(A) Whether striking off name of workman from muster roll amounts to retrenchment under Section 2(oo)? - If case is not covered by any of exception under Section 2(oo) read with s. 25-F of Act, striking off name of a worker from Rolls is illegal and non-compliance of Section 25-F renders such retrenchment void ab initio - No inquiry held before issuing order of termination - Held, admitted position that respondent company had not complied with provisions of Section 25-F before issuing order of termination - Striking off name of workman not covered in any of exception under Section 2(oo) and therefore, it amounts to retrenchment under Section 25-F - Termination illegal and retrenchment, therefore, illegal for non-compliance of Section 25-F and void ab initio -

(B) Whether order of termination was not in consonance with provisions of Model Standing Orders? - Before issuing an order of termination for habitual absence under Clause 24(f) of Standing Orders, company ought to have given workman an opportunity of defending himself - No opportunity was given to workman either by issuing a show cause notice or by holding departmental enquiry - Held, Labour Court, therefore, clearly committed an error of law by holding that misconduct under Clause 24(f) was established and was undisputed and therefore, there was no need to hold departmental enquiry -

(C) Whether any prejudice caused to respondent company as no specific issue was framed in respect of back wages? - Both parties led evidence on point of back wages and workman was cross-examined at length - Held, merely because a separate issue not been framed in respect of back wages, no prejudice caused to respondent company -

(D) Whether Labour Court erred in relying on judgment of Apex Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd.? - Judgment was decided in 1958 - Model Standing Orders came into effect from 15.2.59 after said judgment of Apex Court was delivered - Held, Labour Court clearly erred in relying on ratio of judgment of Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company Ltd. in view of Standing Orders which came into effect from 15.2.59 since order of termination was passed thereafter on 24.10.78 -

(E) Whether Labour Court committed an error by giving full back wages to workman after having held that order of termination was legal and proper? - Burden was on part of respondent company to establish that workman was gainfully employed - No evidence brought by respondent company to show that workmen was working elsewhere after his services were terminated - Held, Labour Court erred in granting full back wages to workman - In interest of justice, respondent company directed to pay lump sum amount to workman towards full and final settlement of his claim - Writ petitions disposed of.

(B) Carriers and Transportation - Documentary evidence - Contract for transportation of transformer - Goods damaged at the time of unloading - Report given by the Contractor for carrier - Reliability - Report shows the contractor failed to take necessary precautions and he was negligent - Contractor did not deny the report and its contents - Report sent within 8 days of incident, can be accepted as correct description of incident.

(C) Carriers and Transportation - Carriers Act, 1865, ss. 8, 9 - Burden of Proof - Contract for carrier - Goods damaged at the time of unloading - As per s. 9, the plaintiff is not necessary to establish negligence of the contractor for damage of the subject matter of contract - Party who alleges negligence must prove the same against other - Held, contractor was negligent in handling transformer, hence liable u/ss. 8 and 9 and he has to prove the negligence of plaintiff-board.

(D) Carriers and Transportation - Carriers Act, 1865, s. 10 - Notice - Limitation - Contract for carrier - Defendant-contractor contended that plaintiff-board failed to give notice of damage within six months of mishap - Held, plaintiff-board had to collect the invoice and details of costs of repair and replacements of damaged goods from manufacturer - Plaintiff sent the notice immediately thereafter - Thus, notice was within four months after knowing the actual amount required for repairs, hence there was no limitation.

(E) Carriers and Transportation - Carriers Act, 1865, s. 10 - Contract for carrier - Whether actual amount of claim to be intimated within six months to the contractor for carrier, in the event of damage of the goods transported u/s. 10 of the Act? - Held, no - S. 10 does not require the actual intimation of amount claimed, but mere intimation of accident, is sufficient - Held, actual amount of expenses incurred for the repairs of damaged goods known by the plaintiff-board only through the letter from manufacturer and within four months such claim intimated to the contractor - Plaintiff-board brought all necessary facts known to the notice of carrier - Requirement of s.10 fully complied with.

(F) Carriers and Transportation - Contract of carrier - Goods damaged at the time of unloading - Liability of insurance company - Report submitted by carrier clearly shows the negligence of the carrier in handling of goods - Insurance has taken for the damaged goods during transport so as to save the board from losses - Insurance company cannot avoid its responsibility merely because of negligence of contractor - However, insurance company can recover the amount from negligent carrier.

