Shaji P.P., the petitioner, challenged Ext.P7, a Government order rejecting his Form-5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Rules, 2008, aimed at removing his land from the Data Bank. He owns about 0.0445 hectares (roughly 11 cents) in Nettisseri Village within Thrissur Corporation limits, and had earlier built a residential structure that was deemed unauthorised, followed by a demolition order and a tax assessment that prompted a Form-5 application. The 1st respondent rejected his Form-5 on the basis of the LLMC’s data-bank decision, without independent assessment, leading to this writ petition. The court cites a lineage of decisions governing the Data Bank: Salim C.K. (2017) clarifying that the Data Bank covers cultivable paddy land and wetlands; Lalu P.S. (2020) fixing the data-bank’s temporal scope as of 24.12.2008; Joy (2021) emphasizing land character as of 12.08.2008; Arthasasthra Ventures (2022) requiring consideration of paddy/wetland status and scientific data when needed; Muraleedharan Nair (2023) endorsing independent assessment for removal; Aparna Sasi Menon (2023) stressing feasibility of paddy cultivation. After noting these principles, the Court holds Ext.P7 unsustainable for lack of independent evaluation and directs the 1st respondent to reconsider the Form-5 application within a structured process, including KSREC reporting under Rule 4(4f) of the 2008 Rules, with a fresh order within three months and staying further Ext.P4 proceedings in the meanwhile.
Chandran, the appellant, challenges a conviction under Section 8(2) of the Abkari Act imposed by the Fast Track (Ad hoc) Sessions Court, Mavelikara, in respect of 1.5 litres of illicit arrack seized on 2 February 2000. After investigation, a final report was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court, where the accused was tried for the offence and convicted. The trial court relied on the seizure and chemical analysis reports, but the defense contends that the prosecution failed to prove that the contraband sample underwent proper chemical examination because Ext. P1 mahazar lacks the seal's description, no specimen seal was produced, and no forwarding note showing the chain of custody to the Chemical Examiner. The defense cites Bhaskaran v. State of Kerala (2020 KHC 5296), Rajamma v. State of Kerala (2014 (1) KLT 506), Ramachandran v. State of Kerala (2021 (1) KLT 793), and the Supreme Court's decision in State of Rajasthan v. Daulat Ram to assert that proper identity and custody of the sample is essential for the validity of the chemical analysis. The High Court examines these authorities and finds that the prosecution failed to establish the tamper-proof despatch and link evidence connecting the accused with the seized contraband and its laboratory analysis. Consequently, the appellate court allows the appeal, sets aside the conviction and sentence, acquits the accused, and directs his release, with any deposits to be disbursed as per law.
O.P. (FC) No. 478 of 2022 This is a Kerala High Court judgment in O.P. (FC) No. 478 of 2022, arising from a custody dispute between Faizal Ali Pambodan (father) and Mumthas K (mother). The petitioner challenged an order of the Family Court, Malappuram dated 11.08.2022 in I.A.2 of 2022 in O.P. (G&W) No. 314 of 2022, under Article 227 of the Constitution. The respondent mother had previously sought custody of three children and the father allegedly removed the children in breach of a 04.10.2021 custody agreement. In 2022, the Family Court directed production of the children and considered the elder child’s wishes, including via video conferencing, prior to interim custody orders. The High Court noted that the Family Court’s approach, especially delaying sight of the children and relying on remote ascertainment of wishes, conflicted with established welfare principles. It cited Yashita Sahu v. State of Rajasthan and later Supreme Court decisions emphasizing that a child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and that custody determinations must ensure the child’s best interests, including visitation rights and protection of the child’s schooling. The Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Family Court for a fresh decision on custody, including interim custody, with direct interaction with the children where feasible and safeguards so that studies are not disrupted. The decision underscores that custody should advance the child’s welfare and stable contact with both parents. Elder child’s schooling in Abu Dhabi is acknowledged as a factor to be managed in the proceedings.
