#HC Archives - Prime Legal

26 Apr

“Karnataka High Court Overturns Labour Court Relief, Rules Manageral or Supervisorial Role Not Classified as ‘Workmen’ Under ID Act”

Case Title: SMT. N. BHUVANESHWARI Versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PRIVATE LTD.,

Case No: 49982/2018

Decided on: 8th April, 2024

Facts of the case

In this case, there is a disagreement about whether Smt. Bhuvaneshwari, the applicant, meets the requirements to be considered a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the ID Act and, if so, whether M/s. Ambuthirtha Power Private Limited has good reason to fire her. She was declared a “workman” by the Labour Court, which also mandated that the management give her compensation of Rs. 5,00,000. The management countered that Bhuvaneshwari could not be categorized as a “workman” under the ID Act because her position as an Executive Secretary included managerial and supervisory responsibilities. Additionally, the management emphasized that Bhuvaneshwari’s expertise, duties, and pay were consistent with a managerial role rather than a secretarial one.

Appellant’s Contentions

According to the management, Smt. Bhuvaneshwari, the applicant, was handling administrative and supervisory responsibilities instead of clerical work as an Executive Secretary, as demonstrated by her experience, responsibilities, and pay. They contend that the Labour Court erred in granting her compensation and categorizing her as a “workman” in accordance with Section 2(s) of the ID Act without taking into account the factual evidence. Furthermore, as per the management’s assertion, Bhuvaneshwari failed to prove herself as a ‘workman’ under the ID Act, meaning she was not eligible for reinstatement or other benefits, and therefore, the Labour Court should not have decided the termination issue.

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent, requested compensation in lieu of reinstatement, back pay, and other benefits. In response, the management challenged the termination order and asked for a lump sum payment of Rs. 5,00,000 in order to avoid classifying Bhuvaneshwari as a “workman” under the ID Act. In case , the management’s attorney made several arguments.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The petitioner was mistakenly designated by the Labour Court under the ID Act as a “workman,” even though her job as an Executive Secretary involved administrative and supervisory responsibilities rather than secretarial work. Without taking into account the applicant’s work, which was more suited for a managerial role, the Court granted compensation. The management contended that the applicant’s duties and position were managerial, not clerical, and that the Court’s decision to grant the applicant Rs. 5,00,000 in compensation was unwarranted. This was made clear by the party-in-person.

“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 Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

26 Apr

“Karnataka High Court Overturns Labour Court Relief, Rules Manageral or Supervisorial Role Not Classified as ‘Workmen’ Under ID Act”

Prime Legal

Blog # Labour Court, #HC, #karnataka

Case Title: SMT. N. BHUVANESHWARI Versus THE MANAGEMENT OF M/S. AMBUTHIRTHA POWER PRIVATE LTD.,

Case No: 49982/2018

Decided on: 8th April, 2024

Facts of the case

Appellant’s Contentions

Respondent’s Contentions

Court Analysis and Judgement

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

26 Apr

Blacklisting Decision Over Hand Sanitiser Quality During COVID-19 Reversed, Asserts Due Process Must Be Followed: Karnataka HC

Prime Legal

Blog #covid, #HC, #karnataka

Case Title: M/S. SUJAL PHARMA versus KARNATAKA STATE MEDICAL SUPPLIES CORPORATION LIMITED

Case No: 20520 OF 2021

Decided on: 23rd April, 2024

Quorum: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

Facts of the case

In this case, a company was placed on a blacklist without being given a notice to explain why, which is against natural justice principles. The necessity of giving someone a fair chance to explain themselves before acting was stressed by the High Court. Because the petitioner was not notified, the High Court invalidated the blacklisting decision, emphasizing the importance of adhering to natural justice principles. The respondent’s order was overturned by the Court, which granted the writ petition and emphasized the significance of upholding natural justice principles . The Court underlined the right to be heard prior to taking any such action and emphasized that blacklisting without adhering to natural justice principles is unlawful .

Appellant’s Contentions

The appellant contended that the order blacklisting them lacked a prior notice, violating principles of natural justice. While there may not be a specific rule mandating notice before blacklisting, it is an implied principle of the rule of law to follow natural justice when an order has civil consequences. The appellant argued that blacklisting affects future business and should only occur after giving the affected party a chance to be heard and make representations against the order .

Respondent’s Contentions

The respondent emphasized the court’s discretion in helping those who are late, arguing that the delinquent employee should not be permitted to bring up old claims. Article 226 of the Constitution grants the court the competence to exercise its discretion in granting delays, even when they may result in the dismissal of petitions.

Court analysis and Judgement

The papers go over how important it is to adhere to natural justice principles, including the requirement that a show-cause notice be served prior to taking any action, such as blacklisting. The notice must clearly state the grounds for action and the proposed punishment or action, and it must offer the affected party a reasonable opportunity to defend themselves. The party awarding the contract has the authority to blacklist a contractor; but, actions such as blacklisting are susceptible to court scrutiny based on natural justice and proportionality considerations, necessitating a fair hearing for the party on the blacklist. If the court takes too long to act, it may decline to exercise its discretionary writ power; nonetheless, the court’s authority under Article 226 of the Constitution should be used wisely, taking into account all relevant factors, such as the nature of the disagreement and the reason for the hold-up.

