This writ appeal challenges a Division Bench decision arising from a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant, Latha @ Premalatha, claimed exclusive possession of 27.05 cents of land and obtained a decree in O.S. No. 401 of 2018 before the Munsiff, Palakkad, restraining respondents 4 to 6 and their associates from trespassing. On 29 December 2022, the seventh respondent, described as the brother of respondents 4 to 6, allegedly prevented the petitioner from cutting trees on the property. Respondents 5 and 7 opposed the petition; 5th respondent contended Ext. P1, the sale deed in favour of the petitioner, was based on a Will said to have been executed by the father of respondents 4 to 6, which was set aside by the Sub Court in O.S. No. 738 of 2009; the 7th respondent claimed no trespass and disputed the petitioner’s rights. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting that the Will underpinning Ext. P1 had been set aside and that the sale deed’s validity was clouded. The Court observed that a challenge of such nature requires adjudication in civil proceedings rather than in a writ petition under Article 226. The appellant argues for police protection and continued reliance on Ext. P1, while the respondents contend that the Will’s reversal invalidates the petitioner’s title. The appeal is dismissed, reinforcing the view that the dispute concerns possession in a co-ownership context and cannot be resolved via a writ petition in this posture.
MACA Nos. 2341 of 2014 and 2373 of 2014 This is a common judgment of two MACA Nos. 2341 of 2014 and 2373 of 2014 arising from motor accident claim petitions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, decided by the Kerala High Court on 21 June 2023. The appellant insurer (2nd respondent) challenges the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, award dated 18 February 2014 in OP(MV) Nos. 2297 and 2303 of 2004, which jointly awarded compensation to the claimant Madhuja Kumari (and, in the related petition, to her minor son Adarsh) for injuries suffered when a tree fell on the motorcycle at the accident site. The insurer contends that the motorcycle was insured under an “Act only Policy” which does not cover pillion riders, and no additional premium was remitted for such coverage. It further contends that the rider was not made a party and that the policy excludes pillion risk; the tribunal’s award against the insurer is thus unwarranted. The court cites controlling law from United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thilak Singh, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sudhakaran, and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul, noting those decisions restrict coverage under Act only policies for pillion riders. Relying on these precedents, the court finds no reason to sustain insurer liability and sets aside the impugned award to that extent, allowing the insurer’s appeals. The judgment culminates in allowing the insurer’s appeals and modifying the award accordingly.
CRL.REV.PET NO. 333 OF 2011 This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Girish challenging concurrent judgments convicting him under sections 279 and 304-A of the IPC and section 3(1) read with section 181 of the MV Act. The case arises from a motor vehicle accident on 04.10.2006 on the Thrissur–Shornur public road, where the auto-rickshaw identified by KL-9-9605 allegedly driven rashly and without a valid licence struck a pedestrian named Gopidas, who died on the way to hospital. PW 1, PW 3, and PW 8, among others, testified as eye-witnesses with others supporting the prosecution, while the defence denied the incriminating circumstances in 313 CrPC. The Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him to three months’ imprisonment for 279 IPC, six months for 304-A IPC, and a fine of Rs. 500 under MV Act, with a default sentence. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence. The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, clarifies the scope of Sections 397–401 CrPC, citing precedents to emphasize that revisional intervention is sparing and supervisory rather than appellate. It partly allows the revision, upholds the conviction, but modifies the sentence to one month for 279 IPC and one month with a fine of Rs. 4,000 for 304-A IPC, along with Rs. 500 fine under MV Act, with surrender and suspended execution until 13.12.2023.
Shaijan Joseph, the petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 3297 of 2023, challenges the continuation of Crime No. 185/2022 registered at Thodupuzha Police Station for offences under IPC sections 294(b) (obscene acts in public), 324 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 326 (grievous hurt). He seeks quashing of the proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, contending that the parties have resolved their dispute amicably and there is an affidavit in support. The Public Prosecutor, while noting there are no other crimes against the petitioner, raises reservations about quashing solely on the basis of a settlement, and stresses the need to preserve public interest in serious offences. The High Court surveys precedents from Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan, which hold that the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC can be exercised to quash non-compoundable offences with civil character where the dispute has been completely settled; however, it should not apply to heinous offenses or offences under special statutes. It also indicates that the court may examine the nature of injuries, whether the charge is under Section 307 IPC or Arms Act, and the accused’s antecedents and conduct. Applying these principles to the present facts, the court finds that quashing would not adversely affect society and would advance ends of justice. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the Final Report in Crime No. 185/2022 and all further proceedings against the petitioner in CC 401/2022 are quashed.