The writ petition is filed to direct the respondents to revise the petitioners' monthly pension under the Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 by reckoning their actual salary (basic + DA) as pensionable salary and by accepting their option under proviso to paragraph 11(3). The petitioners claim they have been subscribers to the EPF and EPS and that they contributed to the Provident Fund based on actual salary above the ceiling; yet remittance to Pension Fund was made on the ceiling basis, ignoring the proviso. They have exercised the option for enhanced pension and are ready to pay any excess contributions with interest. By Exts P1 and P2 judgments, the Kerala High Court has already directed that petitioners in identical matters be entitled to remit based on actual salary drawn beyond the ceiling. Respondents resist, but the Supreme Court's decision in EPF Organization v. Sunil Kumar B and Others (2022) SCC Online SC 1521 is cited to reflect settled law. The learned judge relies on that decision and states to reconsider the petition in light of its principles, directing the respondents to reconsider the claims within a month after service of the judgment, and to act within three months after the petitioners submit a representation after hearing. The petition is thus disposed with these directions.
This is a criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.593/2017 of Manjeri Police Station, challenging registration of the FIR relating to offenses under sections 420 and 506 read with 34 IPC. The complainant, a businessman seeking funds for his daughter's wedding, alleged that the 1st accused, a well‑known politician, assured help to arrange a loan; the complainant was induced to sign a deed after being promised Rs 7 lakhs in cash and gold worth Rs 7.53 lakhs, and later to transfer his 5‑acre property for a total sum of Rs 16 lakhs under coercive circumstances. The 3rd accused, a scriber, allegedly prepared the sale deed; the 2nd accused was involved in the arrangements. The petition contends that the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not constitute an offense and that the proceedings constitute abuse of process, with no credible basis against accused 2 and 3 beyond the scribal act. The Public Prosecutor relied on Neeharika Infrastructure to stress police investigation and cautioned against premature judicial interference. The High Court held that there are prima facie materials against accused 1 and 2 warranting investigation, while concluding that the 3rd accused’s limited act as scribe could not sustain a criminal offense. The petition was disposed of by (a) not quashing 1 and 2; (b) quashing against 3; (c) reserving the petitioners’ right to approach after final report; and (d) directing untrammeled investigation.”
TR.P(C) Nos.452 of 2020; TR.P(C) No.511 of 2020 The Kerala High Court, in a common order by Justice C.S. Dias, heard two transfer petitions filed in respect of matrimonial disputes between Molykutty T. Jose and K.K. Varghese. Tr.P(C) No.452/2020, filed by the wife and her mother, seeks transfer of OP(Div) 298/2020 filed by the husband before the Family Court, Thodupuzha, to the Family Court at Pala, so that both proceedings—one concerning the chitty amount and related relief and the other a divorce petition—could be consolidated and tried together. Tr.P(C) No.511/2020, filed by the husband, seeks transfer of OP(Div) 758/2019, filed by the wife at Pala, to Thodupuzha. The court notes the parties’ assertions of inconvenience and hardship in contesting proceedings across two courts. Relying on established Kerala/ Supreme Court authorities, the court reiterates that the primary consideration in transfer petitions for matrimonial disputes is the convenience of the woman and children, and that such decisions are guided by a long line of cases including Sumitha Sing v. Kumar Sanjay and others, Mona Aresh Goel v. Aresh Satya Goel, Vaishali Shridhar Jagtap v. Shridhar Jagtap, Santhini v. Vijaya Venkatesh, and N.C.V Aishwarya v. A.S Saravana Karthik Sha. After evaluating pleadings and circumstances, the court exercises its power under Sec.24 CPC and allows the transfer of Annexure B (OP 298/2020) to Pala for consolidation, while dismissing Tr.P(C) No.511/2020. The Registry is to transmit records accordingly, and the Family Court, Pala is to proceed with consolidation and post the cases along with Annexure A.”