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

24 Apr

If a party fails to comply with the deadline of the agreement it is not entitled to the extension of limitations – High court of MP

Prime Legal

Blog #agreement, #HC, #MadhyaPradeshHC

Case Title: RAMESH KUMAR MANSANI, ENGINEERS & CONTRACTORS Versus MADHYA PRADESH RURAL ROAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others

Case No: ARBITRATION REVISION No. 47 of 2022

Decided on:16th April, 2024

Quorum: HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHEEL NAGU & HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE VINAY SARAF

Facts of the case

The facts of the present case show that the termination occurred on June 25, 2004. While the petitioner filed a claim against termination on September 16, 2004, well past the 30-day window specified in condition 29 for bringing up a disagreement with the Authority’s Chief Executive Officer. As a result, the petitioner is not eligible to benefit from the extended three-year statute of limitations granted by Section 7-B (2-A) since they did not follow the schedule stipulated in clause 29 of the agreement.

Petitioner’s Contentions

The petitioner disputed the validity of an award made by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, claiming that the reference petition was rejected because it failed to comply with the agreement’s mandatory elements within the allotted time . The reference petition was dismissed by the Tribunal after it was determined that the petitioner had not used the internal remedy within the allotted time . The argument that Clause 29’s time limit is not required was denied, highlighting the significance of timely submissions to avoid evidence loss . The petitioner was not entitled to the extended three-year statute of limitations since they did not follow the deadline stipulated in Clause 29 of the agreement . The Tribunal denied the revision petition after finding no anomalies in the award.

Respondent’s Contentions

Rejecting the idea that the time restriction in Clause 29 is not required, the respondent contended that timely claims are essential to prevent loss of evidence . They stressed that in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, a reference petition must first be filed with the authority in accordance with the conditions of the work contract . Furthermore, the respondent argued that the contractor was still required to adhere to the administrative authority’s timeframe in accordance with the internal remedy outlined in Clause 29 , despite the additional three-year limitation period.

Court Analysis and Judgement

The ruling underlined how crucial it is to abide by the conditions of the work contract before utilizing the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and how the disagreement must be submitted to the final authority first . It was emphasized that an aggrieved party may file a complaint with the Tribunal within three years after the date of the cause of action in situations where the works contract does not contain a dispute resolution clause such as Clause 29 . The ruling further said that a party may not be eligible to receive the extended three-year statute of limitations if they do not comply with the deadline stipulated in Clause 29 of the agreement .

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace

Click here to read the judgement

11 Jan

Journalist & YouTuber is directed to remove video on Ram Rahim Singh as it is prima facie defamatory: Delhi HC

Prime Legal

Blog #civilcase, #defamation, #delhihighcourt, #HC

Case Title: Saint Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan Shishayeva Gaddinashin Shah Satnam Singh Ji Maharaj v. Youtube LLC and Anr

Case No: CS (OS) No. 887 of 2023

Decided on: 30^th December, 2023

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN

Facts of the Case

Ram Rahim initiated the lawsuit against Singh, asserting that the narration and content of the video posted on journalist and YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh’s YouTube channel are inherently misleading and defamatory. Ram Rahim expressed concern that the video was uploaded with the explicit intention of subjecting him to a media trial, aiming to declare him guilty in the public eye even before his appeals are heard and determined by the competent court.

Senior Advocate Mohit Mathur, representing Ram Rahim Singh, argued that the video, accessible worldwide to devotees, poses a threat to his right to a fair trial. He also contended that the timing of the video’s release is suspicious, coinciding with the imminent hearing of Singh’s appeal against his conviction.

Contrarily, the legal representative for Shyam Meera Singh asserted that the entire video either cites material from the trial court’s judgment or presents content from the book authored by Anurag Tripathi.

Issue

Whether the content of the video posted on journalist and YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh’s YouTube channel seems to be prima facie defamatory vis-à-vis the plaintiff?

Court’s analysis and decision

The Delhi High Court has instructed journalist and YouTuber Shyam Meera Singh to remove a video he created about Dera Saccha Sauda Chief Ram Rahim Singh from all social media platforms. Justice Jasmeet Singh stated that the video appears to be defamatory towards the plaintiff (Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh) based on prima facie evidence. Nevertheless, the court has allowed the journalist the freedom to upload a new video, provided it includes a disclaimer acknowledging that its content is sourced from the trial court judgment on Rahim’s conviction and the book titled “Dera Sacha Sauda and Gurmeet Ram Rahim” by Anurag Tripathi.

Within a 24-hour timeframe, the court mandated Singh to take down the video from all social media platforms. Justice Singh issued this directive while adjudicating an application for an interim injunction in the defamation lawsuit initiated by Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh. The court observed that the video incorporated content derived from the trial court’s judgment and featured excerpts from the book. Nonetheless, it was emphasized that the video lacked a disclaimer.

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement