If the terms of allotment of industrial plots are not complied with, state authorities must cancel the allocation and not condone delays repeatedly. The delays cannot be passed over by charging a 'condonation delay fee' on the allottees, the Supreme Court stated in its judgment in Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation vs Shivani Engineering Industries.
In this case, the corporation allotted industrial plots on condition that the proposed units will be set up within two years of getting possession. However, the corporation granted several concessions like extension of time to start production, change of the nature of industry and was "very generous and liberal" in allowing the unit to use the plot by payment of a condonation delay fee of 3 per cent.
The court indicted the corporation for not being diligent while developing the industrial estate. Its officers did not cancel the allotments and take them back as they ought to have done due to the lapse of this unit and several other similarly placed allottees. Therefore, the court ordered a detailed police inquiry against all corporation officers involved in the allotment of plots, repeated extension of deadlines and reluctance to take back the plots.
The police shall report its conclusion within four months and also take suitable action against those found guilty. The corporation was directed to withdraw the demand for condonation of delay fee and directed it to take back the plots involved.
New land acquisition law clarified
Though there is a raging controversy over the ordinance vis a vis the Land Acquisition Act 2013, the Supreme Court assumes that the law is in force from January 1 last year. Land owners who moved courts under the 1894 Act have changed the tack after the commencement of the new law as in the latest case, Competent Automobiles Ltd vs Union of India.
One of the new provisions is that if the land acquired is not taken possession of in five years nor compensation paid, it would revert to the owners. Clarifying the law, the court stated: "Any determination under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act must proceed sequentially. First the award under the old law must be clearly established. That award must predate the commencement of the new law on January 1, 2014, by at least five years or more, i.e. the award must have been passed on or before January 1, 2009. This having been established, if possession is found not to have been taken, or compensation not paid, the acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. The government, if it chooses, may re-initiate proceedings in respect of the same land under the 2013 Act."
23 years to decide retrenchment dispute
The Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal of Mackinnon Mackenzie Ltd and upheld the ruling of the industrial court and the Bombay High Court which had indicted the firm for retrenching 100 workers without following the labour laws. The litigation took 23 years and therefore the Supreme Court directed the company to pay back wages and continue to pay full wages and arrears to the concerned workers. It shall be done in six weeks.
The courts had held that the company, in the business of shipping and travel, had breached the rules under the Industrial Disputes Act and the Maharashtra Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act. Its stand that it had suffered losses and wanted to rationalise the wage structure was not substantiated. It did not follow the rule, last come, the first to go, the judgment said.
SC increases compensation 18 times
A poultry farm labourer who sustained permanent disability in a road accident was awarded an enhanced compensation of Rs 4.43 lakh with 9 per cent interest. The accident tribunal had granted only Rs 25,000. His appeal to the Madras High Court was dismissed on the ground that he had sustained only simple injuries. However, on his further appeal, the Supreme Court criticised the tribunal and the high court for brushing aside the medical evidence.
In this judgment, S Perumal vs K Ambika, the court said that though it normally would not interfere in the finding of facts of courts below, it would re-appreciate the evidence when there is serious error in order to render justice to all parties. The Motor Vehicles Act insists that the award must be just and reasonable. "The whole idea is to put the claimant in the same position as he was prior to the accident," the judgment underlined, and asked the insurance company to pay the amount.
Jurisdiction row in arbitration
The Supreme Court has set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court in an arbitration dispute between a firm in Raichur, Karnataka, and another in Latur, Maharashtra. The dispute was over payment for the sale of cotton dispatched from Raichur and taken delivery in Latur. The Karnataka High Court asked Industrial Facilitation Council, Bangalore, to arbitrate. The award went in favour of the Karnatak firm, M/s Bhandari Udoy Ltd.
The Latur firm challenged the award in Maharashtra, and the district court there decided that the Karnataka court has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute as the consignment was taken delivery in Maharashtra. The Bombay High Court took the same view. The Supreme Court ruled that the high court was wrong as the supply of cotton was made from Karnataka and the Latur firm joined the arbitration proceedings in Bangalore without protest.
Railways pay pittance as damages
The Delhi High Court has ruled that loss of goods handed over to the public sector Container Corporation of India for transport will be compensated only at the rate of Rs 50 a kg, and not by the value of goods as reflected in the invoice. This is because the corporation is covered by the Railways Act and the liability is limited by it. The decision was given in the case of Brahm Dev vs Container Corporation. In a similar case, the high court remarked that the limit of Rs 50 was fixed in 1990 and it is not reasonable.
The law makers have not taken a second look at the anomalous provision. The court said in the judgment, Rare Earth Overseas vs CCI: "It cannot be lost sight of that Railways enjoy monopoly. There is a need to approach the aspect of such compensation from a holistic perspective, keeping in mind the interest of citizens. It prima facie appears that the government is required to have a relook into the rules from time to time to keep pace with the inflationary trends."