WP(C) No. 28461/2018 (and connected cases) The batch of writ petitions concerns provisional empaneled employees of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) who were regularised under a bipartite settlement of 2008. The petitioners challenge KSRTC’s termination of their services in 2012–2018 and seek restoration of regularisation and attendant service/pensionary benefits. They contend that Government orders dated 22.12.2011 (G.O. MS No. 78/2011, then clarifications in 2013) established ten years of service as a precondition for regularisation and, in addition, 120 days of duty per year; they point to prior judgments in their favour in various individual petitions, asserting those rights should not be overturned. The respondents (State and KSRTC) argue that the Supreme Court in Civil Appeals 4435–4438/2017 affirmed that appropriate conditions for regularisation could be laid down even for employees already working, and that the Government’s 2013 clarification incorporating the 120-days-per-year condition is legally effective with retrospective reach; KSRTC contends termination was legally warranted where petitioners did not meet the conditions as on 21.12.2011. The High Court, after considering the rival submissions and the binding Supreme Court precedent, holds that the impugned termination orders are set aside and directs KSRTC to grant hearing with documents, enabling petitioners to prove ten years of service and 120 days of duty until 21.12.2011. If proven, regularisation must be ordered within three months; if not, termination may stand. The judgment also contemplates pensionary benefits for eligible petitioners and family benefits for those who have died. The court also notes the Supreme Court’s binding effect on all petitioners, including those with earlier judgments. The bench is a single-judge bench presided by Justice Devan Ramachandran.
This High Court of Kerala case, heard by a Division Bench, concerns a challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution by Mukesh Babu to Ext.P4—the Palakkad Family Court’s order in O.P.1176/2021—whereby the Family Court purportedly exercised territorial jurisdiction under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 to entertain dissolution proceedings filed by Methil Devika. The respondent had filed the original petition claiming dissolution of marriage, asserting residence at Palakkad. The petitioner contends that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent was not residing in Palakkad at the date of presentation, and that the clause (iiia) of Section 31(1) of the Special Marriage Act cannot be read to confer such jurisdiction. The respondent argues that the 2003 amendment inserting clause (iiia) was intended to facilitate filing where the wife resides and should be interpreted liberally to reflect legislative intent. The court discusses interpretive principles, drawing on Jeewanti Pandey for the meaning of ‘residing’ in analogous provisions and comparing it with ‘is residing’. It also surveys Article 227 jurisprudence (Shalini Shyam Shetty; Jai Singh; K.V.S. Ram; Sobhana Nair K.N.) to delineate the scope and limits of supervisory jurisdiction. Ultimately, it holds that the phrase ‘is residing’ is restrictive and that Palakkad had no territorial jurisdiction. Ext.P4 is set aside, and the matter is directed to be returned to the respondent for presentation before the proper court.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1351 OF 2023 Farhan V.S., the fifth accused in Crime No. 777/2022 of Kondotty Police Station, petitioned Bail Application No. 1351 of 2023 seeking regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in relation to alleged offences under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act. The prosecution contends that on 28 September 2022, 92.3 grams of MDMA were found in a car at Mongam Hill top, in a conspiracy involving accused nos. 1 to 5 and others, constituting a commercial quantity. The petitioner claims the allegations are false, asserting he was not present at the scene and was at Vandoor, about 40 km away, and that he has been in custody since 27 September 2022. The Public Prosecutor submits that, since the contraband is a commercial quantity, the rider under Section 37 of the NDPS Act applies, and bail should be denied. The court perused the case diary and IO report and explained that Section 37(1)(a) requires two conditions for bail in such cases: (i) there must be reasonable grounds for believing the accused is not guilty, and (ii) the accused will not commit any offence while on bail. It cites Union of India v. Shiv Shankar Kesari to define 'reasonable grounds' as more than prima facie grounds and relies on several precedents (R. Paulsamy, Ahmadalieva Nodira, Abdulla, Mon, Rattan Malik, Niyazuddin, Rajesh, and Jitendra Giri) to hold that the twin ingredients are conjunctive. On this record, the court held that the conditions are not satisfied and thus the bail application is dismissed.