(G) Insurance - Contract for carrier - Damage of insured goods during unloading - Amount of claim - Determination of - Held, claim to be determined on the basis of final survey report and terms and conditions of the policy.

(B) Customs - Customs Act, 1962, ss. 18(2) (a), 27(3), 28(3) - Refund - Refund u/s. 18(2)(a) would have to be read with the relevant provisions of s. 27(2) r/w 27 (3) of Customs Act - No refund of duty and interest can be made without satisfying the requirements of sub-s. (2) of s. 27(3) - Although s. 18 (5) has been introduced which is applicable to final assessment, s. 28(3) would still govern the issue of refund -

(C) Customs - Customs Act, 1962, s. 27 (2) (3) - Assessment - Provisional assessment - Applicability of Doctrine of unjust enrichment - Held, doctrine would not apply to the provisional assessment by virtue of s. 27 (2) and (3) of the Act - However, doctrine would apply to the assessment is finally completed but no application for refund could be made before the final assessment.

(D) Customs - Customs Act, 1962, s. 28 - Additional duty - Amount of refund claimed has been credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund - Justifiability - S. 28 would squarely applied - Appellants have not established that the incidence of the amounts in question has not been passed on to anybody else - Hence, crediting the amount of refund to the Consumer Welfare Fund, is justifiable.

(E) Customs - Refund of duty - Redemption fine - Applicability of principles of unjust enrichment - Held, principles of unjust enrichment applied to duty, cess, tax , fees etc but not on fine and penalty - Duty means duty of customs leviable under the Act, not fine or penalty.

(F) Customs - Fine in lieu of confiscation - Act provides for the provision of imposition of fine instead of confiscation - Such fine is in the nature of re-compensation - Such fine is in addition to the duty and other charges payable in respect of goods to be confiscated - Confiscated goods vest with the Govt whereas the fine is for wrong done - Hence, fine in lieu of confiscation is admissible.

(B) Land & Property - Land acquisition - Value of property - Evidence - Sale transactions in respect of acquired land or neighbouring land, time and purpose of sale, nature of consideration, manner of transaction are relevant to determine the value of property - In the absence of sale deed, sale transaction of the neighbouring lands have to be taken into consideration - Such transaction preferably before the date of notification and must be bona fide and similar or adjacent to the land to be acquired.

(C) Land & Property - Land acquisition - Determination of value of property - Reliance of GR - Held, reliance of GR containing policy of Govt to fix the value of land to be acquired is proper - GR clearly says the value should be determined on sale-purchase transaction method or valuation by ready reckoner, whichever is higher - Rate prescribed in the ready reckoner was higher than the market value, hence fixed the market rate by following the ready reckoner and GR, is sustainable.

(D) Land & Property - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 23 - Land acquisition - Determination of market value - Basic Valuation Register (BVR) - Reliability of - BVR maintained for the purpose of collecting stamp duty, has no statutory base or force - BVR is not a foundation or basis of determining the market value u/s. 23 of the Act - Evidence of bona fide sales between willing prudent vendor and prudent vendee would furnish basis to determine market value, not the BVR.(D) Land & Property - Land Acquisition Act, 1894, s. 4(1) - Land acquisition - Enhanced compensation - Burden of proof - Claimant has to prove the prevailing market value as on the date of notification published in the State Gazette u/s. 4(1) of the Act with reference to the sale deeds of the same lands or neighbour's lands possessed of same or similar advantages and features executed between willing vendor and willing vendee or other relevant evidence in the reference court - Thus, burden of proof lies on claimant, not state

(E) Land & Property - Land acquisition - Award - Legality - Award of compensation is an offer based on the policy of Govt - Indeed, the policy being binding on the Government, the offer must be based thereon - Policy has not been challenged by any party including the Acquiring Body, hence, award attained finality which has been drawn on such policy

