0

Karnataka HC upholds that accidental fall from train entitles to receive compensation from the railway tribunals even if that falls within the ambit of “self-infliction”‘.

Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Rojamani (since deceased represented by LRs) and Union Bank of India.

Case no: M.F.A. NO.3651/2016 (RCT)

Dated on: 19thApril, 2024

Quorum: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.P. Sandesh

Facts of the case:

On 22.02.14 the deceased Jayamma along with her sister went to Channapatna railway station and purchased the railway ticket to go to Ashokapuram Mysore. Both the of them had to board the Tuticorin express and realised that the said train would not go to Ashokapuram they alighted from the train while alighting the deceased lost her balance and sustained injuries resulting in her death. The respondent railway disputed the claim and denied their liability by stating that the death was not due to accidental fall, within the Section 123 of the railway Act alighting from train which amounts to self-inflicted injuries by virtue of provision of sect124 of railway act. The railway tribunal while affirming that deceased was a bona-fide passenger but denied the compensation on the grounds that the fall of deceased was due to her own voluntary act.

Contentions of the appellant:

Tribunal failed to appreciate that the deceased was an aged person and not a daily commuter. So, when she realized that she boarded the wrong train she alighted suddenly and lost her balance resulting to fatal injuries. In Jameela V. UOI, the counsel for the appellant held that the act amount to mere negligence and not criminal negligence. The counsel relied on the judgement of the SC of Rina Devi V. UOI , reported in 2018 AIR (SC) 2362 that death or injury in course of boarding or deboarding the train will be an untoward incident. Victim will be entitled to compensation and wont fall under section124A merely on plea of negligence as contributory factor. In, Anuradha V. UOI held that “Even the deceased boarded in a wrong train having a valid journey ticket and died while alighting the train that does not mean that he was not a bona fide passenger and on that ground claim cannot be rejected”.

Contentions of the respondent:

The counsel of respondents contended that it’s a clear case of attempt to deboard from running train when it was noticed that they boarded the wrong train for which they relied on Kerala court decision on Joseph P.T. V. UOI AIR 2014, Kerala. Held that passenger moving from a boarded train off side is amounting to carelessness and would be self-inflicting and cannot claim compensation.

Legal provisions:

Section 16 of Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987- A person seeking any relief in respect of the matters referred to in sub-section (1) 8 [or sub-section (1A)] of section 13 may make an application to the Claims Tribunal.

Section 124A of Indian Railway Act, 1989- Section 124A of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 pertains to compensation for untoward incidents.

Issue:

Whether the fall amounts to accidental fall within the purview of section of 123 of the Indian Railways Act?

Court analysis and judgement:

Its clear that from section 124 of the act has no compensation if passenger dies or suffers from injuries due to suicide, self- inflicted harm or due to insanity. The court considered that principles laid down in Jameela V UOI, that the deceased dead is not criminal and railway cannot claim compensation. The court has relied on apex court on UOI V. Prabhakaran held that strict liability can hold railways for compensation due to his own fault. The court goes ahead and states that strict liability is also to be considered. Principles laid down in Rine devi and Anuradha’s case is also applicable to the present case. In view of the aforesaid appeal the miscellaneous appeal was allowed and the order of railway tribunal is set aside by compensating an amount of 4,00,000 with 7% interest from date of filing. The tribunal committed in envoking section 124 of Indian Railways Act by concluding that it’s a self -inflicted injury and reasoning of tribunal is erroreneous and judgements referred above by appellants comes to their aid. The court says that if the compensation is less than 8,00,000 it will be compensated compeletly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a national award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement reviewed by- Parvathy P.V

Click here to read the judgement

 

0

“Withholding wages for absurd reasons is violative of fundamental rights of the workers- Bombay High Court”

Blog , , , , , ,

Case title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation v. Shri. Dattatraya Ganpat Bankhele 

Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 2574 OF 2017 

Dated: April 18, 2024 

Quorum: Justice Sandeep V Marne 

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The facts of the case revolve around the petition against the judgement and order dated February 12, 2016, issued by the Member, Industrial Court, Pune, had been abandoned by Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC).  

