Search Judgments

(Industrial Dispute - Workman Status and Unlawful Termination)

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(s), Section 2A(2), Section 25F - This common order addresses cross-petitions challenging a Labour Court award involving Tata Consultancy Services (Management) and an employee, Latha Govindasamy. The award directed her reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.

The employee, an Associate Consultant with 22 years of service, was dismissed for alleged incompetence and surplusage. She contended her work was technical/clerical, making her a 'workman', and her termination illegal without due process. The management argued her role was supervisory/managerial (Senior Manager equivalent) with a high salary, thus not a 'workman' under Section 2(s).

(Allegations of Corruption and Cartelization in Transformer Procurement)

This judgment addresses three writ petitions filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Indian Penal Code, and the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, read with the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitions sought the registration of an FIR and a court-monitored Special Investigation Team (SIT) into alleged corruption in the procurement of Distribution Transformers by TANGEDCO. 

Petitioners alleged a scam of Rs. 397-1182 Crores, citing cartelization, identical bids, and tenders awarded at exorbitant rates between 2021 and 2023. Despite complaints, the Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption (DVAC) delayed action for nearly three years.

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 8, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 – Section 3 – The plaintiff initiated a suit seeking partition of a property, claiming it to be a joint family asset, and challenging a settlement deed executed by his father (1st defendant) in favor of his brother (2nd defendant). The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for declaration and partition, granting only a limited injunction against his eviction.

On appeal, the High Court analyzed the property’s nature. While the suit property was initially purchased by the plaintiff’s grandfather in 1966 and devolved to the first defendant as separate property under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Court primarily focused on the subsequent conduct of the parties.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Order IX Rule 6, Order XIV Rule 1, and Order VIII Rule 10, Section 2(11) – Coimbatore Capital Ltd. (Plaintiff) initiated a suit against M.Ramaswamy and R.Manoharan (Defendants), seeking a personal decree and preliminary mortgage decree for Rs. 83,88,020.45 as guarantors for Ankal Finance Ltd. The plaintiff asserted the defendants executed Deeds of Guarantee and the 1st defendant mortgaged property by depositing title deeds.

The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrP) Section 340 – The Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) Section 379 – The Supreme Court heard a wife’s petition seeking transfer of a perjury application filed by her husband under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and Section 379 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The proceedings ultimately expanded to consider an application for divorce, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India, on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The couple, married on January 28, 2012, cohabited for merely 65 days and have since been separated for over a decade, engaging in more than 40 litigations against each other.

Despite mediation attempts, reconciliation proved impossible, leading to deep-seated bitterness and no prospect of cohabitation.

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) – Section 528 & Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376, 376(2)(n) and 507 – The case involves an appeal against a Bombay High Court order that dismissed an application to quash an FIR filed under Sections 376, 376(2)(n), and 507 of the IPC. The FIR was lodged by Respondent No. 2 against the Appellant, alleging rape based on a false promise of marriage. The complainant alleged that the physical relationship occurred between 2022 and 2024.

(Quashing of Criminal Proceedings (Cheating & Criminal Breach of Trust)

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sections 406, 420, 120B - The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 - This appeal challenged a High Court order refusing to quash criminal proceedings against the appellant under Sections 406/420/120B IPC. The case originated from a partnership where the appellant contributed his land. A supplementary agreement stipulated the land's reversion to him after a lease expired. After the partnership's dissolution, the appellant sold the property.

Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 – Section 38; Food Safety and Standards Rules, 2011 – Rule 2.1.3(4)(i) – This case involves an appeal against an order directing the de-sealing of a petty shop that was sealed by the Designated Officer, Tamil Nadu Food Safety and Drug Administration Department, Sivagangai District, for allegedly selling banned tobacco products. The shopkeeper was also fined Rs. 25,000. The initial action was taken after the Inspector of Police registered a crime under Section 24(1) of the Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003.

Income Tax Act, 1961 – Section 127, 143(2), 143(3), 144, 153A, 153C, 154 and 246A
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65A and 65B
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 63

The revenue filed writ appeals challenging the order of the Single Judge, who allowed writ petitions filed by the assessees, M/s.Vetrivel Minerals and M/s.Vijay Cements, setting aside assessment orders passed under Section 143(3)/144 r/w 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Single Judge quashed the assessment orders primarily citing violations of natural justice, including non-furnishing of panchnamas, reliance on statements without cross-examination, and violation of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 regarding electronic records.

The division bench acknowledged arguments from both sides but emphasized the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act, namely an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), referring to the Supreme Court’s view in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Chhabil Dass Agarwal.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 2(k) and Section 2(ra) read with Schedule V: Engaging contract workers for perennial work with ultimate control and supervision by the principal employer constitutes an unfair labor practice. The practice of using contractors as a mere facade to deny workers the benefits of regular employment is illegal.

Contract Labor – Sham and Nominal Arrangement: An arrangement where the principal employer (school management) retains effective control over the workers’ duties, working hours, and economic conditions, and where the contractors are merely used to route payments and maintain records, can be deemed a “sham and nominal” contract.

Employer-Employee Relationship: The true nature of an employer-employee relationship is determined by the substance of the arrangement, not the form.