Ma'din Public School, CBSE-affiliated and situated in Malappuram, filed a writ appeal challenging a learned Single Judge’s dismissal of WP(C) No. 20711 of 2018, which sought mandamus to reclassify its bus KL-07/AD-708 as an Educational Institution Bus. The vehicle, a 2001 Tata 407 with 20 seats, had been transferred to the school in 2016. Following Exhibit P1–P4 papers, the Regional Transport Officer issued sanction for reclassifying the vehicle, and the school was asked to present the vehicle for inspection after alterations and payment of required fees (₹3,000 compounding and ₹150 alteration fees). Despite the sanction, the transport officer did not effect the reclassification for nearly two years, resulting in tax treatment as a contract carriage. The petition alleged suppression of material facts and sought relief under Article 226, contending the vehicle was fit for education-related transport. Respondents countered that the vehicle was not produced for inspection, was dilapidated, and unfit for either contract carriage or educational use; an inspection confirmed the vehicle’s dilapidated state and the school’s intention to scrap it. The High Court held suppression of material facts and, upholding the learned Judge’s reasoning, dismissed the writ petition and the appeal, while imposing costs and directing stringent inspection-based processing for future alterations under Section 52 of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant precedents.
This appeal arose from an MACT Thrissur award concerning the death of Shahul Hameed K.K. following a motor-vehicle accident on 19.07.2003, in which a jeep allegedly struck the motorcyclist. Shahul Hameed died on 31.07.2003. The appellants (Shajitha and dependants) claimed compensation for loss of dependency, funeral, medical, and related heads, contending the Tribunal erred in assessing fault and quantum. The Tribunal held 50% contributory negligence by the deceased and the jeep driver, directing the insurer to deposit half the award amount with interest. The Insurance Company admitted policy coverage but argued the accident resulted from the deceased’s own negligence, and the quantum was disputed. The appeal challenged the Tribunal’s reliance on the scene mahazar as decisive proof of negligence, invoking Jiju Kuruvila v. Kunjunjamma Mohan and New India Assurance Co. v. Pazhani Ammal to emphasize that final police reports and corroborative evidence must guide negligence. The appellants also argued the deceased’s overseas income (reported since 1985) supported a higher monthly dependency, and invoked Pranay Sethi, Satinder Kaur and Magma decisions to recompute damages. The High Court, after reassessing income, future prospects, and various heads of damage, held the accident was solely due to the jeep driver’s negligence and increased the total compensation to Rs.30,15,335 with 8% interest, ordering deposit by the insurer within three months.”
CRL.Appeal No. 556 of 2020 Renjith, aged 33, was convicted by the III Additional Sessions Judge, Kollam, under Section 20(b)(ii)(B) of the NDPS Act for allegedly possessing 5.1 kgs of ganja in front of the Ezhukone Railway Station on 01.02.2018 with an intention to sell. The prosecution relied on PW2, the Excise Circle Inspector, who intercepted the appellant, conducted a search of his bag, and found three packets of ganja; PW4, a Preventive Officer, supported the seizure, and Ext.P1 mahazar; PW1 and PW3 attested to Ext.P1 and related notices. The appellant denied the charge, claiming arrest at Kayamkulam Station and false implication, with no independent corroboration beyond the official witnesses. The Sessions Court found PW2 and PW4 credible, corroborated by PW1 and PW3, and held the guilt proven beyond reasonable doubt. The defense challenged non‑compliance with NDPS provisions, particularly Section 50, the admissibility of Ext.P6 (confession) under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and alleged violations of Section 52A. The Kerala High Court upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence from 10 years to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹20,000, with a default term of six months imprisonment. It held that Section 50 was not required for the search of a bag in the appellant’s possession in light of Dayalu Kashyap, excluded Ext.P6 per Toofan Singh, and held that non‑compliance with Section 52A did not vitiate the trial in view of Mangilal. The appeal is partly allowed with modified sentence and maintained conviction.