The labour court’s judgement and order from March 25, 2014, which increased the amount of back pay from 25% to 100%, are accepted, and the respondent-employee is granted permission. As a result, the Industrial Court has ordered that 100% of back pay be paid from April 29, 1995, to the day of superannuation or reinstatement, whichever comes first.  

Since November 23, 1978, Mr. Dattatraya Ganpat, the respondent, has worked for MSRTC as a driver. He was sent to the Baramati Depot on January 17, 1991, from the Rajgurunagar Depot, but he failed to report for work there. 

The allegations of an unapproved leave of absence from work beginning on January 17, 1991, were made in a memo of chargesheet filed on April 5, 1991. On January 18, 1991, another chargesheet was released, this one accusing the respondent of invading the MSRTC land at Manchar. 

The Industrial Court, Pune, issued a judgement and order on February 12, 2016, in Revision (ULP) No.60/2014. MSRTC has since abandoned the current appeal objecting to this ruling. The Industrial Court’s decision to reject Revision Application (ULP) No. 28/2014 was not contested by MSRTC, as was previously noted. As a result, the Industrial Court’s decision to raise the backpay amount from 25% to 100% is the sole object of contention in this case. 

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER: 

The petitioner’s attorney argues that the Industrial Court erred in giving the Respondent 100% back pay even though it was acknowledged that the employee had been absent from work for a considerable amount of time. 

That the Respondent disregarded the transfer order that was issued on January 17, 1991, and that as a result, the Respondent neglected to report for duty at Baramati Depot both during the investigation and until the chargesheet was issued. He was rightfully fired from his job due to an excessively lengthy absence, and the Industrial Court erred in giving him a 100% back pay award. 

It was further argued that the Industrial Court’s justifications for accepting the Respondent’s Revision are illogical. that since MSRTC is a non-profit organisation, it cannot be held accountable for paying back wages for the lengthy period of time between 29 April 1995 and 30 June 2008, the day the respondent reached superannuation. The attorneys appealed for the Industrial Court’s order to be overturned.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT: 

The petition would be opposed by the knowledgeable attorney representing the Respondent, who would stand by the Industrial Court’s decision and order in the Revision. He would argue that the Petitioner has not even provided a copy of the Order and Judgement from the Revision that was passed on February 12, 2016. He would argue that since the Revision’s rejection is not being contested, the reinstatement directive is not being contested in the current case.  

The attorney claims that since the reinstatement directive is uncontested, the award of 100% back pay following the termination order’s ruling of unlawfulness cannot be contested. The attorney will argue that MSRTC has victimised the respondent. Because in order to build the bus stand in Mansar, the Respondent’s ancestral land had to be acquired. that the disagreement between MSRTC and the respondent’s father regarding the occupation of a shed next to the bus station was the true reason for the victimisation of the respondent. 

Regarding that shed, the father of the respondent initiated a lawsuit against MSRTC and was successful in it. Due to the disagreement, the Respondent suffered from unlawful harassment. Medical certificates have been produced as a proper explanation for the respondent’s absence. The respondent’s spouse had been dealing with a kidney issue since 1985 and was receiving ongoing therapy. a procedure that she had on November 14, 1994. The Respondent’s absence has been properly justified in these circumstances.  

Besides, the absence wasn’t lengthy enough to result in the harsh consequence of being fired from the company. It would be the respondents’ prayer that the petition would be denied.  

 

COURT’S ANANLYSIS AND JUDGMENT: 

The court determined that the respondent was moved from Rajgurunagar Depot to Baramati Depot by an order dated January 17, 1991, and was freed on the same day in the MSRTC matter. As a result, MSRTC charged Respondent with violating the transfer order by failing to report for duty at Baramati.  

It was acknowledged that the Respondent did not report for duty until the chargesheet was issued on April 5, 1991. It seems that the Respondent neglected to report for duty for the duration of the disciplinary proceedings as well.  

