Housing firm not responsible for land grab: Supreme Court
The housing development authority cannot be held responsible for the encroachments made after possession of the plot had been delivered to the allottees, the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Viresh Sanghwan. Neither the original allottee nor those who bought the property later, could accuse the development authority of “deficiency in service” in the matter of allotment of plot on the ground that some villagers had made encroachment on it. The appeal of the authority was against the National Consumer Commission order which confirmed the rulings of the state and district forums that there was deficiency in service of the authority as the plot had been encroached upon. The Supreme Court asserted that encroachments after the allotment and due to the negligence of the allottees cannot be subjected to consumer complaints.
Daily wagers not entitled to regularisation
The Supreme Court has stated that though the employer might have violated the retrenchment rules under the Industrial Disputes Act, daily wage employees who have worked for a long time in an establishment are not entitled to regularisation. They can only claim monetary compensation, the court stated in the judgment, BSNL vs Man Singh. In this case, the workers were on daily wages since 1984 and their services were terminated in 1991 due to non-availability of work. They requested the government to refer the matter to the labour court. It ordered BSNL to reinstate the employees. The government telecom company appealed to the high court without success. But in the second appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that the workers were not entitled to regularisation merely because they had worked for one year. Though the retrenchment may be set aside as illegal, an award of reinstatement should not be passed. As monetary compensation, the employees were awarded Rs 2 lakh each.
Insurance company appeal on damages dismissed
The Supreme Court last week dismissed National Insurance Company’s appeal against the award of compensation for the death of a youth, stating that the insurer has not proved that he was negligent while driving his motorcycle. It also did not bring evidence on the role of the youth – whether he was owner, agent, employee or representative, which was crucial to the case. The motor accident claims tribunal had awarded Rs 4.26 lakh to the widow, children and parents as against their claim of Rs 8 lakh. The company moved the Kerala high court and the Supreme Court and failed in each instance.
Rising prices not ground for scrapping arbitration clause
An agreement to refer disputes to arbitration will not be void because a government instruction which makes the deal unprofitable. A contract in such cases will be valid unless it is unlawful, the Supreme Court said in the case, Union of India vs LSN Murthy. In this case, the government invited tenders for supply of fruits for the army. The successful bidder began the supply but stopped when the prices rose and the deal became unprofitable. This gave rise to disputes over payments which were referred to arbitration. The contractor argued that a government instruction on prices of goods rendered the contract unworkable and therefore void. The arbitration went in favour of the contractor. So the government appealed to the Supreme Court. It allowed the appeal and stated that a contract in such a case will not be rendered void merely because of the government rule. Unless a term of the contract is unlawful, the contract is valid. Therefore, the decision of the arbitrator that the contract was unenforcable and became void was wrong, the court said.
Cess for welfare of building workers valid
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the two per cent levy on the cost of all construction provided under the the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996. In its judgment in the appeal case, Dewan Chand Builders & Contractors vs Union of India, the court stated the special cess cannot be termed as tax, but it is a fee to create a corpus fund for providing welfare measures to the unorganised industry. “The levy of cess on the cost of construction incurred by the employers on the building and other construction works is for ensuring sufficient funds for the welfare boards to undertake social security schemes and welfare measures for building and other construction workers.” Upholding the Delhi high court judgment and dismissing the appeals of the builders, the court added that the sole aim of the 1996 Act “is the welfare of building and construction workers, directly relatable to their constitutionally recognised right to live with basic human dignity, enshrined in Article 21.”
Procter & Gamble wins case on trademark
The Delhi high court has passed a decree of perpetual injunction restraining Shipra Laboratories from selling or advertising soap or any other product in respect of which registration has been granted to Procter and Gamble under the trademark Safeguard. Any other mark which is identical with or deceptively similar to the registered trademark should also not be used, the court ruled in a petition moved by the US firm, alleging infringement of its trademark and ‘passing off’ by the Indian cosmetic company.