 7 who was not eligible for the post, was provincialised as an Assistant Teacher. The petitioner challenged such provincialisation of the respondent as well as his non-provincialisation. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the Government of Assam had established Educational Tribunals to adjudicate disputes between teaching and non-teaching staff of provincialised schools; therefore, the present matter should be referred to the said Tribunal.

The High Court considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and held that the present case relates to a claim for provincialisation of the service of the petitioner vis-a-vis Respondent 7 and it was liable to be sent to the Educational Tribunal concerned. Since there was an alternative remedy present to the petitioner for resolution of the dispute, the High Court held that no relief could be granted to the petitioner under the instant writ proceedings. [Sushil Namasudra v. State of Assam, 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 308, order dated 10-04-2018]

High Courts

Himachal Pradesh High Court: While deciding on the issue of rejection of claim on the ground of inordinate delay and laches in an industrial dispute, the bench of Sanjay Karol, J. held that delay in raising the dispute and referring the same to the Labour Court for adjudication is not erroneous and it also does not debar the workman from claiming rightful relief from his employer. The Court relying on Raghubir Singh v. General Manager, Haryana Roadways, (2014) 10 SCC 301, stated that the workman is entitled for reinstatement, back wages and consequential benefits from the date of raising the industrial dispute.

Giving reasons, the Court observed that it is reasonable to adjudicate the industrial dispute in spite of the delay in raising and referring the matter, since there is no mention of any loss or unavailability of material evidence due to the delay. It further stated that the Labour Court is statutorily duty bound to answer the points of dispute referred to it by deciding the same on merits of the case, and it should have moulded the relief accordingly and appropriately for the workman.

In the instant case where the petitioner was represented by G.R Palsra and the respondent by R.M Bisht and Vikram Thakur, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order of termination passed by the respondent as legally unsustainable, with the direction to the respondent to take appropriate action in accordance with law. Girdhari Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2015 SCC OnLine HP 441, decided on 10.03.2015