This MACA (MACA No. 2688 of 2009) arises from a MACT award in Thrissur under O.P(M.V) No.3407/2002 for injuries suffered by Manoj, a 15-year-old minor, in a motor-vehicle collision on 26.04.2002 involving an autorickshaw (KL-8/8832). The Tribunal found the accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the driver and awarded ₹32,800 as compensation, while exonerating the insurer on the ground that the vehicle was operated without a valid driving license. The appellant mother, as guardian and next friend, challenged the quantum and the liability. Counsel for the petitioner relied on Master Mallikarjun v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2013 KHC 4670), arguing that the minor should receive a lumpsum for permanent disability and enhanced non-pecuniary heads if disability is present. Although Ext.A9 (disability certificate) showed 12% disability, the doctor was not examined, and the Tribunal treated disability as only 5%. The Kerala High Court followed Master Mallikarjun to award ₹1,00,000 lumpsum for disability under 10% and adjusted pecuniary heads, totaling ₹1,06,300 with 7% interest, and directed the insurer to indemnify while possibly recovering from the insured due to policy conditions. The judgment was later amended by a 2023 order reducing the additional compensation to ₹77,050 while maintaining the core relief and liability framework, with payment within two months and recovery from respondents 1 and 2.
Raveendran P.T., a resident of Edathala Ward 9, filed WP(C) 15433/2022 challenging the alleged illegal functioning of a temple-like Devasthanam on the second floor of the 8th respondent’s residential building at 9/657/G, Edathala. The petitioner alleged that the structure, branded as “Sree Bhramarambika Vishnumayaswami Devasthanam,” conducts daily poojas and rituals with public participation, including bells, conch blows, and animal slaughter, with blood and carcasses reportedly discarded on the public road, and notices advertising rites. He claimed the construction lacked prior permission under the Kerala Panchayat Building Rules and the Manual of Guidelines to Prevent and Control Disturbances and to Promote Communal Harmony 2005, Clause 23. The petition also invoked the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 and the Kerala Animals and Birds Sacrifices Prohibition Act, 1968, arguing that slaughter offends public health and order. Respondents contended that a mass complaint prompted inquiry, but the 8th respondent asserts the activity is a private Devasthanam essential to his religious belief protected under Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution, and that the place is not a public temple. The court examined constitutional rights, statutory provisions, and precedents, and held that religious practices cannot be immune from reasonable regulation when they threaten public order, health, or welfare. It issued directions to investigate and enforce applicable laws, reinforcing that the state may regulate religious practices in the public interest and that equality before the law applies to all citizens.
This Kerala High Court MACA relates to an appeal filed by Abdul Kharim challenging a common award of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, in OP(M.V) No.236/2012. The accident occurred on 15.04.2011 on the Valancherry–Kottackal National Highway, where a KSRTC bus collided with an Ambassador car in which the appellant was travelling. The Tribunal held the KSRTC bus driver negligent and awarded compensation of Rs 8,05,473 with 9% interest and costs. Abdul Kharim, claims he was a Saudi-house driver earning about Rs 40,000 per month, and contends the award undervalues his loss of earning capacity and under-compensates his injuries. Evidence included Exts. A1–A24; Ext. A25 (passport) and Ext. A10 (Saudi driving license). The Court examines the appellant’s passport, visa details, and medical evidence, noting the passport visa was short and the driving license validity was limited, undermining a claim of permanent overseas employment. Consequently, the Court re-evaluates monthly income (Rs 7,000), the disability (39%), and the multiplier (13), and awards enhancement in several heads: clothing, pain and suffering, and loss of earning power. The final order directs the insurer to pay the enhanced amount with interest within two months, and MACA is allowed. The decision demonstrates careful scrutiny of earning capacity, disability, and proof of overseas employment in the quantum of compensation.
