List of Current Affairs

Source: Delhi High Court  

Why in News? 

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court recently ruled that a criminal conviction is necessary to establish "moral turpitude" for the forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. This decision upheld a Single Judge's ruling regarding an employee of Punjab National Bank, states a case that without such a conviction, the Bank's forfeiture of gratuity was unjustified. 

• Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Girish Kathpalia held in the matter of Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr. 

What was the Background of Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr. Case? 

• Mr. Niraj Gupta (Respondent) was working as Deputy General Manager with Punjab National Bank (PNB) (Appellant) and was on deputation as MD and CEO of Punjab National Bank International Ltd. (PNBIL) in 2015. 
• On 13^th August, 2015, a complaint of sexual harassment was lodged against Respondent by Ms. Neeta Teggi, a customer service associate assigned as his secretary at PNBIL. 
• Following the complaint, PNBIL conducted a preliminary investigation in London, UK. 
• On 19^th September 2015, a decision was made to recall and expel Respondent to India. 
• Respondent was placed under suspension by the Executive Director of PNB on 24^th September, 2015. 
• PNB constituted an Internal Complaint Committee (ICC) on 28th September, 2015, in accordance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. 
• The ICC submitted its findings on 19th October, 2015, holding Respondent guilty of sexual harassment allegations. 
• A charge sheet was issued against Respondent by PNB on 7th November, 2015, alleging that his actions were unbecoming of a bank officer and constituted misconduct. 
• Based on the Enquiry Officer's report dated 19th March, 2016, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of "Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" on 30th March 2016. 
• Respondent appealed against the dismissal order, but it was rejected by the appellate authority on 28^th June 2016. 
• Respondents then filed a review petition against the appellate authority's decision. 
• During the pendency of the review petition, PNB issued a Show Cause Notice on 23^rd December 2016, asking Respondent to explain why his gratuity should not be forfeited due to acts amounting to moral turpitude. 
•  Unsatisfactory by Respondent’s reply, PNB ordered the forfeiture of his gratuity on 15th February, 2017. 
• Respondent's review petition was rejected by the Reviewing Authority of PNB on 6^th February, 2017. 
• Respondent filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 
• During the pendency of the writ petition, Respondent applied to the Controlling Authority, Delhi, seeking payment of his gratuity. 
• The Controlling Authority ordered PNB to pay Respondent gratuity amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs with interest on 15th January 2021. 
• PNB appealed against this order but deposited Rs. 15 Lakhs with the Appellate Authority. 
• The Appellate Authority dismissed PNB's appeal on 7^th April 2022, upholding the Controlling Authority's order. 
• Subsequently, the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) ordered the release of the deposited gratuity to Mr. Gupta on 26th April 2022. 
• PNB then filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court, seeking to quash the order releasing the gratuity to Respondent. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's decision regarding the forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 
• The court observed that Regulation 4(j) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 does not mandate that termination of an employee automatically results in forfeiture of gratuity. 
• For invoking Section 4(6)(b)(ii) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 to forfeit gratuity, two conditions must be satisfied: 
  • The terminated employee must be convicted for an offence punishable by law. 
  • The said offence must involve moral turpitude. 
• The court observed that under Section 4(6) of the Act, gratuity can be denied only if the employee's dismissal is due to an act, willful omission, or negligence that causes damage, loss, or destruction of the employer's property. 
• The Division Bench stated that a criminal conviction is necessary to establish moral turpitude for gratuity forfeiture under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 
• The court observed that in the present case, no FIR was registered against the respondent, and the allegations were never proved before a court of law. 
  • Given these circumstances, the Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge's order and held that no interference was required by the court. 
• The court concluded that the Respondent is liable to receive gratuity, dismissing the Bank's appeal against the Single Judge's order.

Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 

About: 

• The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is a legislation that provides for the payment of gratuity to employees in factories, mines, oilfields, plantations, ports, railway companies, shops, and other establishments.  
• The Act establishes the rules for eligibility, calculation, and payment of gratuity, which is a form of retirement benefit paid by employers to their employees for rendering continuous service for five years or more.  

