Upendra Kumar and ors. Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 168; [s.b. sinha & h.s. bedi, jj ] determination of compensation meaning of income of victim held, the term income has different connotations for different purposes. a court of law, having regard to the change in societal conditions must consider the question not only having regard to pay packet the employee carries home at the end of the month but also other perks which are beneficial to the members of the entire family. loss caused to the family on a death of a near and dear one can hardly be compensated on monetary terms. section 168 uses the word just compensation which, in our opinion, should be assigned a broad meaning. it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the private sector companies in place of introducing a pension scheme takes recourse to payment of contributory provident fund, gratuity and other perks to attract the people who are efficient and hard working. different offers made to an officer by the employer, same may be either for the benefit of the employee himself or for the benefit of the entire family if some facilities are being provided whereby the entire family stands to benefit, the same, must be held to be relevant for the purpose of computation of total income on the basis whereof the amount of compensation payable for the death of the kith and kin of the applicants is required to be determined. the amounts, therefore, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit. from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted. - this is a well settled principle of exercise of writ jurisdiction. it is well settled that a mere direction of the supreme court or the high court, without laying down any legal principle, is not a precedent, vide delhi administration v.1. heard learned counsel for the appellants.2. we have carefully perused the judgment of the learned single judge dated june 10, 2003 and find no infirmity in the same. the learned single judge has discussed the matter in detail and we fully agree with the reasoning given by him. if a department, a factory or an establishment is closed down, there is no legal principle that the employee has a right to get alternative employment. no doubt, the loss of a job of an employee causes great hardship to his family, but a writ cannot be issued on the basis of hardship. some error of law or illegality has to be demonstrated before a writ can be issued.3. it may be mentioned that in a writ petition the petitioner has not only to show that there is equity in his favour, but he has also to show that there is law in his favour. unless both are in his favour, a writ will not be issued. the appellant cannot claim a writ merely because equity is in his favour. this is a well settled principle of exercise of writ jurisdiction. so far as the appellant is concerned, he has not been able to show any legal principle that a person who is retrenched from an establishment, factory, department has a right to get alternative employment.4. learned counsel for the appellant has shown us certain directions issued by the supreme court in certain cases for grant of alternative employment to an employee who has lost his job on closure of the department, establishment, or factory. it is well settled that a mere direction of the supreme court or the high court, without laying down any legal principle, is not a precedent, vide delhi administration v. manoharlal air 2002 sc 3088.5. in indian council of agricultural research v. raja balwant singh college, 2003 all lj 1097, a division bench of this court, relying on several decisions of the supreme court, held that merely because in some decisions the supreme court directed regularisation of some employees it does not amount to laying down any law, and hence these decisions were not precedents.6. the supreme court often issues directions without laying down any legal proposition and unless there is some principle of law laid down by the supreme court, the petitioner cannot claim benefit of the direction issued by the supreme court without laying down any legal principle. we are not aware of any legal principle that the petitioner whose service has been terminated on closure of a department, establishment or factory has a legal right to get alternative employment. the number of jobs in the country is limited, and this court should not embarass the authorities by issuing such directions.7. there is no force in this appeal and it is dismissed.