LawforAll

▼
Wednesday, January 20, 2016

whether the respondents-workmen are entitled to the back wages till the beginning of January, 1995 or till January, 1999.= the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. The appellate bench ought to have noticed that the statement of MW-3 is itself part of the evidence before the Labour Court. Be that as it may, in an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same. Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief. When the matter came up before this Court on 08.07.2013, the Court directed the appellant to file an affidavit indicating the actual year of closure of the industry so as to determine the question as to from what date retrenchment compensation should be paid to the workmen. Accordingly, affidavit dated 11.07.2013 was filed wherein it is clearly stated that the industry became non-functional by the beginning of January, 1995 and remained defunct thereafter. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-workmen also, there is nothing to establish that the industry was functioning thereafter. Hence, the order for payment of back wages beyond January, 1995 is vacated, and in all the other aspects, the order passed by the Division Bench is retained. In case, the workmen have not been paid the benefits which they are entitled to, the same shall be paid within a period of three months from today, failing which, the respondent-workmen shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum.

›
                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                        CIVIL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION                          ...

The High Court has rightly held that the renewal was in pursuance of the Government Order dated 26th February, 2013 which itself was in conflict with the order of the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra (supra) as reiterated in Sukhan Singh (supra). In view of order of the High Court dated 29th January, 2013 in Nar Narain Mishra (supra) all pending applications as on 31st May, 2012 stood rejected. In the case of the appellant, environmental clearance was granted on 21st September, 2012 and renewal was granted on 27th April, 2013. Orders of the High Court in Nar Narain Mishra and Sukhan Singh (supra) which are not under challenge clearly debarred the grant of lease under Chapter II after 31st May, 2012. This aspect has been dealt with in greater detail in Civil Appeal Nos.4845-4846 of 2015 titled Sulekhan Singh & Co. versus State of U.P. with which the present appeal was tagged, which is being separately decided today. Stand of the State, to the contrary, can also not be appreciated. Reference may be made to the finding recorded by the High Court in the impugned order: “A Division Bench in the case of Nar Narain Mishra v. State of U.P. and others reported in  2013 (2) ADJ 166, after interpreting the Government Order dated 31.5.2012 recorded as principle of law, that once notification has been published by the State Government in exercise of powers under Rule 23 of the Rules 1963, for vacant areas being available for grant of leases under Chapter IV of Rules, 1963, no grant/renewal on the pending applications can be made, after 31.5.2012. The State was not satisfied with the legal position so explained. It came out with a Government Order dated 26.2.2013, which provided that pending applications, for renewal/grant in respect of which orders of approval have already been made by the State Government or by the competent authority shall not be controlled by the judgment in the case of Nar Narain Mishra (Supra) such cases may be processed further. This Government Order dated 26.2.2013 came up for consideration before another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sukkhan Singh v. State of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (11) ADJ 89. The Division Bench has held that the Government Order dated 26.2.2013 cannot deviate from the legal position, as has been explained in the case of Nar Narain Mishra (Supra). It, therefore, follows that no application which was pending on 31.5.2012 can be proceeded with for grant/renewal of lease under Chapter II/VI of the Minor Minerals Concession Rules, 1963 after 31.5.2012. The grant, if any, after 31.5.2012 can only be made under Chapter IV of the Rules of 1963 Le. by e-auction or tendering. The State and its Officers have shown little or no respect to the orders of this Court. xxx Prima facie, we find no substance in the contention raised. In our opinion, once a notification dated 31.5.2012 had been issued declaring that all the vacant areas are available for grant of lease only under Chapter IV, no lease subsequent thereto under Chapter VI could be executed. The area remains vacant till the execution of the lease deed. The Execution of the lease in the facts of the case has taken place after 31.5.2012. Mere grant/approval in our opinion will not alter the legal position.

›
                                 REPORTABLE                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLAT...
Saturday, January 16, 2016

In order to claim benefit of the policy, it was obligatory upon the respondent to have removed the insured items from display window everyday after business hours and keep them inside safe during night hours till opening of the shop next day. Like wise all insured items in side the shop should also have been kept in side the safe everyday after business hours till opening of the shop next day. It was, however, not done by the respondent. 50) A contract of insurance is one of the species of commercial transaction between the insurer and insured. It is for the parties (insurer/insured) to decide as to what type of insurance they intend to do to secure safety of the goods and how much premium the insured wish to pay to secure insurance of their goods as provided in the tariff. If the insured pays additional premium to the insurer to secure more safety and coverage of their insured goods, it is permissible for them to do so. In this case, the respondent did not pay any additional premium to get the coverage of even two instances mentioned above to avoid rigour of note of clauses 4, 5 and clause 12. 51) In view of foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Commission. The appeal filed by the insurance company, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 2140 of 2007, therefore, deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence thereof, the complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant out of which this appeal arises is dismissed. No costs. Civil Appeal No. 5141 of 2007

›
                                                                  Reportable                         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA       ...