Legal Provision: 

• Continuous Service Definition (section 2A):  
  • An employee is in continuous service if they have uninterrupted service, including interruptions due to sickness, accident, leave, absence from duty without leave, lay-off, strike, or lock-out. 
  • For non-seasonal establishments, an employee is deemed to be in continuous service for one year if they have worked for at least 190 days (for underground mine workers or establishments working less than 6 days a week) or 240 days (in any other case) in the preceding 12 calendar months. 
  • For a six-month period, the requirement is 95 days and 120 days respectively. 
  • Days counted include lay-off days, earned leave, absence due to temporary disablement from work accidents, and maternity leave (up to a specified period). 
• Payment of Gratuity (Section 4):  
  • Gratuity is payable after 5 years of continuous service upon superannuation, retirement, resignation, death, or disablement. 
  • The 5-year requirement is waived in case of death or disablement. 
  • Gratuity is calculated at 15 days' wages for each completed year of service (or part thereof exceeding 6 months). 
  • For seasonal establishment employees, it's calculated at 7 days' wages for each season. 
  • The maximum gratuity payable is subject to notification by the Central Government. 
• Forfeiture of Gratuity (Section 4(6)):  
  • Gratuity can be forfeited for damaging an employer's property, terminated for riotous or disorderly conduct, or for offenses involving moral turpitude committed during employment. 
• Nomination (Section 6):  
  • Employees must nominate after one year of service. 
  • If the employee has a family, the nomination must be in favor of family members. 
• Determination and Recovery of Gratuity (Section 7 and 8):  
  • The employer must determine and pay gratuity within 30 days from when it becomes payable. 
  • Interest is payable for delayed payments. 
  • Disputes regarding gratuity can be referred to the controlling authority. 
• Penalties (Section 9):  
  • Making false statements to avoid gratuity payments is punishable with imprisonment of up to 6 months and/or fine up to 10,000 rupees. 
  • Employers contravening the Act can face imprisonment between 3 months to 1 year and/or fine between 10,000 to 20,000 rupees. 
  • Non-payment of gratuity carries a minimum imprisonment of 6 months, extendable to 2 years. 
• Protection of Gratuity (Section13):  
  • Gratuity payments are not attachable in execution of any court decree or order of civil, revenue or criminal court. 

What is Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972? 

• Eligibility for Gratuity (Section 4(1)): 
  • Gratuity is payable to an employee upon termination of employment after at least five years of continuous service. 
  • The five-year requirement is waived if termination is due to death or disablement. 
• Conditions for Gratuity Payment: 
  • Gratuity is payable on: 
    • Superannuation 
    • Retirement or resignation 
    • Death or disablement due to accident or disease 
• Payment in Case of Death: 
  • If the employee dies, gratuity is paid to their nominee or heirs. 
  • If the nominee or heir is a minor, their share is deposited with the controlling authority. 
  • The controlling authority invests this amount for the minor's benefit until they reach majority. 
• Definition of Disablement: 
  • Disablement means incapacitation that prevents an employee from performing work they could do before the accident or disease causing the disablement. 
• Calculation of Gratuity (Section 4(2)): 
  • For each completed year of service (or part exceeding 6 months), gratuity is paid at 15 days' wages. 
  • Wages are based on the last drawn rate. 
• Special Provisions for Piece-Rated Employees: 
  • For piece-rated workers, daily wages are computed based on the average total wages of the last three months. 
  • Overtime wages are not considered in this calculation. 
• Provisions for Seasonal Employees: 
  • For seasonal establishment employees not employed year-round, gratuity is paid at 7 days' wages per season. 
• Calculation for Monthly-Rated Employees: 
  • For monthly-rated employees, 15 days' wages are calculated by dividing the monthly wage by 26 and multiplying the result by 15. 
• Maximum Gratuity Amount (Section4(3)): 
  • The maximum gratuity payable is subject to notification by the Central Government. 
• Gratuity for Employees on Reduced Wages Post-Disablement (Section4(4): 
  • For employees working on reduced wages after disablement, pre-disablement wages are used for that period's gratuity calculation. 
  • The post-disablement period uses the reduced wages for calculation. 
• Forfeiture of Gratuity (Section 4(6)): 
  • Gratuity can be forfeited to the extent of damage or loss caused by the employee's willful act, omission, or negligence. 
  • Gratuity may be wholly or partially forfeited if employment is terminated due to: 
    • Riotous or disorderly conduct or any act of violence. 
    • Any offense involving moral turpitude committed during employment. 

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

• A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice N Kotiswar Singh held that for invocation of Section 25 (2) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) the change in circumstances must be after the order is passed under the Act.                      
• The Supreme Court held this in the case of S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C. 

What was the Background of S Vijikumari v. Mowneshwarachari C Case? 

