TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s sought an alternative prayer for constitution of National Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes but this alterative prayer was given up during the course of hearing. 3. The petitioners have challenged the retrenchment of 297 employees of PTI on various grounds inter alia that PTI is amenable to writ jurisdiction as it satisfies the public function test; all the retrenched employees are 'workmen' within the meaning of Section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; PTI is a factory' within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 as PTI engages in 'manufacturing process' of news, articles, publications, photographs etc. within the meaning of Section 2(k)(i) & Section 2(k)(iv) of the Factories Act, 1948; all the 37 centers of PTI in the country constitute a single establishment under Section 2(d) read with the Schedule of the Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "Working Journalists Act, 1955"); all centers/establishments of PTI are industrial establishments within the meaning of Section 25-L of Industrial Disputes Act; permanent and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Company incorporated under the Companies Act; PTI is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution; PTI is not a public authority; PTI does not perform a pubic function and therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction; the actions of PTI in respect of employer-employee relationship cannot be tested under the writ jurisdiction; the retrenched employees have statutory remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act; the petitioners have already invoked the remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act and have not approached this Court with clean hands; and the writ petitions raise disputed questions of facts which requires detailed evidence and therefore, cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction. The respondent has also challenged the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners have filed the writ petitions without any authorization from the retrenched employees. The respondent has also challenged the maintainability of two writ petitions with identical contentions seeking identical reliefs. According to respondent, these writ petitions are collusive. 5. The respondent has filed detailed counter-affidavit on merits. According to the respo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d were pasted at the prominent places of each office of the respondent; each retrenchment letter had details of payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation with the basis of calculation; the notice pay and retrenchment compensation were transferred in the bank account of each of the retrenched employees on 29th September, 2018; the retrenched employees were notified to approach the respondent along with the relevant forms in case of any inadvertent calculation error; the respondent notified the Appropriate Authority in the prescribed form along with necessary formalities in compliance of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act; the respondent displayed the notice dated 21st September, 2018 giving the Seniority List of three categories of employees in compliance with Section 25-G read with Rule 77 of the Industrial Disputes Act; the respondent strictly followed the principle of 'last come first go' in the process of retrenchment; respondent, in the retrenchment letters, have categorically mentioned that in case of re-employment they shall comply with Section 25-G read with Rule 78 of the Industrial Disputes Act; the respondent has complied with all applicable pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that there is no merit in the respondent's preliminary objection of a statutory remedy available to the retrenched employees under the Industrial Disputes Act. The writ petitions are maintainable as all the relevant facts involved in these writ petitions are undisputed and no evidence is required to be led by the parties on the issues involved. It is further submitted that these writ petitions are pending for two years and, at interim stage, this Court held in favour of the petitioners and it would not be efficacious at this stage to send the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal. According to the petitioner, no evidence is required on the issues whether PTI is a factory; whether retrenchment was on account of induction of new technology; whether retrenchment is illegal for violation of Section 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act; whether retrenchment is violative of Section 16A of the Working Journalists Act, 1955; and whether PTI is making losses. It is further submitted that the issue as to whether PTI is a 'factory' within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948 is a pure question of law. Reliance is placed on Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. v. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sdiction. The respondent vehemently disputes the petitioner's submissions that there are no disputed questions of fact in these petitions. Learned senior counsel for the respondent further urged that the respondent has vehemently disputed all the averments of the petitioners inter alia, that the respondent is engaged in manufacturing activity and is a factory within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act; all the 37 centers of PTI in the country constitute a single establishment; retrenchment is violative of Sections 25-N of the Industrial Disputes Act and prior permission of the State Government was necessary; the respondent altered the service conditions of the workmen relating to rationalization/technique without notice which is violative of Section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act; the retrenchment is violative of Section 16A of the Working Journalists Act, 1955; the retrenchment is illegal as there was short payment of retrenchment compensation; retrenchment was mala fide; the retrenchment constitutes the unfair trade practice under the Industrial Disputes Act; large number of workers have not yet received their individual notice of retrenchment and plea of "no ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... petitioner as the affidavits and documents in the present case are not sufficient to decide the questions without need of any oral evidence. IPCL answers to the definition of "State" within Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, was amenable to writ jurisdiction. The principal finding of this judgment that workers working in a statutory canteen are deemed to be the employees of the owner of the factory for all intents and purposes has been overruled in Balwant Rai Saluja v. Air India, AIR 2015 SC 375 and no reliance should be placed on IPCL as the underlying proposition in IPCL stands overruled. (ii) In Chennai Port Trust v. Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Assn., (supra), the Supreme Court declined to entertain the objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the facts and documents were undisputed and 17 years had lapsed by that time. The writ petition before the Single Judge was filed in 2001 (Para 5 of the judgment). The Supreme Court was deciding the matter in 2018. Thus, 17 years had passed. This was a strong consideration. The maintainability of the writ petition was not held to be generally so. In fact, a rea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....trenched employees, the petitioners rely on work assignment register of PTI; closure of two departments is admitted by respondent; the respondent has admitted the violation of Section 16A of the Working Journalists Act in the reasons for lockout. It is submitted that the petitioners do not press the disputed questions of fact mentioned by the respondents in Serial number 15 to 23, 25 to 38, 42, 44, 45 and 47 of their written submissions dated 22nd August, 2020. 15. Mr. Colin Gonsalves, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder, submitted that all the four judgments cited by the respondent do not support the case of the respondent. It is submitted that in Premier Automobiles Ltd. (supra), the only issue was maintainability of a civil suit whereas in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (supra), Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (supra), A.P. Foods (supra), Avishek Raja (supra) and Satpal Singh (supra) there were disputed questions of fact. Reference is made to written submissions dated 13th February, 2020 containing written response of the petitioners to the judgments cited by the respondent. 16. With respect to the respondent's objection....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ner in W.P.(C) 10605/2018 claims to be representing 199 employees whereas they have filed the writ petitions on behalf of 297 retrenched employees. 35 employees are common in the list of both the petitioners and the signatures on the letters filed by the two writ petitioners are completely different which shows that the letters are forged and fabricated. All the letters filed in W.P.(C) 10596/2018 are undated. The signatures on several individual letters filed by the petitioners do not match with their signatures available in the personal files. It is further submitted that the evidence is necessary to be led by the petitioners to prove these documents before the appropriate forum. It is further submitted that the petitioners completely lack authorization to file the present writ petitions. Judgments cited by the Petitioner 19. In Indian Petrochemicals Corpn. Ltd. v. Shramik Sena, (1999) 6 SCC 439, the contractual employees of IPCL filed a writ petition seeking regularization, which was allowed by Bombay High Court. The Supreme Court observed that in the ordinary course, the questions of fact should be first decided by a fact finding Tribunal. However, the Supreme Court exerc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a, the writ petition was filed by an assistant teacher against her termination by a stigmatic order, without seeking the mandatory approval of the Competent Authority, which was allowed by the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court. The school challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the school was not a State and therefore, not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The main question for consideration in this appeal was the maintainability of writ petition against a private school receiving grant-in-aid to the extent of dearness allowance. The Supreme Court held the writ petition to be maintainable against the School. 22. In Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanthi Mahotsav Smarak Trust v. V.R. Rudani, 1989 2 SCC 691, a writ petition was filed by the retrenched teachers of a private aided college affiliated to University for payment of outstanding salary and allowances and implementation of the pay scales in which an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition was raised on various grounds inter alia that the management of the college was not amenable to the writ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court held that the management of co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e upon an industrial dispute if it concerned enforcement of certain right or liability created only under the Act. In that event civil court will have no jurisdiction even to grant a decree of injunction to prevent the threatened injury on account of the alleged breach of contract if the contract is one which is recognized by and enforceable under the Act alone. xxx xxx xxx 23. To sum up, the principles applicable to the jurisdiction of the civil court in relation to an industrial dispute may be stated thus: (1) If the dispute is not an industrial dispute, nor does it relate to enforcement of any other right under the Act the remedy lies only in the civil court. (2) If the dispute is an industrial dispute arising out of a right or liability under the general or common law and not under the Act, the jurisdiction of the civil court is alternative, leaving it to the election of the suitor concerned to choose his remedy for the relief which is competent to be granted in a particular remedy. (3) If the industrial dispute relates to the enforcement of a right or an obligation created under the Act, then the only remedy available to the suitor ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rocedural laws, which the workmen can ill-afford. The procedures followed by civil courts, it was thought, would not facilitate a prompt and effective disposal of these disputes. As against this, the courts and tribunals created by the Industrial Disputes Act are not shackled by these procedural laws nor is their award subject to any appeals or revisions. Because of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many cases. They can make and remake the contracts, settlements, wage structures and what not. Their awards are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, but they are extraordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a civil court. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments concerning workmen. This legislative policy and i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at a litigant is not prejudiced by the action of the Court since the objection is one in the nature of a demurrer. Nevertheless even when there has been such a delay where the issue raised requires the resolution of factual controversies, the High Court should not, even when there is a delay, short-circuit the process for effectively determining the facts. Indeed the factual controversies which have arisen in this case remain unresolved. They must be resolved in a manner which is just and fair to both the parties. The High Court was not the appropriate forum for the enforcement of the right and the learned Single Judge in Anand Prakash case had correctly refused to entertain the writ petition for such relief. xxx xxx xxx 27. In the circumstances, we have no hesitation in setting aside the decision of the High Court in dismissing the writ petition. This order will, however, not preclude the respondent Union if it is otherwise so entitled to raise an industrial dispute under U.P. IDA." (Emphasis Supplied) 25. In A.P. Foods v. S. Samuel, (2006) 5 SCC 469, 243 employees filed a writ petition against the stoppage of ex-gratia/bonus by the management which w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....reated by the Industrial Disputes Act are not shackled by these procedural laws nor is their award subject to any appeals or revisions. Because of their informality, the workmen and their representatives can themselves prosecute or defend their cases. These forums are empowered to grant such relief as they think just and appropriate. They can even substitute the punishment in many cases. They can make and remake the contracts, settlements, wage structures and what not. Their awards are no doubt amenable to jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 as also to the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32, but they are extraordinary remedies subject to several self-imposed constraints. It is, therefore, always in the interest of the workmen that disputes concerning them are adjudicated in the forums created by the Act and not in a civil court. That is the entire policy underlying the vast array of enactments concerning workmen. This legislative policy and intendment should necessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising under them." 9. In Basant Kumar Sarkar v. Eagle Rolling Mills Ltd. [(1964) 6 SCR 913 : AIR 1964 SC 1260]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s liable to pay bonus under the Act to its employees? 15. The parties shall jointly move the appropriate Government with a copy of our judgment. 16. Normally, it is for the State Government to take a decision in the matter of reference when a dispute is raised, the direction as noted above has been given in the circumstances indicated above. 17. In some cases, this Court after noticing that refusal by the appropriate Government to refer the matter for adjudication was prima facie not proper, directed reference instead of directing reconsideration. (See Nirmal Singh v. State of Punjab [1984 Supp SCC 407 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 38 : AIR 1984 SC 1619], Sankari Cement Alai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam v. Govt. of T.N. [(1983) 1 SCC 304 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 139 : (1983) 1 LLJ 460], V. Veerarajan v. Govt. of T.N. [(1987) 1 SCC 479 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 64 : AIR 1987 SC 695] and Sharad Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi [(2002) 4 SCC 490 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 533 : AIR 2002 SC 1724] .) 18. The parties shall be permitted to place materials in support of their respective stands. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. The Tribunal shall m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... above contention, we do not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the petition has been entertained and an interim order passed." (emphasis supplied) Even otherwise, the learned Judge was not right in law. True it is that issuance of rule nisi or passing of interim orders is a relevant consideration for not dismissing a petition if it appears to the High Court that the matter could be decided by a writ court. It has been so held even by this Court in several cases that even if alternative remedy is available, it cannot be held that a writ petition is not maintainable. In our judgment, however, it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such bald contention is upheld, even this Court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which ought not to have been entertained by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party, once the High Court has entertained a writ petition albeit wrongly and granted the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... otherwise not in consonance with the provisions of law, such authority or court/tribunal is bound to consider it and legal and legitimate relief can always be granted keeping in view the evidence before it and considering statutory provisions in vogue. Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider all these aspects and issued a writ of mandamus which should not have been done. Hence, the order passed and directions issued by the High Court deserve to be set aside. 52. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the order passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. 