The court determined that this was clear from the Respondent’s allegations in his complaint, which stated that the Enquiry Offer did not recognise the absence until September 1993. Thus, it can be seen that the respondent was consistently missing from January 17, 191, to September 1993.  

Because of this, the absence of more than two and a half years cannot be dismissed as insignificant or coincidental. Due to MSRTC’s inability to produce its Offer/Witness for cross-examination, the Labour Court has overturned the dismissal penalty and ordered reinstatement. Because of this, the Labour Court has decided to overturn the dismissal penalty due to the actions of the implicated MSRTC. 

The court observed that given the length of time that elapsed between 25 April 1995 and 30 June 2008 and the Respondent’s extended leave of absence from the workforce, it would be reasonable under the particular facts and circumstances of the case to pay 50% back wages. For the purposes of retirement benefits, however, the interim time will be considered as duty.  

The judgement and order dated 25 March 2014 by the Labour Court of Pune was modified by this court to the extent that the Petitioner shall pay the Respondent 50% of the back wages from the date of termination until the date of reinstatement or the date of superannuation, whichever is earlier. The judgement and order dated 12 February 2016 by the Industrial Court of Pune in the Revision is set aside.  

In the end, the court declared that the Writ Petition is partially accepted with the aforementioned directives. A portion of the rule is rendered absolute. 

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

 

Click to view judgment.

 

0

Interim relief cannot be seeked for an International Arbitration Case: SC

Blog , , , , ,

Case title: Ilwohnibrand Co. Ltd. V. Mahakali Food Pvt.Ltd and Ors.

Case no: Arbitration case No.of 2023

Dated on: 3rd April, 2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadikhari  and Hon’ble Shri Justice Devnarayan Mishra

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner had business relationship with the respondent no.1 to 3. A sale contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents on 18.09.2019 for supply of 2014 MT ‘ Full-Fat Soya Grits’. However, respondents committed a breach of contract wherein there was neither the quantity supplied according to the contract nor the quality. Even for the sub-standard material supplied by the respondent, the authorities conducted raid and sealed the premises of the petitioner. Petitioner notified the respondent about the breach. Respondent though admitted the supply of substandard quality under the contract and promised to compensate the petitioner but no such compensation was ever paid. Another contract was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent wherein respondent insisted for enhanced rate and issued proforma invoice and payment was duly made by the petitioner. However, respondent again committed breach of contract by not supplying the material as per the timeline mandated in the contract and in fact only supplied goods worth $1,42,500 despite receiving advance payment of $375,000 and thereafter respondent did not make any supply and stopped answering the calls. Again, with malicious intent, respondents communicated that it shall pay the balance amount to the petitioner, but no heed has been paid. Efforts to resolve the dispute failed since the respondent did not want to and stopped making communication with the petitioner. Since, the contract between parties provides for resolution of dispute by way of arbitration to be conducted in India, the petitioner filed petition under the Section 9 (1)(i) of the Conciliation Act of 1996 before the Commercial Court which was dismissed for want of jurisdiction with liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. Hence, the present petition had been filed. Shri Aniket Naik, appointed as Amicus Curiae submitted that petitioner has already approached the Commercial Court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 seeking interim protection. However, learned Commercial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner holding the same as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction as the matter pertains to international commercial arbitration and not domestic arbitration.

Contentions of the Appellant:

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that evidence of breach committed by the respondent are available and, therefore, an order of interim protection securing the amount involved in the arbitration is required to be passed since despite sending several reminders, respondent kept making false promises, but neither exported the balance shipment nor compensate for the delivery of sub-standard quality of products thereby putting the petitioner to suffer irreparable loss. In terms of section 2(e) and (f) of the act of 1996, the petition can by heard by this court being the jurisdictional court and the present arbitration being an international commercial arbitration. In an identical situation the apex court , in S.D. Containers V. Mold Tek Packaging Ltd., had remanded the case to the court to be tried under its original civil jurisdiction where the court held that while invoking its powers under clause (9) of the letter patent read with rule 1(8) of chapter IV of the rules of the exercise its extra ordinary civil jurisdiction. Hence, the petition which is made under Section9 of the Act 1996 is exclusively triable by this court, therefore, the present petition to be deleted from the category of  the arbitration case and be listed under  the relevant category before appropriate single bench.

