Sub-tenancy merges into ownership

LEGAL DIGEST

The Supreme Court has ruled that if a sub-tenant acquires the entire interest of the owner of a property, the sub-tenancy merges into ownership. The sub-tenant who has become the owner can now terminate the original tenancy.

He can recover possession from the former tenant, the court ruled in the Pramod Kumar vs Bibi Husn Bano case by a majority of two to one.

This judgment also overruled a previous decision of the court in the Indra Perfumery vs Moti Lal case, which had held a contrary view relating to Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act.

Chief Justice RC Lahoti, who wrote the majority judgment on this point, said if the Indra Perfumery judgment dealing with this issue was followed, it would lead to anomalous consequences

Canteen workers denied regularisation

The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of the Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union against the judgment of the Calcutta High Court denying them regularisation in the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.

The union argued that though they were employed through a contractor, for all practical purposes, they were employees of the public sector corporation.

The canteen was part of the establishment, the work was perennial in nature and the canteen was integrally connected to the management of the establishment.

The management, however, denied any direct relationship with the workers and recognised only the contractor. Moreover, it said public undertakings had a rigorous recruitment policy and the canteen workers had not gone through the regular intake procedure.

Accepting this view, the Supreme Court said the workers did not come under the management except for the purposes of the Factories Act, which dealt with working conditions in the canteen.

Termination of missing workers

If an employee does not report for duty even after his extended leave period and after repeated correspondence, the employer may terminate his service without departmental proceedings.

This was held by the Supreme Court in the Viveka Sethi vs Chairman of J&K Bank case in two appeals against the judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court. In this case, the employee did not join duty despite several letters to him. When he was terminated he appeared and demanded reinstatement.

The labour court and the high court granted it. The high court held that a full-fledged departmental proceedings should have been conducted before taking action. The J&K Bank moved the Supreme Court.

"A limited enquiry as to whether the employee had sufficient explanation for not reporting to duties after the period of leave had expired or failure on his part on being asked so to do, in court considered views, amounts to sufficient compliance of the requirements of the principles of natural justice," the Supreme court said in its judgment.

Insurance company pulled up

The National Consumer Commission has criticised New India Assurance Company and the surveyor for their "deplorable and pathetic attitude" towards a businessman who had lost all his property in the riots following the demolition of Babri masjid.

The national commission confirmed the compensation of Rs 5.64 lakh ordered by the Gujarat State Consumer Commission. The trader had lost all his original documents. The surveyor's assessment of the stock was arbitrary, the commission said.

Moreover, the insurer did not accept the certificate of stock from the Bank of India. The national commission remarked that the trader had already been devastated and was unable to feed his family since about 500 rioters set his factory on fire. The insurance company was "callous" in rejecting whatever evidence was available of his assets, the judgment observed.