This High Court of Kerala criminal miscellaneous case concerns Sirildev, accused in CC 786/2016 before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, North Paravur, for offences punishable under Sections 457 and 380 read with Section 34 IPC. The petition under Section 482 CrPC seeks quashing of the proceedings on grounds that the parties have amicably settled the disputes. Annexure A2 purports to show the second respondent's affidavit confirming settlement. The investigation was directed to verify authenticity and whether the petitioner had any criminal antecedents, and the Public Prosecutor expressed reservations about quashing merely on settlement. The court surveys Supreme Court jurisprudence, citing State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan and a line of decisions leading to the proposition that quashing criminal proceedings under 482 can be invoked when the offences are non-compoundable and predominantly civil in character, especially where the dispute has been settled comprehensively. However, such power is not to be exercised for heinous offences or sensitive public interest matters, nor for offences under special statutes. The court emphasizes that the decision must examine nature of injury, weapon used, the gravity of the offence, and the accused's antecedents. After weighing these factors and the amicable settlement, the High Court concludes that quashing the proceedings would advance peace and ends of justice. Accordingly, Annexure A1 Final Report and all further proceedings in CC 786/2016 are quashed, and the petition is allowed.
Prinson.T.J., the appellant, sustained serious injuries in a road traffic accident on 25 April 2006 when his autorickshaw collided with another vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He had initially approached the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam, by filing OP(MV) No. 683/2006 seeking compensation, but the Tribunal allowed only Rs. 4,68,600/-. The appellant contends that the Tribunal erred in adopting a notional income of Rs. 3,000 for disability compensation while he claimed Rs. 4,500, and that higher compensation is warranted, citing Ramachandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 13 SCC 236, which on unascertainable income in 2006 prescribes a higher notional income (Rs. 5,500). Medical records Exts. A5–A6 (Discharge Certificates) and Ext. A4 (Wound Certificate) reveal multiple injuries including lacerations, right knee subluxation, traumatic SAH with edema and pneumocephalus, and a neurological disability of 12%, with a 20% permanent disability for the knee per PW3. The Tribunal’s disability assessment at 19% and compensation for pain, loss of amenities, and loss of income were challenged as inadequate. The Court held that, after examining the evidence, notional income should be revised to Rs. 4,500, and enhanced compensation awarded for several heads: Disability Rs. 1,74,420; Pain and Suffering Rs. 40,000; Loss of Amenities Rs. 25,000; Loss of Income Rs. 18,000; with 8% interest and costs. The award is partly allowed, and the Tribunal’s other findings remain intact.
This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenges Ext.P4 of the I Additional Munsiff Court, Thiruvananthapuram, in O.S. No. 530/2004. The dispute arose from a counter-claim in which the court decreed recovery of possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, directing the plaintiffs to surrender vacant possession of the plaint schedule shop to the defendant. The decree holder alleges forcible dispossession on 25.03.2004 and contends that the decree remains executable; the subsequent Rent Control proceedings (R.C.P. No. 59/2004) led to eviction in 2006, and E.P. No. 328/2007 resulted in the decree holder’s eviction on 03.06.2010. Nagammal, the landlord, sold the shop to the 2nd respondent (sale deed No.1834/2010), who became the absolute owner. Ext.P1 concerns recovery of possession; Ext.P2 is the execution petition; Ext.P4 ordered dismissal of the execution petition, which the petitioner challenges. The respondents argue the decree is infructuous after post‑decree events and the petitioner lacks locus. The Kerala High Court, relying on established principles from Hiralal v. Kalinath and V.D. Modi, holds that the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and that a decree remains executable until set aside. The petition is allowed: Ext.P4 is set aside and Ext.P2 is restored for execution of Ext.P1, pending higher court proceedings.