Contentions of the Amicus Curiae:

Petitioner has already approached the commercial court under Section 9 of the Act of 1996 seeking interim protection. But the court dismissed saying that the same is not maintainable as it pertains to international arbitration. Thereafter,

Petitioner has preferred the present application under section 9 (2)(1)(f) of the act of 1996 which is not maintainable in the view the fact that as per the Chapter 2 Rule 3 of Rules, 2008 an application under section 11 of the act of 1996 shall be registered as arbitration case which deals with the appointment of the arbitrator.  Court to sub-rule 8 Rule 10 Chapter 2, of the High Court rules 2008 which says that these cases can be considered as a  Miscellaneous Civil Case and also to be registered as a Miscellaneous Civil Case if they do not fall under the ambit of the first seven clauses which is not interlocutory to any proceedings. It is submitted that petitioner can very well file Miscellaneous Civil Case in terms of sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of Rules of 2008, which can be entertained and appropriate orders can be passed.

Legal Provisions:

Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act-  Seeking interim reliefs before, or during the arbitral proceedings, or at any time after the passing of the award but before it is enforced.

Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act- Appointment of the arbitrator.

Sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh rules of 2008- Filing miscellaneous civil cases.

Issues:

Whether the petitioner is entitled to seek interim measure of protection and securing the amount involved in the arbitration   under section 9 of Arbitration act 1996 and section 10 of the commercial courts act,2015?

Courts Judgement and Analysis:-

The present petition itself is not maintainable on twin grounds:

(i) Firstly , the petitioner resorting to the liberty granted by the Commercial Court has filed present petition under Section 9 r/W Section 2(1)(f) of the Act of 1996 seeking interim protection before this Court which cannot be entertained by this Court.

(ii) Secondly, as rightly pointed out by Amicus Curiae, in terms of Chapter 2 Rule 3 of the Rules of 2008, an application Section 11 of the Act of 1996 shall be registered as an arbitration case which deals with appointment of Arbitrator which is not the case herein.

In the considered opinion of this Court, looking to the nature of case and the relief as sought for by the petitioner, the same does not fall within the category of an Arbitration Case. Rather the same ought to have been filed as a Miscellaneous Civil case falling within the ambit and scope of any other application of civil nature, not falling under any of the specified categories in terms of sub-rule 8 of Rule 10 of Chapter 2 of Rules of 2008. In view of the above   discussion, its hereby rejected. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file miscellaneous civil case in terms of sub-rule 8 of Rules of 2008.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”.

Judgement Reviewed By- Parvathy P.V.

Click here to read more

0

A notice to terminate the contract cannot be issued unilaterally by one party without the adjudication of the Court: Jharkhand High Court

Blog , , , , , , , , ,

Case title – M/s Aditya and Rashmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. VS The State of Jharkhand & Ors

Case no. – W.P. (C) No. 2924 of 2014

Decision on – February 27, 2024

Quoram – Justice Rongon Mukhopadhyay & Justice Deepak Roshan

Facts of the case

The Petitioner, M/s Aditya and Rashmi Construction Pvt. Ltd, a Private Limited Company, participated in a tender process floated by the respondent-authorities for construction of a High-Level Bridge over Mayurkola River at 17 Km. The petitioner being the successful bidder was awarded the contract of Rs.3,00,36,287/- and the time for completion was 13 months. The Parties entered into an agreement for the same.

The Petitioner’s work got delayed due to non-acquisition of land and non-payment of compensation by the respondents. Despite, several representations to the authorities to remove such hindrances and facilitate the construction work, there was no action taken by the respondents.

