1. The Officer In Charge, Sub Regional Provident Fund Office v. M/s Godavari Garments Limited
The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 2 (f) - The definition of “employee” under Section 2(f) of the EPF Act is an inclusive definition, and is widely worded to include any person engaged either directly or indirectly in connection with the work of an establishment.
The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - the provisions under the EPF Act have to be interpreted in a manner which is beneficial to the workmen.
The Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 2 (f) - Merely because the workers were permitted to do the work off site, would not take away their status as employees of the Company.
Case Number : C.A. No. 5821 of 2019 24-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Brajesh Kumar
Respondent's Advocate : Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
Judgment By : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indu Malhotra
2. Vinod Bhaiyalal Jain v. Wadhwani Parmeshwari Cold Storage Private Limited Through Its Director
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 37 (1) (b) - When in the matter of arbitration the very basis is that the parties get the opportunity of nominating a judge of their choice in whom they have trust and faith unlike in a normal course of litigation where they do not have such choice.
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - When one is required to judge the case of another, justice should not only be done, but it should also seem to be done is the bottom line.
Case Number : C.A. No. 6960 of 2011 24-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Rameshwar Prasad Goyal
Respondent's Advocate : Anagha S. Desai
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna
3. West Bengal Central School Service Commission v. Abdul Halim
Constitution of India - Article 226 - The writ Court does not interfere, because a decision is not perfect.
The sweep of power under Article 226 may be wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could have ever arrived at it, the same is liable to be struck down by a writ Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported by the materials on record, the same may be regarded as perverse. The power of the Court to examine the reasonableness of an order of the authorities does not enable the Court to look into the sufficiency of the grounds in support of a decision to examine the merits of the decision, sitting as if in appeal over the decision. The test is not what the Court considers reasonable or unreasonable but a decision which the Court thinks that no reasonable person could have taken, which has led to manifest injustice. [Para 32]
Interpretation of Statues - If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court.
In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record. If the provision of a statutory rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari. [Para 30]
Constitution of India - Article 226 - The High Court in exercise of its power to issue writs, directions or orders to any person or authority to correct quasi-judicial or even administrative decisions for enforcement of a fundamental or legal right is obliged to prevent abuse of power and neglect of duty by public authorities.
It is well settled that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over an administrative decision. The Court might only examine the decision making process to ascertain whether there was such infirmity in the decision making process, which vitiates the decision and calls for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In any case, the High Court exercises its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to enforce a fundamental right or some other legal right or the performance of some legal duty. To pass orders in a writ petition, the High Court would necessarily have to address to itself the question of whether there has been breach of any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner, or whether there has been lapse in performance by the respondents of a legal duty. [Paras 27 - 29]
The West Bengal School Service Commission (Selection of Persons for Appointment to the Post of Teachers) Rules, 2007 - Rule 5 - Additional essential qualification of candidate.
Case Number : C.A. No. 5824 of 2019 24-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Dharitry Phookan
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Comments
Post a Comment