Search Judgments

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2A(2) – This writ petition was filed by a Co-operative Society challenging the Labour Court’s order in I.D. No. 75 of 2018. The respondent, a former lorry cleaner, was retrenched due to the sale of the lorry and later re-employed as a Gin fitter.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2A(2) – This writ petition was filed by a workman challenging the Labour Court’s award in I.D.No.110 of 2015, specifically the rejection of his request for back wages following an order of reinstatement.

The workman was dismissed from service after a domestic enquiry deemed unfair by the Labour Court. Although the Labour Court set aside the dismissal and ordered reinstatement, the request for back wages was denied because the workman didn’t seek re-employment or inform management to get back to work.

The workman argued that approaching the Management after dismissal was not required.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – This case involves a writ appeal filed by a Co-operative Society, challenging a writ court’s order that directed them to pay 25% back wages to a former salt worker. The worker had been dismissed in 1997, and the Labour Court ordered reinstatement without back wages in 2011. The worker then filed a writ petition seeking back wages, which the writ court partially granted.

The Co-operative Society argued that the worker never pleaded or provided evidence that he was unemployed during the dismissal period.

Acts Mentioned:

Constitution of India – Article 19(1)(g), Article 21
Indian Penal Code (IPC) – Sections 441, 447, 503, 506, 341, 383
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
Minimum Wages Act, 1948
Tamil Nadu Manual Workers Act
Puducherry Loading and Unloading (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 2017

The judgment addresses a recurring issue in Tamil Nadu where self-proclaimed loadmen, affiliated with certain trade unions, unlawfully interfere with loading and unloading activities, demanding excessive wages and insisting on exclusive engagement. Several writ petitions were filed by traders, associations, and a company seeking police protection from this interference, while a workers’ union filed a petition seeking to prevent state authorities from intervening in wage disputes.

The court found that these actions often constitute criminal offenses such as trespass, intimidation, extortion, and assault, violating the fundamental right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The court referenced previous judgments and highlighted the need to protect businesses’ contractual freedom to choose their workers.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Section 9 and Order 21 Rule 31 – This case involves a dispute between two sects of the Kuruba community in Andhra Pradesh concerning religious rituals and custody of idols of Lord Sangalappa Swamy. The dispute originated in 1927 and was addressed through a compromise decree in 1933. This decree outlined the responsibilities and rights of each group regarding the deity.

Decades later, a disagreement arose, leading the Kapadam sect (appellants) to file an execution petition in 2000, alleging that the Kamatam sect (respondents) had violated the 1933 decree.

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960 – Section 10(2)(i) – This case involves an appeal against a High Court order affirming an eviction order against the heirs of a lessee, based on wilful default in rent payment. The landlord, M/s. Krishna Mills Pvt. Ltd., sought eviction due to the lessee’s failure to pay the fair rent as determined by the Rent Controller.

Constitution of India – Article 129, 137, 142, 145; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24, 27; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 164; Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Order 48 – This curative petition addresses a grave miscarriage of justice stemming from the Nithari killings, specifically the case involving the death of Rimpa Haldar. The petitioner, Surendra Koli, was convicted and sentenced to death (later commuted to life imprisonment) based on a confession and recoveries. The court noted the curative jurisdiction exists to prevent abuse of process and to cure a gross miscarriage of justice as established in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra (2002) 4 SCC 388.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 193, 209, and 319 – This case concerns a challenge to an order by the Allahabad High Court upholding a trial court’s decision to summon the petitioner as an accused under Section 193 of the CrPC, despite the police initially dropping his name from the chargesheet. The original case involved offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder) and 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

The petitioner argued that the trial court could only summon him after recording oral evidence under Section 319 CrPC, and that Section 193 CrPC could not be invoked as the Magistrate had already taken cognizance of the offence when committing the case to the Sessions Court.

The Supreme Court framed the main issue as whether a Sessions Court can summon a person as an accused under Section 193 CrPC, without recording evidence, based on materials in the police report, independently of Section 319 CrPC.

The Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) Section 372 Cr.P.C. (Section 413 of BNSS), Section 378(4) (Section 419(4) of BNSS); The Negotiable Instruments Act Section 138 – This case concerns the maintainability of a criminal appeal filed under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C), challenging an acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A notification had been issued by the High Court directing the registry not to entertain petitions seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. after 07.07.2025.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order 8, Rule 6A – This appeal concerns the maintainability of a counterclaim against a co-defendant in a suit for specific performance. The plaintiff filed a suit against the first defendant seeking specific performance of an oral agreement to sell land. The second and third defendants were later impleaded and raised a counterclaim against the first defendant, seeking the same land. The Trial Court allowed the counterclaim, and the High Court affirmed this decision.