List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Srikant Upadhyay v. The State of Bihar has held that an accused would not be entitled to pre-arrest bail if the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation under Section 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is pending against him.

What was the Background of Srikant Upadhyay v. The State of Bihar Case?

• In this case, the present appeal before the Supreme Court is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna whereby and whereunder the application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant was dismissed.
• The application was dismissed on the ground that the non-bailable warrant and the proclamation was issued against the accused for defying the lawful orders of the Trial Court and attempting to delay the proceedings.
• The pre-arrest bail/anticipatory bail application was moved in connection with the case registered against him and co-accused under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
• The appeal was dismissed by the Court.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Bench Comprising of Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar observed that it is obvious that the position of law, which was being followed with alacrity, is that in cases where an accused against whom non-bailable warrant is pending and the process of proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of CrPC is issued, is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
• The Court relied on the judgment given in the case of Lavesh v. State of NCT of Delhi (2012), wherein it was held when a person against whom a warrant had been issued and is absconding or concealing himself in order to avoid execution of warrant and declared as a proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the CrPC, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.

What are the Relevant Legal Provisions Involved in it?

Section 82 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the proclamation for a person absconding. It states that—

(1) If any Court has reason to believe (whether after taking evidence or not) that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.

(2) The proclamation shall be published as follows: —

(i) (a) It shall be publicly read in some conspicuous place of the town or village in which such person ordinarily resides.

(b) It shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the house or homestead in which such person ordinarily resides or to some conspicuous place of such town or village.

(c) A copy thereof shall be affixed to some conspicuous part of the Court-house.

(ii) The Court may also, if it thinks fit, direct a copy of the proclamation to be published in a daily newspaper circulating in the place in which such person ordinarily resides.

(3) A statement in writing by the Court issuing the proclamation to the effect that the proclamation was duly published on a specified day, in the manner specified in clause (i) of sub-section (2), shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with, and that the proclamation was published on such day.

(4) Where a proclamation published under sub-section (1) is in respect of a person accused of an offence punishable under section 302, 304, 364, 367, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 402, 436, 449, 459 or 460 of the Indian Penal Code, and such person fails to appear at the specified place and time required by the proclamation, the Court may, after making such inquiry as it thinks fit, pronounce him a proclaimed offender and make a declaration to that effect.

(5) The provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) shall apply to a declaration made by the Court under sub-section (4) as they apply to the proclamation published under sub-section (1).

Section 83 of CrPC

• This Section deals with the attachment of property of person absconding. It states that—

(1) The Court issuing a proclamation under section 82 may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, at any time after the issue of the proclamation, order the attachment of any property, movable or immovable, or both, belonging to the proclaimed person.

Provided that where at the time of the issue of the proclamation the Court is satisfied, by affidavit or otherwise, that the person in relation to whom the proclamation is to be issued, —

(a) Is about to dispose of the whole or any part of his property, or

(b) Is about to remove the whole or any part of his property from the local jurisdiction of the Court, it may order the attachment simultaneously with the issue of the proclamation.

(2) Such order shall authorize the attachment of any property belonging to such person within the district in which it is made; and it shall authorize the attachment of any property belonging to such person without such district when endorsed by the District Magistrate within whose district such property is situate.

(3) If the property ordered to be attached is a debt or other movable property, the attachment under this section shall be made—

(a) By seizure; or

(b) By the appointment of a receiver; or

(c) By an order in writing prohibiting the delivery of such property to the proclaimed person or to anyone on his behalf; or

(d) By all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit.

(4) If the property ordered to be attached is immovable, the attachment under this section shall, in the case of land paying revenue to the State Government, be made through the Collector of the district in which the land is situate, and in all other cases—

(a) By taking possession; or

(b) By the appointment of a receiver; or

(c) By an order in writing prohibiting the payment of rent on delivery of property to the proclaimed person or to any one on his behalf; or

(d) By all or any two of such methods, as the Court thinks fit.

(5) If the property ordered to be attached consists of live-stock or is of a perishable nature, the Court may, if it thinks it expedient, order immediate sale thereof, and in such case the proceeds of the sale shall abide by the order of the Court.

(6) The powers, duties and liabilities of a receiver appointed under this section shall be the same as those of a receiver appointed under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta dismissed an appeal preferred against the order of the Industrial Tribunal.

• The Supreme Court held this in the case of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union.

What was the Background of Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. v. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union Case?

• The case involves Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., tendering a contract for transporting crushed coal.
• The respondent-union advocated for workmen employed by the contractor, seeking their permanent status based on clauses from the National Coal Wage Agreement-IV.
• After conciliation, a settlement was reached, regularizing 19 workers.
• The dispute escalated when the remaining 13 workers sought regularization.
• The matter was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the 13 workers, considering their job nature as regular and perennial.
• The appellant challenged this in the Orissa High Court, which upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing evidence of the nature of work performed.
• Despite a review petition by the management, the High Court's decision was reaffirmed.
• The case involved legal arguments from both parties, with the court ultimately affirming the regularization of the 13 workers based on the nature of their work.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:
  • The appellant objected to the Tribunal entertaining the industrial dispute and passing the award, citing a settlement under certain sections of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  • However, the court found that despite the settlement involving some workers, the Tribunal was rightfully tasked with examining the entire reference and giving independent findings on the issue.
  • Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in giving its award.
• Validity of the Settlement:
  • The court examined the settlement reached in 1997, which addressed the regularization of 19 out of 32 workers.
  • It was found that the remaining workers stood on the same footing as the regularized employees and were wrongly not made part of the settlement.
  • The Tribunal concluded that these workers held the same status as the regularized employees.
• Nature of Work and Regularization:
  • The court observed that there was no substantial distinction between the workers who were regularized and those who were not.
  • The evidence presented showed that the denial of regularization for the remaining workers was unjustified.
• Backwages:
  • The court affirmed the entitlement of the workmen to backwages, starting from a specific date as observed by the Industrial Tribunal.
  • However, the court modified the calculation of backwages, confining it to be calculated from the decision of the Tribunal, considering the long-drawn litigation and public interest.
• Dismissal of Appeals:
  • Based on the above reasons, the court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant and directed that the concerned workmen shall be entitled to backwages. Additionally, no costs were awarded.

