TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court grants representation for deceased respondent, affirms pay scale entitlement, emphasizes prospective overruling.</h1> <h3>State of M.P. Versus Maharaj Singh (dead)</h3> The court allowed the application to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on record. The petition challenging the order directing ... Benefits of regular pay scale - principle of prospective overruling of judgment - HELD THAT:- It is well established principle of law that the principle of prospective overruling of judgment, does not apply except where, it is specifically mentioned. Where the rights of a party has been considered and declared, then the said proceedings cannot be reopened on the ground that the judgment on the basis of which, the rights were declared, has been overruled. It is clear that the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of RAM NARESH RAWAT VERSUS ASHWINI RAY AND ORS. [2016 (12) TMI 1882 - SUPREME COURT] would apply in the present case as the order passed by the Labour Court has been challenged. It is not a case where the petitioners have tried to reopen a case which has already been finalized. Accordingly, it is held that the respondent is only entitled for minimum pay scale without any increment as provided by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Naresh Rawat. The Labour Court has awarded the pay scale w.e.f. 1.7.1988. Accordingly, it is held that the respondent shall be entitled for the minimum pay scale without any increment w.e.f. 1.7.1988. Petition disposed off. Issues Involved:1. Application for bringing legal representative on record.2. Entitlement to regular pay scale and consequential benefits.3. Applicability of the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashiwini Ray & Others.4. Principle of prospective overruling.5. Estoppel against the statute.6. Finality of rights determined by judicial decisions.Detailed Analysis:1. Application for Bringing Legal Representative on Record:The application I.A.No.757/2019 was filed to bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on record. The respondent had expired on 16.11.2018. The court allowed the application, permitting the necessary amendments to be carried out by the counsel for the petitioners in the court itself.2. Entitlement to Regular Pay Scale and Consequential Benefits:The petition challenged the order dated 5.11.2016 by Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, which directed that the respondent, classified from 1.7.1988, was entitled to regular pay scale benefits and consequential benefits, including a payment of Rs.11,59,036/- as the difference in pay.3. Applicability of the Supreme Court Judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashiwini Ray & Others:The petitioners cited the Supreme Court judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat vs. Ashiwini Ray & Others, which held that a 'permanent employee' is entitled to the minimum of the graded pay scale without increments. The respondent argued that this judgment has no retrospective operation. The court considered the submissions and noted that the principle of prospective overruling does not apply unless specifically mentioned.4. Principle of Prospective Overruling:The court referred to several Supreme Court cases, including Sarwan Kumar vs. Madan Lal Aggarwal, M.A. Murthy vs. State of Karnataka, and K. Madhava Reddy vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, which discussed the doctrine of prospective overruling. It was established that the Supreme Court's decisions are presumed to be the law from inception unless explicitly stated otherwise. The doctrine of prospective overruling can only be applied by the Supreme Court and typically in constitutional matters.5. Estoppel Against the Statute:The court cited the Supreme Court case of Bengal Iron Corpn. v. CTO, which held that there can be no estoppel against the statute. The law declared by the courts is presumed to be in existence from the beginning.6. Finality of Rights Determined by Judicial Decisions:The court referred to Union of India vs. Madras Telephone SC & ST Social Welfare Assn., which clarified that rights determined by a final judicial decision cannot be reopened due to a subsequent contrary judgment. However, since the Labour Court's order was under challenge, the judgment in Ram Naresh Rawat applied, entitling the respondent only to the minimum pay scale without increments from 1.7.1988.Conclusion:The petition was disposed of with modifications. The award dated 5.11.2016 by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, was affirmed with the modification that the respondent is entitled to the minimum pay scale without any increment from 1.7.1988. All other terms and conditions of the award remained unchanged.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
