TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (9) TMI 1218
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on 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 regular workmen have been retrenched while con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 respondent, there was no work for the retrenched employe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and the retrenchme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ry 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. Shramik Sena, (1999) 6 SCC 439; Chennai Port Trust v. Chenn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....;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 work" of PTI is false. 12. Learned senior counsel for the resp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fficient 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 reading of paras 20 and 21 shows that the Supreme Court said "....it is too late to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tments 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 to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the petitioners are not authorized/c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons 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 exercised the jurisdiction considering that the parties had filed detailed affidavits and documents which were con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....roval 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 college was amenable to writ jurisdiction as it satisfies the public function test. Judgments cited by the Respondents 23. In Premier Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ave 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 is to get an adjudication under the Act. (4) If the right which is sought to be enforced is a right created under the Act such as Chapter V-A then the remedy for its enforcement is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunals 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 intendment should necessarily weigh with the courts in interpreting these enactments and the disputes arising under them". 12. Although these observations were made in the context of the jurisdiction of the civi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition in view of the alternative remedy available under the Industrial Disputes Act. The Supreme Court referred to and reiterated the principles la....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f 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] the Constitution Bench of this Court observed as follows: (SCR p. 920) "It is true that the powers conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 are very wide, but it is not suggested by Mr. Chatterjee that even these powers can take in within their sweep industrial disputes of the kind which this co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 make an effort to dispose of the reference within four months of the receipt of the reference from the State Government, which shall be done within three months from today." (Emphasis supplied) 26. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti, (2008) 12 SCC 675, U.P. State Mineral Development Corporation (UPSMDCL) retrenched 460 employees which was cha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 relief to the petitioner. 39. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, particularly in view of assertions by the Corporation that its work had been substantially reduced; it was running into losses; the question was considered by the Board of Directors and it was resolved to retrench certain employees, it would have been appropriate, had the High Court not entertained the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 available to them. It is equally open to the Corporation and the State authorities to defend and support the action taken by them. As and when such a course is adopted by the employees, the court/tribunal will decide it strictly in accordance with law without being influenced by the fact that the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners is dismissed by this Court." (Emphasis supplied) 27. In Transport & Dock Workers Union v. Mumbai Port Trust, (2011) 2 SCC 575, the workers union ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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, have to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act and the awards of the Industrial Tribunal are amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court. This is the legislative policy and intendment underlying the Industrial Disputes Act. 31. The law is well settled by the Supreme Court that a writ petition should not be entertained in respect of industrial disputes for which a statutory remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act unless 'Exceptional circumstances' are made out. The Su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cts 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 Station on the night of 26th November, 2013. In the middle of the night at about 12:18 A.M., a goods train broke the dead end of the railway track and thereafter, hit the boundary wall of Old Delhi Railway Station whereupon the boundary wall fell down and all the three persons sleeping on the pavement were crushed under the boundary wall. The police registered FIR under Section 304A IPC against four employees of Railways and thereafter, filed the chargesheet and charge was framed by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The police could identify only one person who died in the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th 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 November, 2018, this Court enhanced the compensation from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs. In this case, the claimant Kiran Kanojia availed the statutory remedy for claiming compensation before the Railway Claims Tribunal. However, the facts of this case clearly constitute 'Exceptional circumstances' as the claimant suffered a major accident while travelling in train which resulted in the amputation of her left leg and she was hospitalized; she belonged to a very poor family and had no means to bear the hospitalization charges for her treatment/amputation and therefore, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 critical condition and they were taken to Babu Jagjivan Memorial Hospital. Head Constable, Dayal Singh survived whereas the remaining four persons including Constable, Ranbir Singh were declared dead. The widow, four minor children and parents of Constable, Ranbir Singh filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 5 lakh as compensation before the District Court which was decreed. The government challenged the decree before this Court. This Court noticed the family was entitled to Rs. 11,59,052/- instead of Rs. 5 lakhs claimed by them. However, the poor and illiterate legal representatives....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uel (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 Constitution of India should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. (Emphasis Supplied) 43. This case is also covered by State of Uttar Pradesh v. Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti (supra) in which the writ petition to challenge retrenchment of 460 employees was allowed by the Allahabad High Court and various interim orders were passed in favour of the employees. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition in view of statutory remedy to the employees under the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inability 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.P. Rajya Setu Nigam Karamchari Sangh (supra), the issue of delay on the part of the High Court in disposing of the dispute was raised before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court rejected this plea and held that even when there is a delay, High Court should not have short-circuited the process. The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to the workman to raise an industrial dispute. Relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereunder: "17. The only reason given by the High Court to finally dispose of the issues in its writ jurisdiction which appears to be sustainable, is the factor of delay, on the part of the High Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ernative 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 questions of facts which cannot be resolved by this Court in writ jurisdiction. This Court is of the view that the affidavits and documents filed by the parties are not sufficient to decide the questions of fact without evidence. According to the respondent, there was no work for the retrenched employees for a long period and therefore, the respondent took a decision to retrench 297 employees to carry out the work efficiently. This averment is disputed by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, there is sufficient work for the retrenched employees. This disputed question of fact, apart from other disputed questions of fact, has to be adjudicated on the basis of the evidence to be led b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as 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 exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. If the impugned action of the Corporation of retrenchment of several employees is not in consonance with law, the employees are certainly entitled to relief from an appropriate authority." (Emphasis Supplied) 49. Although the respondent has vehemently disputed all the averments made by the petitioners, even assuming the petitioners' averments to be undisputed, no case for exercise of writ jurisdiction is made out in view of well settled law that a writ petition in respect of an industrial dispute should not be entertained except only in 'Exceptional circumstances'. The sole test laid down by the Supreme Court for exercise of a writ jurisdicti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce 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 regard to the factual situation and circumstances of the two cases. In Padma Sundara Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu (2002) 3 SCC 533 the Supreme Court held that the ratio of a judgment has to be read in the context of the facts of the case and even a single fact can make a difference. In para 9 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court held as under: "9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus: "Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. xxx xxx xxx Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 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 documents were filed, without seeking any permission from this Court. It is well settled that the parties have to amend their pleadings to incorporate new facts and documents. This Court depreciates the manner in which the new averments and documents beyond pleadings are sought to be filed without permission of this Court, at such a belated stage, for which no explanation has been given. The new pleadings and documents filed by the petitioners on 25th August, 2020 are not even supported by an affidavit. There is merit in the respondent's submission that the documents now filed do not appear to be genuine on various grounds inter alia that 141 letters of retrenched employees in W.P.(C) 10596/2018 are all undated; the signatures of many retrenched employees do not tally with their signatures in their service record; the signatures of 35 employees in their....