CRL.M.C. No. 2555 of 2022 This batch of Criminal Miscellaneous Cases (CRL.M.C. Nos. 2555/2022; 2561/2022; 2563/2022; 2565/2022; 2569/2022; 2571/2022; 2574/2022; 2578/2022; 2597/2022; etc.) before the Kerala High Court challenge an Annexure-A1 complaint under Section 28(1) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007 (PSS Act) filed by South Indian Bank Ltd. before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ernakulam, for dishonor of electronic funds transfers via the Trade Receivables Discounting/Factoring (TReDS) platform operated by M1xchange. The petitioners, RCI Industries & Technologies Ltd (RCI Ltd) and its Managing Director and Director, contended that the complainant’s demand under Section 25(1)(c) of the PSS Act was not properly triggered because the information of dishonor did not originate from a bank but from the platform operator (M1xchange) via M1xchange’s system. They also argued that an Annexure-A3 Master Buyer Agreement with M1xchange asserted Delhi jurisdiction, questioned vicarious liability under Section 141 NI Act, and raised concerns about Section 202 CrPC inquiries prior to issuing process. The court analyzed RBI guidelines under Section 10(2) r/w Section 18 PSS Act, the flow of information through NACH/ECS, and the role of the platform versus the bank. It held that information via the platform satisfies Section 27(c) and that cognizance and process were properly issued. The petitions were dismissed, upholding the validity of the complaint and the proceedings.
MACA NO. 1930 OF 2010 & MACA NO. 2406 OF 2010 These motor-accident appeal(s) arise from O.P.(M.V.) No.938/2003 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. The appellant in MACA No.1930/2010 is the claimant Thuthi Surendan; MACA No.2406/2010 is filed by P.V. Ashokan, the 4th respondent/owner of the motorcycle. The accident occurred on 10.11.2002, involving a bus (driver the 2nd respondent) owned by the 1st respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent; the motorcycle (driven by the 4th respondent) was allegedly piloted by the claimant; the motorcycle was insured with the 6th respondent. The Tribunal held the accident due to negligence by the bus driver and the motorcycle rider, apportioned liability equally, and exonerated the 6th respondent (Act-only policy) from liability. It awarded Rs.1,14,000. MACA 1930 sought enhancement; MACA 2406 challenged the composite negligence finding. The High Court, noting a prior decision in M.A.C.A. No.1851/2010, held the 4th respondent cannot be held negligent and that the accident was solely due to the bus driver’s negligence, making the 3rd respondent insurer liable for the entire amount. It revised several heads of compensation: increasing monthly income to Rs.3,500 (from Rs.2,500), accepting 13% disability (not 10%), applying a 15-year multiplier (not 16), and awarding additional sums for loss of earnings (three months), pain and suffering, and loss of amenities. The total payable amount is fixed at Rs.1,90,400 with interest at 7.5% p.a. and proportional costs to be deposited by the 3rd respondent.
This is a criminal miscellaneous case under Section 482 CrPC, filed by four accused (Martin, Nahas, Sajeev, Varghese) challenging the continuation of prosecution in CC No.1954/2016 arising from Crime No.257/2013 at Alappuzha North Police Station. The petitioners seek quashing of the proceedings on the basis that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and wish to end the criminal process. Affidavits of the victims supporting the settlement were filed, and the victims reportedly have no objection to quashing. The Public Prosecutor, while expressing reservations about relying solely on a settlement to quash non-compoundable offences, concedes that the dispute is settled. The court examines the controlling legal framework, particularly the decisions in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Laxmi Narayan and Others (2019) 5 SCC 688, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303, and Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2014) 6 SCC 466, to balance private settlement against public interest and seriousness of the offences. The court concludes that the dispute is private in nature, the settlement is genuine, and the accused have no prior serious misconduct; hence, the proceedings are quashed under Section 482 CrPC. The order finalizes the quashing and discharges the accused from further proceedings.
This writ appeal arises from a challenge to the order in WP(C) No. 34658/2015 by the Malankara Orthodox Church Colleges and Princy Susan Koshi, the 2nd petitioner, seeking salary payments from the State officials despite questions about sanctioned posts and workload. The University initially refused to approve the 2nd petitioner’s appointment in 2013, but approval was granted only in 2017 during the pendency of the petition. The Government contended that the 2nd petitioner was not appointed against a sanctioned post and that the college had more teachers than permitted, with a workload and staff pattern showing scarcity in sanctioned posts. The petitioners argued that once the University approves a staff pattern based on workload, the Government is obligated to pay salary, and that the appointment was on a valid retirement vacancy or properly sanctioned post, aided by precedents such as Arun George and Shalini Rachel. The Division Bench canvassed earlier Kerala University Act cases (e.g., Cherian Mathew, Shalini Rachel) to determine the conditions under which salary must be paid and when Government sanction is mandatory for salary. Ultimately, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s order and disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioners to apply for Government sanction for an additional post; if sanctioned, the 2nd petitioner will be paid from the date of sanction, with the process to be completed within three months.