Although an extension of time was granted to the Petitioner upon its application, the same was contradicted by serving a show cause notice on the potential termination of the contract and blacklisting. The Petitioner responded to the notice, but however, the contract was terminated. Further, the authorities issued an order to recover an amount of Rs. 1,04,33,493/- on the ground of fundamental breach, negligence and slow progress in the work allotted to the petitioner. Subsequently, a writ petition was filed by the Petitioner before the High Court.

Submission on behalf of the Petitioner

The Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submitted that termination of the contract issued by the respondent is in gross violation of the principle of natural justice. Moreover, though a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, no personal hearing was given prior to such termination.

He further, submitted that the delay in the construction work is due to the lethargic attitude of the respondents in acquiring the land and thus, contended that the petitioner was not at any default.

The Counsel submitted that the respondent-authorities have unilaterally terminated the contract and issued a certificate case for realization of the damages. Further, there was also no adjudication on this matter to fix the quantum of damages.

Submission on behalf of the Respondent

The Counsel highlighted clause 49 of the SBD Agreement, which outlines that the obligation of the contractor to pay liquidated damages to the employer on account of failure of completion of the work allotted within the intended completion or on account of the fundamental breach of the contract by the contractor.

The Counsel argued that attributing project failure solely to the respondent authorities, emphasizing that the lack of land acquisition during a specific period cannot solely be deemed to be the fault of the respondent.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court noted that the construction of Bridge was not possible without the complete acquisition of the land. The Court observed that the show cause notice to terminate the contract was issued immediately after the authorities granted a time extension for the Construction. Moreover, the authorities proceeded without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before the termination.

The Court asserted that the mere acquisition of the land without extending the compensation to the land holders would automatically lead to disruption in the construction process.

The Court after the perusal of the facts pointed to arbitrary action by the authorities in terminating the contract wand imposing Rs. 1,04,33,493/- as liquidated damages instead of closing the contract or refunding of the security deposit.

The Court relied upon the decisions in State of Karnataka vs Shree Rameshwara Rice Mills, J.G. Engineers Private Limited vs Union of India and Another, and Inox Air Products Limited vs Steel Authority of India Limited, which emphasized that whether either party breached the contract terms must be adjudicated by a Court or Tribunal, and cannot be unilaterally decided by one party.

The Court held that despite repeated representations by the petitioner the respondent-authorities failed to provide any response in that regard. Therefore, the Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order terminating the contract and demanding the liquidated damages.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K

Click here to view the Judgement

0

Additional compensation would not be granted in cases where the limitation period has barred and when an alternative remedy is available – Bombay HC

Blog , , ,

TITLE : Sardar v The state of Maharashtra

CORAM : Hon’ble Justice Ravindra v Ghuge

DATE :  15th  January 2024

CITATION : WP No. 14842 Of 2023

FACTS

The petition was filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The petitioner’s case was that his land was acquired by the government for public project under Section 4 of the Land acquisition Act,1894. A compensation of Rs. 1,26,110 was granted and it did not consider the value of 40 teak trees, 25 mango trees, 35 berry trees and 2 gooseberry trees and a well attached to the land. The petitioner has asked for an enhancement of compensation. It was contended that the petitioner had not used alternative remedies under Section18 of the Act. The petitioners father has received the compensation of Rs. 1,45, 566 without any protest.

LAWS INVOLVED

As per Section 18 of the Act, any person who has not accepted the compensation to make an application to the collector within a period of 6 weeks from the date of the award, if the interested person represented before the collector was present of in any other cases, within 6 months of the award.

ISSUES

Whether the petitioner entitled to additional compensation?

JUDGEMENT

The court held that the petitioner’s father has already received the compensation without any protest. The court found that no reference was made under Section 18 of the Act. The court in furtherance held that the petitioner has approached this court after 18 years withtout availaing alternative remedy available in law.

The writ was found to be without any merits and was subsequently dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Sanjana Ravichandran

Click here to view judgement

1 2 3 4