Total Pageviews

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Jai Dev Shastri v. State of Haryana
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2143
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal
Criminal Revision No. 2511 of 2008
Jai Dev Shastri
v.
State of Haryana
{Decided on 17/07/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, Advocate.
For Complainant: Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG Haryana with Mr. PR Yadav, Advocate.
Schedule Caste--Dishonour--Accused working as teacher in government school--Complainant schedule caste sweeper, entered his room and started sweeping the room--Accused abused her to why she was seeping while he was in room--He pushed her and gave beating with broom stick--No offence under Section 3(1)(xi) made out as : -
(1) There was no allegation regarding remarks with reference to caste of complainant.
(2) There was no allegation that accused intended to dishonour the complainant or to outrage her modesty.
(3) Insult or humiliation of a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is covered by clause (x) of section 3(1) of the Act. Clause (xi) of section 3(1) of the Act refers to only a woman (and not a male) belonging to a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The clause refers to intent of the accused to dishonour or outrage the modesty of a woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe--Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-- Section 3(1) (xi) (Para 9)
----------------
M/S Adhunik Metaliks Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) 2146
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh
Civil Writ Petition No.10546 of 2009
M/S Adhunik Metaliks Ltd.
v.
Union of India & Ors.
{Decided on 31/07/2009}
For the Petitioner: Mr. V.K.Jain, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate.
For the Petitioner in CWP No. 10547 of 2009: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate, with Mrs. Abha Rathor,
Advocate.
Railways Law--Re-weighment--Request for re-weighment of consignment--Refusal of--Penalty imposed on overweight of consignment on basis of re-weighment en-route--Weighment at forwarding station under supervision of railway staff not denied--No reason given to reject request of petitioner--Denial of such right to petitioner who had booked full train not justified simply on the ground that Railway weighbridge is not available at station of destination especially when consignee is ready to make payment of costs of re-weighment and other permissible charges--Respondent directed to reweigh consignments at expense paid by petitioner--Railways Act, 1989, Sections 65, 78 and 79. (Paras 27 & 31)
----------------
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Bachan Singh
2009(3) LAW HERALD (P&H) (SC) 2153
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma
Civil Appeal No. 4903 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.23708 of 2005)
Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Others
v.
Bachan Singh
{Decided on 30/07/2009}
(A) Service and Labour Law--Employees Provident Fund Scheme (EPF Scheme)--Pension--Option--Respondent always desirous and willing to opt for the pension scheme by counting the work-charge service and he was prepared to refund the amount of employer's share with interest under the EPF Scheme--Contention that respondent failed to exercise his option within the time prescribed--Appellants had failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing from the respondent--Respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants vide circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994--High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellants to permit the respondent to exercise his option in accordance with the circulars dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994--It would be totally unreasonable and irrational to deny the respondent the pensionary benefits under the scheme particularly when the appellants have failed to produce any record showing that the instructions dated 6.8.1993 and 9.8.1994 were actually got noted in writing by the respondent. In the absence of any such material it can well be inferred that the respondent had no knowledge about the options called by the appellants--View taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned judgment is indeed a rational, just and fair view--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 300-A. (Para 11, 12, 26 and 27)
(B) Service and Labour Law--Equality--Principle underlying the guarantee of Article 14 of the Constitution is that all persons similarly placed shall be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liabilities imposed. Equal laws would have to be applied to all in the same situation without any discrimination--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14. (Para 20)
(C) Service and Labour Law--Pension--Qualifying service--Period of service spent by an employee on work charge basis prior to his regularization, should be taken into consideration for determining his qualifying service--Constitution of India, 1950, Article 300-A. (Para 16)

--------------------