Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Solid Containers Ltd. and ors.

.....is accepted for the sake of argument that the bulk quantity was destroyed, the samples were essential to be produced and proved as primary evidence for the purpose of establishing the fact of recovery of heroin as envisaged under section 52a of the act. section 52-a; disposal of seized articles - a certificate issued under section 110(ib) of the customs 1962 act can be recorded as a certificate of authentication and no more; authority for disposal would require a clear direction of the court in terms of section 52-a of the act. physical evidence being the property of the court and being central to the trial must be treated and disposed of in strict compliance of the law. guidelines; [s.b.sinha & v.s.sirpurkar, jj] guidelines issued should not only be substantially complied, but also in a case involving penal proceedings, vis--vis a departmental proceeding, rigours of such guidelines may be insisted upon when directions are issued by an authority having the legal sanction granted therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of the subordinate authorities to comply therewith. statement made at the bar; evidentiary value - a statement made at the bar in regard to existence of a general practice cannot be a substitute of evidence whereupon only the court could rely upon. -- constitution of india. article 21: fair trial held, a fair trial is a human right. marshalling and appreciation of evidence must be done strictly in accordance with the well known legal principles governing the same; wherefor the provisions of the code of criminal procedure and evidence act must be followed. appreciation of evidence must be done on the basis of materials on record and not on the basis of some reports which have nothing to do with the occurrence in question. customs act, 1962 -- section 108; [s.b.sinha & v.s.sirpurkar, jj] confession made by accused before custom officer - held, section 25 of evidence act applicable to such confession. by virtue of section 53 (2) of ndps act,.....order1. the commencement of the present industrial dispute being the subject matter of this appeal by the grant of special leave relates back to the year 1985 and fifteen (15) long years have passed without however, conferment of any benefit to any of the parties. fortunately, however, during the course of hearing the well-merited gesture mr. g.b. pai, the learned senior advocate the respondent has led to a happy end to the controversy in the matter. the appeal thus being disposed of by consent of the parties the manner following: a. by consent of the parties, the impugned order dated june 23, 1995 of the high court passed on i.p.a. no. 12 of 1991 in writ petition no. 252 of 1990 as well as the orders passed by the courts below i.e. by the industrial court and by the learned single judge of the high court in w.p. no. 252 of 1990 are set aside. b. the proceedings are closed subject to the following directions by consent of the parties: i. learned senior counsel for the respondent-management has produced before us a list of 24 employees who, according to the respondent-management will be entitled to get monetary benefit towards full and final satisfaction of their claims in the present proceedings. ii. we are informed by learned counsel for the appellant that in addition to 24 listed employees there may be three more. if that is so, the said monetary benefits will also be made available to the three employees along with the 24 listed employees who will be paid towards full and final satisfaction of their claims in the present proceedings a sum of rs. 1 lac each by the respondent-management on due verification and identification by the respective unions before the representative of the management within eight weeks from today. iii. the amount of rs. 1 lac payable to each of the 24 listed employees along with the three more employees on due identification shall be paid by way of bank drafts drawn in favour of each of them. 2. no costs.