(A) Whether or not the Estate Officer(EO), appointed u/s. 3 of Act, has a jurisdiction to entertain and try the present eviction proceeding initiated by the respondents? - Held, Yes - Effect of previous litigation together with the decision thereon, considered - Basic question arose as to which order would hold the field, order of DB of HC or order of SC D/-04-08-1998? - Held, Order of SC - Doctrine of Merger - The judgment must be read in its entirety and it should not be read as a provision of a statute - Court posits question, 'whether the order of the DB can be said to have merged in the order of the SC?', 'yes' - Precedents referred and relied - 'the judgment of the inferior Court loses its identity by its merger with the judgment of the superior Court', 'M/s Gojer Bros.(P) Ltd. vs. Shri Ratan Lalsingh (1974) 2 SCC 453' - Law therefrom applied to the facts of case - Subject matter of the earlier writ petition and the subject matter of appeal before the SC were identical; entire order of the DB was taken in appeal to the SC and the SC was pleased to pass the order D/- 04-08-1998 - Thus, earlier order of DB of the HC lost its existence in the eye of law and the same stood superseded with that of the SC Order - Principle of res judicata - In case of appeal the appellate decision and not the trial Court's decision which operates as res judicata - Finding on an issue in the earlier suit to operate as res-judicata should not only have been only directly and substantially in issue but it should have been necessary to be decided as well; thus in instant case on examining the order of SC things becomes clear that findings on issue recorded by the HC were directly and substantially in issue, but none of them were considered by the SC on merits; appeal was disposed of not on merits but on the statement of the Sol. General that UOI would resort to the remedy known to or recognized by law - Judgment of HC had lost its identity by its merger in view of the order of superior Court; there cannot be two orders holding the field in the same litigation; SC's Order D/- 04-08-1998 alone holds the field -

(B) Meaning to the order of SC, assigned - Order was based on the statement made by Sol. General - Such statement was in consonance with law as to that 'a lessor, with the best of title, has no right to resume possession extra-judicially by use of force, from a lessee, ever after the expiry of .', 'State of UP vs. Maharaja Dharmander Pd. Singh, AIR 1989 SC 997' - UOI was permitted to resort to the remedies known to law to resume possession of the subject property, on the same cause of action -

(C) What is the effect of order of SC? - First part resulted in granting liberty to the UOI to seek dispossession of the petitioners from the subject property in accordance with law and, if need be through the Civil Court by filing suit, and the second part takes away the effect of the findings and observations made by HC to the extent it would tend to defeat the remedies sought -

(D) Whether or not Public Premises Act answers the requirement of 'due course of law'? - Held, Yes it fulfills the requirement - Comparative study made with the AP Land Encroachment Act, 1905 - Survey of Act done - Held further, it provides complete due machinery answering the test of due course of law - Thus it is not necessary for the respondents to first go to Civil Court to seek declaration of their title and thereafter resort to the provisions of Act -

(E) Expression 'belonging to' - Meaning and connotation - It will take within its sweep not only ownership but also rights lesser than that of ownership like 'right of user' - Act has been placed on the statute book to give summary remedy to the Govt. to evict persons in occupation of public premises to obviate the long ordeal of trial in Civil Court and of further proceedings thereafter; hence a wider meaning will have to be given to the expressions used in the Act for defining the concept of public premises - Thus for exercising his jurisdiction EO has to consider whether or not the present premises will squarely be embraced by the definition 'public premises' within the meaning of the Act; for such purpose it is not necessary for EO to determine ownership or title -

(F) Jurisdiction of EO under the Act - Once basic facts are established it is open for the EO to assume jurisdiction - Findings on such facts as to their existence and assumption of jurisdiction thereupon can only be challenged by the procedure laid down in the Act and not in a separate proceeding - Position is, 'if a Tribunal appointed under an Act is vested with jurisdiction to try cases arising out of the said Act, the Tribunal is also vested with the power to decide the existence or non-existence of facts giving rise to such jurisdiction, and the Tribunal's finding thereon even if wrong can be assailed only before the authorities if any under the Act', thus no writ of certiorari -

Prayer for writ of mandamus incompetent, and for writ of prohibition, premature - Question of survival of cause of action, thus decided in favour of respondents to initiate eviction proceedings under Act leaving the question open for being tried by the authorities under Act on its own merits - Direction issued to petitioners to file reply to the SCN within four weeks - Further directions issued - Petition dismissed.