53. Since we are of the view that one of the Judges of the Division Bench of the High Court which decided the matter at the initial stage was right in relegating the petitioners to avail of alternative remedy under the industrial law and as we hold that the High Court should not have entertained the petition and decided the matter on merits, we clarify that though the writ petition filed by the petitioners stands dismissed, it is open to the employees to approach an appropriate court/tribunal in accordance with law and to raise all contentions a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....adjudication of the claim should be done by the Appropriate Authority under the Industrial Disputes Act. Para 30 of the Supreme Court judgment is reproduced hereunder: "30. Insofar as the writ petitions seeking interference with transfer/termination, as the case may be, are concerned, it appears that the same are relatable to service conditions of the writ petitioners concerned. Adjudication of such question in the exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution would not only be unjustified but such questions should be left for determination before the appropriate authority either under the Act or under cognate provisions of law (Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, etc.), as the case may be." (Emphasis supplied) 29. In Satpal Singh v. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee, 181 (2011) DLT 455, this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the employees have an equally efficacious remedy. Summary of principles 30. Industrial Disputes Act is a complete Code in itself which provides the remedies to the employees in respect of all industrial disputes. All industrial disputes, in the first instance, h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....discloses 'Exceptional circumstances' and does not involve disputed questions of fact, the writ petition in respect of an industrial dispute may be entertained. II. If the writ petition discloses 'Exceptional circumstances' but the facts are disputed, the writ petition should not be entertained and the petitioner has to invoke the statutory remedies available as per law. III. If the writ petition does not disclose 'Exceptional circumstances', the writ petition should not be entertained irrespective of whether the facts are disputed or not. IV. Writ jurisdiction is a discretionary jurisdiction and the discretion is ordinarily not exercised, if an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner. The powers conferred under Article 226 of the Court are very wide but these are extraordinary remedies subject to self imposed restrictions. Exceptional Circumstances-Some Examples 35. The question arises what could be the 'Exceptional circumstances' in which the writ jurisdiction should be exercised. In Hajara v. Govt. of India, three poor persons were sleeping on the pavement outside the boundary wall of Old Delhi Railway St....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... she was dragged with the bag towards the gate of the coach. In the meantime, an accomplice of a thief pushed her from behind due to which she fell down from the moving train and her left leg got entangled in the footboard of the coach. Both the thieves ran away with her bag. The passengers stopped the train by pulling the chain and she was pulled out and put on the train which moved towards Old Faridabad Railway Station where the Railway staff/Police took her to Fortis Escort Hospital, Faridabad in the police jeep where her left leg was amputated below knee level on 24th December, 2011. She was discharged from the hospital on 05th January, 2012. She underwent another surgery on 21st January, 2012 and she remained hospitalized up to 27th February, 2012. On 06th July, 2012, she filed an application for compensation before Railways Claims Tribunal which was allowed on 25th April, 2014 and compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs was awarded to her. Railways challenged the award of the Railway Claims Tribunal for reduction of the amount. This Court did not find any merit in the Railways appeal. In the meantime, the claimant also filed cross-appeal to seek enhancement. Vide judgment dated 29th Nove....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment of compensation to the workmen who lose their lives while doing sewage work which have been adopted by the Central Government. This is a clear case of the existence of 'Exceptional circumstances' as a citizen sacrificed his life while saving two workers stuck in the manhole and all the relevant facts were undisputed. 38. In Union of India v. Dhyan Singh, 2013 ACJ 2644, four laborers hired by the contractor of CPWD were cleaning the septic tank at the CRPF Camp, Bawana. The laborers told the contractor that a foul smell was coming out of the septic tank which could be fatal to their lives but the contractor still ordered them to clean the tank whereupon three laborers entered the septic tank and they fell unconscious upon inhaling the poisonous gases in the tank. The fourth labourer, Deepak raised an alarm whereupon Constable, Ranbir Singh and Head Constable, Dayal Singh reached the spot and went inside the septic tank to save the lives of the laborers. However, both of them were affected by the poisonous gases inside the tank and they fell unconscious. The fire brigade and the police were requisitioned and they pulled out all the men out of the septic tank in a crit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ic remedy was provided under the Industrial Disputes Act. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "11. We are of the firm opinion that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition of the respondent Union at all. The dispute was an industrial dispute both within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as well as U.P. IDA, 1947. The rights and obligations sought to be enforced by the respondent Union in the writ petition are those created by the Industrial Disputes Act. (Emphasis Supplied) 42. This case is also covered by A.P. Foods v. S. Samuel (supra) in which the High Court allowed the writ petition against stoppage of ex-gratia/bonus by the management. The Supreme Court reiterated the principles laid down in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. (supra) and catena of other judgments and held that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act unless exceptional circumstances are made out. Para 6 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "6. In a catena of decisions it has been held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pute and hence we fail to understand why the High Court entertained the writ petition. It seems to us that some High Courts by adopting an over liberal approach are unnecessarily adding to their load of arrears instead of observing judicial discipline in following settled legal principles. However, we may also consider the case on merits." (Emphasis supplied) 45. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, the writ jurisdiction should be exercised because two years have passed after the filing of this writ petition. There is no merit in this contention as the respondent raised the preliminary objections to the maintainability of the writ petition at the very threshold of the commencement of arguments and these cases were pending due to lengthy arguments of learned counsels for both the parties. The petitioners themselves have filed C.M. Appl. 41299/2018 in W.P.(C.) 10596/2018 and C.M. Appl. 41305/2018 in W.P.(C.) 10605/2018 seeking adjudication on the maintainability of writ petitions. That apart, delay by itself has been held by the Supreme Court not to be a sufficient ground to exercise the writ jurisdiction. In U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd. v. U.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (supra) in which the Supreme Court held in clear terms that a writ petition can be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy even after it has been admitted and interim order has been passed. Relevant portion of para 38 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder: "38. it cannot be laid down as a proposition of law that once a petition is admitted, it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. If such held contention is upheld, even this court cannot order dismissal of a writ petition which ought not be have been entertained by the High Court under article 226 of the constitution in view of availability of alternative and equally efficacious remedy to the aggrieved party once the High Court has entertained a writ petition albeit wrongly and granted the relief to the petitioner." (Emphasis Supplied) 48. The petitioner's next contention is that the writ jurisdiction should be exercised because all facts averred by the petitioner are admitted. However, the respondent has vehemently disputed all the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petitions. Both these writ petitions involve disputed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed by this Court from time to time in public interest litigation (PIL), the activities of the Corporation had been considerably curtailed. It was incurring losses and was not able to pay salaries and wages to its employees. It was, therefore, decided to take recourse to retrenchment in accordance with law. 41. Now, whether such action could or could not have been taken or whether the action was or was not in consonance with law could be decided on the basis of evidence to be adduced by the parties. Normally, when such disputed questions of fact come up for consideration and are required to be answered, appropriate forum would not be a writ court but a Labour Court or an Industrial Tribunal which has jurisdiction to go into the controversy. On the basis of evidence led by the parties, the court/Tribunal would record a finding of fact and reach an appropriate conclusion. Even on that ground, therefore, the High Court was not justified in allowing the petition and in granting relief. xxx xxx xxx 50. In our considered view, however, all such actions could be examined by an appropriate court/tribunal under the industrial law and not by a writ court exerc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court. 52. The judgments relied upon by the petitioners, namely Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Ltd. (supra), Chennai Port Trust (supra), Marwari Balika Vidyalaya (supra), Andi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandas Swami Suvarna Jayanthi Mahotsav Smarak Trust (supra) do not help the case of the petitioners for the reasons given by the respondents mentioned in para 13 above which are not being repeated herein for the sake of brevity. It is well settled that judicial precedent cannot be followed as a statute and has to be applied with reference to the facts of the case involved in it. The ratio of any decision has to be understood in the background of the facts of that case. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. It has to be remembered that a decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. It is well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. The ratio of one case cannot be mechanically applied to another case without ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....age actually used by that most distinguished judge" 10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. [(1970) 2 All ER 294 : 1970 AC 1004 : (1970) 2 WLR 1140 (HL)] (All ER p. 297g-h) Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances". Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham (No. 2) [(1971) 1 WLR 1062 : (1971) 2 All ER 1267] observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of Russell, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [(1972) 2 WLR 537 : (1972) 1 All ER 749 (HL)] Lord Morris said: (All ER p. 761c) "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case." 11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 12. The following ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent in both the writ petitions to show the authority of the petitioners to file these petitions as on the date of filing of these writ petitions. 56. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner commenced the arguments on 26th April, 2019 which continued on 20th May, 2019, 28th May, 2019, 03rd July, 2019, 18th July, 2019, 23rd July, 2019 and 29th July, 2019. Learned senior counsel for the respondent commenced arguments on 20th August, 2019 which continued on 06th September, 2019, 19th September, 2019, 20th September, 2019, 26th September, 2019, 18th October, 2019, 08th November, 2019 and concluded on 10th January, 2020. On 19th August, 2020, this Court heard the rejoinder arguments of learned senior counsel for the petitioner. After conclusion of rejoinder arguments on 19th August, 2020, this Court raised some queries and listed the matter for hearing on those queries on 27th August, 2020 and directed the parties to file as additional note with respect to the queries of the Court. 57. On 25th August, 2020, counsel for the petitioner filed written submissions in response to the submissions of the respondents in which new averments were made, which are beyond pleadings, and new do....