The petitioners challenge Ext.P5, an interim order of the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Complaint No. 1343 of 2010) directing payment of penal interest on delayed pensionary benefits to the second respondent (C. Muraleedharan). The second respondent retired on 30.11.2002, and the petitioners contend that pensionary benefits could be disbursed only after the finalization of proceedings under the Kerala Service Rules (KSR). They submit that the alleged delay was not due to mal-administration but due to statutory constraints: Rule 3(A) Part III KSR, Rule 3 of Part III KSR, Rule 3 of Appendix X of Part III KSR, and Section 12 of the Lok Ayukta Act. The petition further argues that Vigilance proceedings terminated in 2013, and non-payment occurred under law, not malfeasance, evidenced by earlier Government orders and the subsequent issuance of Non-Liquidation Certificates; pensionary benefits were disbursed only after the due process, on 28.02.2014. The petition relies on a Division Bench ruling (2015 (3) KLT 755) and on a Supreme Court decision (Chandran, 2022) to urge that withholding or awarding interest on delayed pensionary benefits is improper. The court ultimately holds Ext.P5 to be contrary to statutory provisions and to the Supreme Court precedent and quashes it, allowing the writ petition. The decision discusses the statutory framework governing pension, DCRG, and the interplay with disciplinary proceedings, and directs that DCRG with respect to pensioners pending disciplinary or judicial processes should not be released under the challenged interim order.
Umaiba V.A. and four children, appellants in MACA 1950/2009, challenged the MACT’s award in O.P.(M.V.) 828/2004 for a fatal road accident on 19 January 2004 near Edappally–Vyttila. The Tribunal held Rs. 1,95,564 as total compensation and the appellants contended the deceased earned Rs. 3,000 per month and that the Tribunal wrongly adopted Rs. 2,000 with 1/3 deduction, producing a lower dependency figure. They invoked Ramachandrappa v. Manager (SCC 236) to plead a notional income of Rs. 4,500 per month, and Pranay Sethi (2017) to add 10% future prospects (and 10% escalation under Pranay Sethi’s framework in estate and live issues). Applying Sarla Verma’s multiplier of 9, the loss of dependency would be Rs. 2,67,300. They claimed higher sums for loss of consortium, love and affection, loss of estate, and funeral expenses, referencing Pranay Sethi for escalations. Respondents argued negligence by the driver/deceased and that the claim was excessive. The High Court allowed the appeal, enhancing the compensation to Rs. 3,69,736; it held insurer liable to pay interest on the enhanced amount at 7% from the petition date, with bank transfer via NEFT/RTGS, and set off any prior payments. The order also clarifies steps for furnishing bank details and timelines for payment.
WA 1051 of 2018; CO 152 of 2018 This writ appeal arises from an award of Ext.P2 by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court in I.D. No.16 of 2007, concerning the second respondent, a clerk in the South Indian Bank, who was charged with unauthorised absence between October and November 2004 after earlier warnings. The Labour Court held the misconduct to be minor and reduced the dismissal to stoppage of increment for up to six months, with reinstatement and back pay. The appellant bank challenged the award in a writ petition, arguing that due process was followed in the enquiry and that willful absence constitutes major misconduct under the Bipartite Settlement; on appeal, the High Court endorsed the Labour Court’s finding, invoking Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act and holding that the Tribunal was empowered to correct the punishment if the findings were not perverse or unsupported by evidence. The cross-objection by K.P. Davis contended that the Tribunal’s interference was warranted to uphold the major misconduct finding, particularly willful disobedience and non-joining duties. The Court, after careful consideration, affirmed the earlier conclusions and held that the misconduct amounted to major misconduct under the Bipartite Settlement; accordingly, the writ appeal and cross objections are dismissed. The decision aligns with the Bipartite Settlement’s framework distinguishing major from minor misconduct and clarifying appropriate penalties.
