31 July 2024

1. Complaint U/s.29 of Industrial Dispute Act Must Contain Specific Pleadings Regarding Breach: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 observing that the complaint did not contain specific pleading regarding breach of settlement or award binding on the accused employers.

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside order of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the appellants’ petition under section 482 of CrPC to quash a complaint alleging violation of an agreement under the ID Act.

The complaint was filed under section 29 of the ID Act, which pertains to penalties for breaches of settlements or awards, alleging non-payment of dues by the employer. The complainant also accused the appellants of violating the provisions of section 9A of the ID Act, which requires employers to provide notice before changing the service conditions of workmen.

The complaint was sanctioned by an order passed by the deputy labor commissioner, who conducted an inquiry and found that the company had failed to give the necessary notice, thus violating section 9A.

The High Court while refusing to quash the complaint had noted that the employers were adamant and refused to pay the complainant his dues beyond his salary amounting to approximately rs. 8,80,000. This order was challenged in the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings the counsel for the appellants denied the existence of any settlement. He noted that the complaint and the sanction order did not refer to any specific settlement or award.

The court then asked about the definition of a settlement under section 2(p) of the ID Act, which includes an agreement signed by both parties during conciliation proceedings.

Decision of the CourtThe

court emphasized that a valid complaint under section 29 requires specific averments about the breach of a settlement or award, neither of which was present in the complaint.

The Supreme Court highlighted several deficiencies-

1. The complaint did not reference any settlement or award as defined under the ID Act.

2. The sanction order issued under section 34 of the ID Act only mentioned a violation of section 9A not section 29.

3. The statements recorded under section 200 (of the complainant) and section 202 (of a witness) of CrPC did not substantiate the alleged breach of any settlement or award.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, quashed the proceedings initiated under the complainant and the summoning order issued by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar. However, the court clarified that this decision does not preclude the second respondent from pursuing any other remedies available under the law.

Case- Yugal Sikri and Ors. vs. State of UP and Anr.

2. Can’t Rule On Challenge to Surrogacy Age Limit Without Reference to Circumstances of Each Petitioner, Says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court while hearing a batch of pleas challenging provisions of the surrogacy(regulation) Act, 2021 and the surrogacy(regulation) rules, 2022 made it clear that it will not strike down or interfere with anything without recourse to the facts of each case.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh started hearing a plea from one woman, aged 52 years old, who had no child from the second marriage.

During the Hearing Justice Nagarathna expressed her concerns that these cases will have to be seen depending on facts of each case.

Justice Nagarathna also said that if the petitioner could not have conceived in the usual way as she was not menstruating, it cannot be said that “even if I am 60 or 70 one fine day, I will decide to have surrogacy.”

The court made it clear that it cannot strike down rules in a vacuum and ordered the parties to prepare a factual background chart for each of the petitioners.

Case- Arun Muthuvel vs. Union of India

3. Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Review of EVM-VVPAT Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed a plea seeking review of the judgment in the EVM-VVPAT case, vide which prayer for 100% cross-verification of EVM data with voter verified paper audit trail (VVPAT) records was denied.

A bench of Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta passed the order on finding no ground to interfere with the judgment is Stated:

We have carefully perused the review petition, as also the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion no case for review of the judgment is made out. The review petition is accordingly dismissed.

It may be recalled that a batch of petitions were filed by NGO-Association for democratic reforms, Abhay Bhakchand Chhajed and Arun Kumar Aggarawal, praying that instead of the prevalent procedure, where the election commission cross-verified EVM votes with VVPATs be verified. They further sought measures to ensure that a vote is recorded as cast and counted as recorded.

The ECI opposed the pleas saying that it was another attempt to cast doubt over the functioning of EVMs and VVPATs on vague and baseless grounds. In addition it was argues the counting all VVPAT paper slips manually, as suggested would not only be labor and time-intensive, but also be prone to ‘human error’ and mischief. It was further ECI’s case that EVMs are non-tamperable and voters have no such fundamental right as claimed by the petitioners.

After a prolonged hearing the bench of Justices Khanna and Datta delivered two separate concurring judgments in the matter, while issuing two directions relating to sealing of symbol loading units and verification of 5% burnt memory microcontrollers per assembly constituency or assembly segment of the Parliamentary constituency.

Seeking review of the said judgment, petitioner- Arun Kumar Agarwal filed the present petition, claiming that there were errors apparent in it.

It is nor correct to state that the result will be unreasonably delayed, or the manpower required will be the double of that already deployed existing CCTV surveillance of counting halls would ensure that manipulation and mischief does not occur in VVPAT slip counting, the review petition stated.

Case- Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. Election Commission of India