• The Appellant- wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act).  
• The petition was allowed, and Magistrate ordered Rs. 12,000 per month to be paid for maintenance and Rs. 1,00,000 to be paid as compensation. 
• The respondent husband did not give any evidence in the said proceeding. 
• The respondent husband filed an appeal under Section 29 of the Act which was dismissed by the Appellate Court on the grounds of delay.  
• The aforesaid orders attained finality, and they were not assailed by the respondent. 
• Thereafter an application under Section 25 of the DV Act was filed before the Learned Magistrate by the respondent. The application was, however, dismissed. 
• Being aggrieved, the respondent filed a criminal appeal under Section 29 of the DV Act. 
• The said appeal was allowed, and the matter was remanded to the Learned Magistrate with a direction to consider the application filed by the respondent under Section 25 of the Act by giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence and to dispose of the same in accordance with law. 
• The appellant aggrieved by the above order filed Criminal Revision before the High Court which was dismissed. 
• Aggrieved by the above order the appellant- wife has filed the appeal.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court held in this case that DV Act is a piece of Civil Code which is applicable to every woman in India irrespective of her religious affiliation and/or social background. 
• The Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the DV Act, has to be satisfied that the change in circumstances occurred requiring to pass an order of alteration, modification or revocation. 
• The Court further held that to invoke Section 25 (2) of the Act there must be a change in circumstances after the order has been passed under the Act. 
• The Court held that the respondent could not have sought for the above prayers on the following grounds:
  • Firstly, revocation of an order under Section 12 of DV Act cannot relate to the period prior to such an order being passed. 
  • Secondly, the change in circumstance requiring alteration, modification or revocation of the earlier order must be owing to the change occurring subsequent to the order being passed. 
  • Thus, the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 25 (2) of the Act cannot be for setting aside of an earlier order owing to a change occurring subsequent to the order being passed.    
• Hence, the Court set aside the orders of the High Court and the first Appellate Court, and the application filed by the respondent was dismissed. 
• However, the Court granted liberty to the respondent to file a fresh application under Section 25 of the Act.

What is Section 25 of DV Act? 

About: 

• Section 25 of the DV Act provides for duration and alteration of orders. 
• Section 25 (1) of the Act provides that that a protection order made under section 18 shall be in force till the aggrieved person applies for discharge.   
• Section 25 (2) provides for alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under the Act. 
  • The above order will be passed if the Magistrate is satisfied on receipt of an application from the aggrieved person or the respondent, that there is a change in the circumstances. 
  • The Magistrate may for reasons recorded in writing pass the above order. 
• The scope of Section 25 (2) of the Act is broad enough to deal with all orders under the Act including the orders of maintenance, residence, protection etc.  
• The order passed under this provision remains in force till the time  
  • The order is set aside in an appeal under Section 29 of the Act, or 
  • The order is altered/modified/revoked in terms of Section 25 (2) of the Act by the Magistrate.

‘Change in Circumstances’ under Section 25 (2) of the DV Act: 

• The Phrase ‘Change in Circumstances’ 
  • The phrase “a change in circumstances” has not been defined under the DV Act. 
    • The said phrase can be found in the following legislations: 
      • Now repealed Section 489 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 
      • Now repealed Section 127 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973  
      • Section 146 (1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) 
  • However, in none of the legislations had the legislature defined this term. 
• Change in Circumstances Would Include the Following 
  • The Court in the present case held that the change in circumstances would include: 
    • The wife on divorce having been given alimony 
    • The wife earning higher amount than the respondent husband and therefore not need of maintenance  
    • The change in circumstances may be of either a pecuniary nature, such as change in the income of the respondent or the aggrieved person 
    • It could also include change in other circumstance that would justify the increase or decrease in the amount of maintenance.   
    • It would include factors like the cost of living, income of the parties etc.  
    • A change in circumstances need not be of the respondent but also of the aggrieved person. 
    • A change in financial circumstances of the husband may be a vital criterion for alteration of maintenance but may also include other circumstantial changes in the husband or wife’s life which may have taken place since the time maintenance was first ordered.    
• Change in Circumstances only after Order Passed under the Act  
  • Such a change in circumstances must occur only after an initial order is made under Section 12 of the Act and cannot relate to the period prior to the passing of an order under Section 12 of the Act. 
• Alteration, Modification or Revocation Operates Prospectively not Retrospectively 
  • The order for alteration, modification or revocation operates prospectively and not retrospectively. 
    • Though the order of grant of maintenance is effective retrospectively from the date of the application or as ordered by the Magistrate. 
    • The above is not true for the order with regard to an application for alteration of allowance. This would take effect from the date on which the order of alteration is made or any other date from which an application for alteration, modification or revocation was made depending on the facts of each case.   
    • The position is analogous to Section 125 and Section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). 
    • Thus, under the DV Act the order of modification or alteration or revocation could operate from the date of the application being filed or as ordered by the Magistrate under Section 25 (2). 
    • Thus, the applicant cannot seek its retrospective applicability as to seek refund of the amount already paid as per the original order.

