SC recalls order cancelling liquor licences in West Bengal

The Supreme Court last week “recalled” its own order cancelling licences of several traders dealing in foreign and Indian liquor in West Bengal as their licences were cancelled without hearing their side. The All Bengal Excise Licencees Association had challenged the licence policy of the state government in the Calcutta High Court. It was dismissed.

Some persons allegedly violated the court order and they moved the Supreme Court. In that appeal, the apex court cancelled licences of several traders. Those who lost their licences by that order approached the Supreme Court in the case, Asit Kumar Kar vs State of W Bengal. Acknowledging that they were indeed not heard before cancelling their licences, the Supreme Court “recalled” the order, meaning thereby that the order of cancellation will not be effective against them.

Claiming equal pay for equal work is employees’ burden

The Supreme Court last week reiterated in the case, UP Electricity Board vs Aziz Ahmad, that the burden to prove that a worker is doing the same work as another is on the worker and not the employer. In this case, an overhauling mechanic demanded equal wages as a fitter arguing that he was doing the same work as a fitter and was therefore entitled to the higher wages.

The industrial tribunal and the Allahabad High Court accepted his claim and asked the board to pay him the higher wages. The board appealed to the Supreme Court. It held that both forums below made a mistake in holding that the burden to prove that the jobs are different was on the board.

However, the correct law is that the employee who claims equal wages with another category of employees must prove with data that he was doing the same work. In this case, it was not done. Therefore, the industrial tribunal was asked to re-examine the case in the light of the earlier judgments laid down by the Supreme Court.

MRTPC ruling set aside in Tata Finance vs N Poongodi

The Supreme Court has set aside the ruling of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission in the case, Tata Finance Ltd vs N Poongodi. There was a dispute between the non-banking finance company and the hire purchaser and it was decided twice by an arbitrator.

The purchaser then appealed to the Supreme Court and lost. After ten years of litigation, he moved the commission for compensation from the finance company. The latter argued that it was an abuse of legal process and wanted the commission to decide the maintainability of the compensation petition.

The commission dismissed the petition. While quashing the commission’s judgement, the Supreme Court asked it to decide the maintainability petition of the company at the threshold itself.