E. Hill and Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
labour and industrial - subsequent conduct - respondent challenged the transfer order passed by appellant - after the appellant joined the transferred place, his service terminated on account of closure of unit at transfered place - even though he had challenged his transfer to other unit of the company, he accepting all amounts which were paid to him in accordance with law on account of closure of the unit - in view of the subsequent development, the earlier challenge of respondents' become in fructuous because by his conduct he accepted the transfer when the terminal benefits which were paid to him on the closure of the unit were accepted by him even if the said transfer was not in accordance with law - section 25 ff of industrial dispute act, 1947. - indian penal code, 1890.sections 302 & 376: [dr.arijit pasayat & asok kumar ganguly,jj] death sentence -rarest of rare case - case based on circumstantial evidence held, mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances have to be balanced. difference of opinion as to case coming within parameters of rarest of rare case - matter directed to be placed before chief justice of india for necessary orders. sections 302 & 376: death sentence-rarest of rare case [per ganguly, j]imposition of death sentence by considering one of the circumstances which high court finds plausible is in defiance of any reasoning which brings a case within category of rarest of rare cases. section 302: death sentence- held, [per ganguly, j] cry for justice is not answered by frequent awarding of death sentence on a purported faith on deterrence creed. before choosing the option for death sentence, the court must consciously eschew its tendency of retributive ruthlessness. supreme court cannot afford to prioritise the sentiments of outrage about the nature of the crimes committed over the requirement to carefully consider whether the person committing the crime is a threat to the society. the court must consider whether there is a possibility of reform or rehabilitation of the man committing the crime and which must be at the heart of the sentencing process. it is only this approach that can keep imposition of death sentence within the rarest of the rare cases. the expression rarest of rare cases is not to be read as a mere play on words or a tautologous expression. sections 376 & 300: rape and murder - circumstantial evidence -victim 10 years old school going girl - accused, watchman of building wherein victim was residing last seen in her company by witnesses - extra judicial confession by accused that he had taken victim with him on his bicycle and raped her and killed her - accused had shown place of incident where dead body of deceased was found lying at his instance his cycle and school bag of deceased were recovered and school bag was found containing anklets and earrings belonging to deceased -human blood was found on his t-shirt held, in fact and circumstances conviction of accused by trial court and affirmed by high court is not liable to be interfered with. order1. special leave granted.2. the respondent gufran ali who was working in the appellant's unit at khamariah was transferred to the bisunderpur unit of the company. this transfer was challenged and the dispute was referred to the labour court.3. in 1991 after gufran ali had joined at bisunderpur unit, by letter dated 27th april, 1991 gufran ali was informed that his services were terminated as a result of the closure of the said unit and closure compensation and notice pay as contemplated by section 25ff of the industrial disputes act amounting to rs. 8,416.45p. was paid to him. subsequently by another letter dated 30th may, 1991, on account of closure of the said bisunderpur unit, the appellant paid a sum of rs. 25,679.80p. to gufran ali as his provident fund dues, rs. 6,617.45p. was paid to him on account of gratuity and rs. 1251.30p. was paid by the appellant towards gufran ali's leave encashment.4. it is not in dispute that the same paid to gufran ali by the said letters of 27th april, 1991 and 30th may, 1991 were accepted by him. in addition to the same, by letter dated 29th november, 1991 gufran ali was paid a further sum of rs. 2.432/- as bonus for the year 1991 and rs. 96/- as bonus till his last day of working in the year 1991-92. these sums were also accepted.5. having accepted the aforesaid amounts, it is quite obvious that the conduct of gufran ali showed that even though he had challenged his transfer to bisunderpur unit of the company he accepted his termination of services by the company on accepting all amounts which were payable to him in accordance with law on account of closure of the unit where he was working. in view of this subsequent development, the earlier challenge of gufran ali's transfer from khamariah to bisunderpur, in fact, became infructuous because by his conduct he accepted the transfer when the terminal benefits which were paid to him on the closure of the unit at bisunderpur were accepted by him. under these circumstances the high court fell in error in not setting aside the award of the labour court which had held that gufran ali's transfer from khamariah to bisunderpur was not valid. even if the said transfer was not in accordance with law, but, as already observed hereinabove, by subsequent conduct gufran ali accepted his transfer and then terminal benefits which were paid to him pursuant to the closure of the unit of bisunderpur.6. for the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the orders of the high court and the award of the tribunal are set aside. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. Special leave granted.

2. The respondent Gufran Ali who was working in the appellant's unit at Khamariah was transferred to the Bisunderpur unit of the company. This transfer was challenged and the dispute was referred to the labour court.

3. In 1991 after Gufran Ali had joined at Bisunderpur unit, by letter dated 27th April, 1991 Gufran Ali was informed that his services were terminated as a result of the closure of the said unit and closure compensation and notice pay as contemplated by Section 25FF of the Industrial Disputes Act amounting to Rs. 8,416.45p. was paid to him. Subsequently by another letter dated 30th May, 1991, on account of closure of the said Bisunderpur unit, the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 25,679.80p. to Gufran Ali as his provident fund dues, Rs. 6,617.45p. was paid to him on account of gratuity and Rs. 1251.30p. was paid by the appellant towards Gufran Ali's leave encashment.

4. It is not in dispute that the same paid to Gufran Ali by the said letters of 27th April, 1991 and 30th May, 1991 were accepted by him. In addition to the same, by letter dated 29th November, 1991 Gufran Ali was paid a further sum of Rs. 2.432/- as bonus for the year 1991 and Rs. 96/- as bonus till his last day of working in the year 1991-92. These sums were also accepted.

5. Having accepted the aforesaid amounts, it is quite obvious that the conduct of Gufran Ali showed that even though he had challenged his transfer to Bisunderpur unit of the company he accepted his termination of services by the company on accepting all amounts which were payable to him in accordance with law on account of closure of the unit where he was working. In view of this subsequent development, the earlier challenge of Gufran Ali's transfer from Khamariah to Bisunderpur, in fact, became infructuous because by his conduct he accepted the transfer when the terminal benefits which were paid to him on the closure of the unit at Bisunderpur were accepted by him. Under these circumstances the High Court fell in error in not setting aside the award of the labour court which had held that Gufran Ali's transfer from Khamariah to Bisunderpur was not valid. Even if the said transfer was not in accordance with law, but, as already observed hereinabove, by subsequent conduct Gufran Ali accepted his transfer and then terminal benefits which were paid to him pursuant to the closure of the unit of Bisunderpur.

6. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are allowed and the orders of the High Court and the award of the tribunal are set aside. No costs.