What is the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947?

• About:
  • The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, enacted on 11^th March 1947, serves to address industrial disputes and related matters.
  • It encompasses the entire territory of India and applies to all industries, unless exempted by the government.
• Authorities Under This Act:
  • Works Committee: They serve as platforms for dialogue between employers and employees at the workplace.
  • Conciliation Officers: Conciliation Officers are tasked with conciliating disputes and fostering agreements between parties.
  • Board of Conciliation: Boards of Conciliation aim to aid in resolving disputes that remain unsettled by conciliation.
  • Courts of Inquiry: Courts of Inquiry are established to investigate and report on matters referred to them concerning industrial disputes.
• Notice of Change:
  • Employers must notify workmen of proposed changes in service conditions listed in the Fourth Schedule.
  • Changes cannot occur without prior notice or within 21 days. Exceptions apply under certain conditions.
• Unfair Labour Practices:
  • Prohibition of Unfair Labour Practices (Section 25T):
    • Offence: Engaging in unfair labour practices by employers, workmen, or trade unions.
    • Penalty: Imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
  • Penalty for Committing Unfair Labour Practices (Section 25U):
    • Offence: Committing unfair labour practices.
    • Penalty: Imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
  • Penalty for Breach of Settlement or Award (Section 29):
    • Offence: Breaching terms of settlements or awards binding under the Act.
    • Penalty: Imprisonment up to six months, or fine, or both. In case of a continuing breach, additional fines may apply, and compensation may be awarded to the injured party.
• Penalties:
  • Penalty for Illegal Strikes and Lock-outs (Section 26):
    • Offence: Engaging in illegal strikes or lock-outs.
    • Penalty: For workmen, imprisonment up to one month, or a fine up to fifty rupees, or both. For employers, imprisonment up to one month, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
  • Penalty for Instigation (Section 27):
    • Offence: Instigating or inciting others to engage in illegal strikes or lock-outs.
    • Penalty: Imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
  • Penalty for Giving Financial Aid (Section 28):
    • Offence: Providing financial support for illegal strikes or lock-outs.
    • Penalty: Imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
• Unfair Practices and Other Offences:
  • Penalty for Disclosure of Confidential Information (Section 30):
    • Offence: Willful disclosure of confidential information in contravention of the Act.
    • Penalty: Imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both.
  • Penalty for Closure Without Notice (Section 30A):
    • Offence: Closing down an undertaking without complying with required procedures.
    • Penalty: Imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to five thousand rupees, or both.
  • Penalty for Other Offences (Section 31):
    • Offence: Contravening provisions of the Act or rules made thereunder.
    • Penalty: For employers, imprisonment up to six months, or a fine up to one thousand rupees, or both. For other contraventions, a fine up to one hundred rupees may apply if no specific penalty is provided elsewhere in the Act.

Source: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the matter of Prakash Kodwani v. Smt. Vimla Devi Lakhwani & Ors., has held that as per the provisions of Rule 17 of Order VI of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC), only pleadings proposed should be considered in the amendment application and not the merits of the proposed amendment.

What was the Background of Prakash Kodwani v. Smt. Vimla Devi Lakhwani & Ors. Case?

• In this case, the petitioner has preferred the present petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, District Indore.
• In the Order, the Trial Court rejected the application under Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC preferred by the petitioner seeking leave to amend the written statement has been rejected.
• Setting aside the order of the Trial Court, the High Court allowed the petition.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The single judge bench of Justice Pranay Verma observed that it is well settled in law that while considering an application for amendment it is only the pleading which is proposed which is required to be taken into consideration and the merits of the proposed amendment are not to be seen.
• It was further added that the Court found it just and necessary to allow the amendment application earlier dismissed by the civil judge.

What is Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC?

Order VI of CPC

About:

• Order VI of CPC deals with pleading in general.
• Pleading shall mean plaint or written statement.

Pleadings:

• Pleadings are statements in writing delivered by each party alternately to his opponent, stating what his contentions will be at the trial, giving all such details as his opponent needs to know in order to prepare his case in answer.
• It is an essential requirement of pleading that material fact and necessary particulars must be stated in the pleadings and the decisions cannot be based on the grounds outside the pleadings.

Rule 17:

• This rule deals with the amendment of pleadings.
• It states that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
• Provided that no application for amendment shall be allowed after the trial has commenced, unless the Court comes to the conclusion that in spite of due diligence, the party could not have raised the matter before the commencement of trial
• The object of Rule 17 is to minimize the litigation, minimize the delay and to avoid multiplicity of suits.