Supreme Court Monthly Digest: September 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 409 To LL 2021 SC 524]

1. Principle Of Equal Pay For Equal Work Cannot Be Applied Merely On Basis Of Designation[Case: Union of India v. Manoj Kumar; Citation: LL 2021 SC 409]The Supreme Court has observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. In this case, the court had to examine the claims made by Private Secretaries (Grade-II) ("PS-II") employed in the Eastern Central Railways (Field Office/Zonal Railways),for parity in pay with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service ("CSSS")/Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service ("RBSSS")/Central Administrative Tribunal ("CAT"). Interpreting the Sixth Central Pay Commission report, the Court noticed that the aspect of disparity between the Secretariat and the field offices was a matter taken note of by the Commission itself while making the recommendations.A Bench comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed, "we are fortified in the view we are seeking to adopt in interpreting the aforesaid paragraphs of the Pay Commission by the observations in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, where it was opined that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. While dealing with the 5th Pay Commission recommendations with respect to functional requirements, it was held that there was no question of any equivalence on that basis. The said case dealt with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. While observing that as a general statement it was correct to state that the basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given."2. Supreme Court Reduces Sentence To Period Already Undergone As Man Convicted U/s 498A IPC Agrees To Pay Compensation To His Wife & Children[Case: Samaul SK v. State of Jharkhand; Citation: LL 2021 SC 410]The Supreme Court has reduced sentence awarded to a man convicted under section 498A of IPC to period already undergone after he agreed to pay compensation to his wife and children. The object of any criminal jurisprudence is reformative in character and to take care of the victim, the bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy observed. In this case, the second wife of the accused filed a complaint under Section 498A IPC alleging mental and physical torture and demands of dowry by the accused. The Trial Court held him guilty and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by him and later the revision petition filed by him was also dismissed by the High Court. Before the Apex Court, the man said he was willing to pay compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs the wife and the children and requested for about six months' time to raise the money."It is towards this objective that Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is enacted in the statute. The objective of which is to apply whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied on payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence. In the present case, it is one of voluntarily offering the amount albeit to seek a reduction of sentence", the Court noted. Taking note of the fact that the accused has now undergone about seven months of sentence, the bench reduced the sentence to the period undergone in case he pays a sum of Rs.3.00 lakh as compensation.3. Second Appeal- Question Of Law Doesn't Arise In Abstract; Mere Reference To Facts Does Not Amount To Reappreciation Of Evidence[Case: Balasubramanian v. M. Arockiasamy (dead); Citation: LL 2021 SC 411]The Supreme Court has observed that merely because the High Court, while considering a second appeal, refers to certain factual aspects in the case to raise and conclude on the question of law, the same does not mean that the factual aspect and evidence has been re-appreciated. Question of law for consideration will not arise in abstract but in all cases will emerge from the facts peculiar to that case and there cannot be a strait jacket formula, the bench of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana, Justices AS Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy said.In this case, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking the relief of perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The Trial Court held that the plaintiff failed to prove possession over the suit schedule property and thus dismissed the suit. The First appellate court reversed these findings and decreed the suit. In second appeal filed by the defendant, the High Court restored the Trial Court order dismissing the suit. In appeal before the Supreme Court, the plaintiff...

Supreme Court Monthly Digest: September 2021 [Citation LL 2021 SC 409 To LL 2021 SC 524]

Aaratrika Bhaumik

Tags