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr  has held that criminal proceedings can be quashed even after filing of the chargesheet. 

What was the Background of the Kailashben Mahendrabhai Patel & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr Case? 

• In the present case, the respondent No.2 (wife) filed a complaint under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) against the appellants, who are her stepmother in-law (appellant no. 1), step brother-in-law (appellant no. 2), father-in-law (appellant no. 3), and the Munim (appellant no. 4). 
• The allegations were made that the appellant threatened the respondent to deprive her of her share in the property at the time when she gave birth to her daughter 8 years back. 
• After a time when she came back to her matrimonial house she was deprived of food and the in laws also physically assaulted her. 
• Later, the appellants threatened her, which was endangering her life and the life of her husband and her children, which made her file the present complaint. 
• Based on the allegations the chargesheet was filed. 
• The appellants filed the petition before the Bombay High Court for quashing the chargesheet and the First Information Report (FIR). 
• The High Court held that the present case is the prima facie case of cruelty as per Section 498A of IPC. 
• The High Court rejected the petition filed by the appellants that neither the Police station nor the courts have the jurisdiction to take the cognizance. 
• The present appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order of the High Court before the Supreme Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed the present case based on the analysis made by the Bombay High Court: 
  • Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the Bombay High Court concluded that exercise of power for quashing an FIR/Complaint is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 
  • It is observed by the Supreme Court that no mention of husband has been made by the respondent (wife) even when all the complaints made were regarding demand of dowry. 
  • It is also rightly observed by the Supreme Court that both the husband and wife rightly divided the cases i.e. the husband filed a civil suit while the wife filed the criminal case which has no mention in the present case. 
    • The husband in his civil suit filed against the present appellants only seeking a declaration that the property is ancestral in nature and that the father has no right to alienate or dispose of the property. 
  • It can be inferred from the present criminal suit filed by the wife that the dispute is basically based on share in property. 
    • It is to be observed that after filing of the civil suit by the husband the respondent filed for the domestic violence complaint against the appellants which was dismissed by the trial court by stating that the same has been filed with mala fide intentions. 
  • The supreme Court observed that this case is yet another instance of abuse of criminal process and it would not be fair and just to subject the appellants to the entire criminal law process. 
• The Supreme Court, based on the above observations allowed the present appeal and dismissed the order of the High Court and ordered to quash the FIR and chargesheet filed against the appellants. 
• The Supreme Court held that the High Court has inherent power under Section 482 of CrPC to quash the criminal proceedings even after filing of the chargesheet. 

What is Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)?  

About: 

• This section was earlier covered under Section 482 of CrPC.  
• Section 528 of BNSS deals with the saving of inherent powers of the High Court.  
• It states that nothing in this Sanhita shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.  
• This section does not confer any inherent power on the High Courts, and it only recognizes the fact that High Courts have inherent powers.  

Purpose:  

• Section 528 of BNSS lays down as to when the inherent power may be exercised.  
• It enumerates three purposes for which the inherent power may be exercised:  
  • to make orders necessary to give effect to any order under the Code.  
  • to prevent abuse of the process of any court.  
  • to secure the ends of justice. 

What is Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023(BNS)? 

Section 498A of IPC 

• Section 498A of IPC used to deal with the same provision. 

Section 85 of BNS 

• Section 85 of BNS deals with Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman. 
• It states that Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. 

Definition of Cruelty 

• For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means— 
  • This is defined under Section 86 of BNS as: 
    • Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or 
    • Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. 

What are the Landmark Judgements Based on Powers of High Court to Quash the Proceedings? 

• Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State [NCT of Delhi] (2018): 
  • In this case the Court held that the High Court has the power to interfere in the proceedings and quash the FIR against the accused even after filing the chargesheet. 
• Jitha Sanjay and Others v. State of Kerala and Other (2023) 
  • The Kerela High Court in the present case highlighted that courts can quash criminal proceedings if they are found to be vexatious, frivolous, or motivated by an ulterior motive, even if the FIR contains false allegations of an offense. The court observed that complainants with extraneous motives can craft FIRs to include necessary ingredients. 
• Sh. Anupam Gahoi v. State (Govt. of NCT Of Delhi) And Anr (2024): 
  • The Delhi High Court recently quashed a matrimonial case where a husband had sought to invalidate an FIR filed by his wife in 2018 under the CrPC and BNSS. 
• Mama Shailesh Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2024): 
  • In this case it was held that even if the charge sheet had been filed, the Court could still examine if offences alleged to have been committed were prima facie made out or not based on the FIR, charge sheet and other document.