CRL.APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2006 This is a criminal appeal by Rajesh alias Biju, the first accused, challenging conviction under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC by the Additional Sessions Court (Fast Track-III), Thiruvananthapuram, arising from a violent incident on 18 August 2001. PW2, an autorickshaw driver, testified that the appellant boarded the rickshaw, later returning with the second accused, consuming drinks, and then stabbing PW2 in the neck with a sword. The assailants brutally attacked PW2, chopping off his right foot and inflicting multiple injuries to both arms and the neck. The prosecution relied on oral testimony of PW2 along with physical evidence including MO1 series of recovered weapons, MO3 sword recovered under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, bloodstained earth, and medical certificates. Investigations linked to the autopsy and the amputated foot recovered from Parvathy Puthanar, with inquest and scene-of-occurrence materials forming a conventional chain of evidence. The Sessions Court acquitted none; it found the evidence sufficient to convict the appellant with the second accused on the basis of the common intention to injure PW2. On appeal, the Kerala High Court, while upholding the conviction, modified the sentence, reducing imprisonment to four years and imposing a fine of Rs. 20,000 (with a further year in default). The court noted that no test identification parade was necessary given the lengthy interaction prior to the assault and the light at the scene, and it directed that the fine be paid to PW2. The judgment reflects careful scrutiny of eyewitness credibility and circumstantial materials, with a measured approach to sentencing in a grave offense.
CRL.REV.PET NO.678 OF 2023 This is a Criminal Revision Petition filed by Vishnu K.B, the 3rd accused in SC 704/2022, challenging the order in CRL.M.P. No.66/2023 (in SC 704/2022) of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Chavakkad, Thrissur, which discharged him from the case. The offences alleged are under IPC sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326, 308 and 149. Vishnu contends that he was wrongly arrayed due to mistaken identity and that the de facto complainants have no objection to his discharge; affidavits by the de facto complainants, notarized, state that he is not involved in the offence and they have no objection to discharge as the matter is pending before the JFMC, Kunnamkulam. He had previously approached this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Crl.M.C. No.179/2021 but relief was not granted; the Sessions Court’s discharge order, dated 11.04.2023, did not consider exculpatory materials or identity errors in light of binding Supreme Court precedents. The High Court recalls that discharge proceedings under Section 227 Cr.P.C. require merely a prima facie assessment and not a full trial, and should not amount to a mini-trial. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the revision, noting the need for expeditious disposal by the trial court and maintaining the integrity of the charge-sheet against the accused.
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C No. 4284 of 2022) filed before the Kerala High Court by 18 accused persons seeking to quash proceedings arising from Crime No. 177/2022 registered at Viyyur Police Station under sections 143, 147, 323, 324 and 149 IPC. The petition contends that the dispute between the parties is private and has been settled, evidenced by affidavits sworn by the injured persons (Annexures A2–A9), who state they have no subsisting grievance and have no objection to quashing. The State’s counsel confirms the authenticity of the settlement after verification by the SHO, and the injured respondents reiterate their lack of grievance in court. The prosecution case describes that on 19 February 2022 at about 21:30 hours the petitioners allegedly attacked the second respondent and his companions (injured persons 3–9). In light of the private nature of the dispute and the settlement, the court finds that continuing the proceedings would serve little purpose and the chances of a conviction would be bleak. Citing Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another, the court holds that the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 CrPC permits quashing FIR No. 177/2022 and all further proceedings. Consequently, the Crl.M.C is allowed and the FIR and proceedings against petitioners Nos. 1–18 are quashed. The court also notes the private settlement and finality of the dispute as a guiding principle in balancing private settlement with public interest.
This Original Petition (OP(C)) challenges an order in O.S. No.31/2019 before the Principal Sub Court/Commercial Court, Kottayam, wherein the Sub Judge dismissed an application under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act for comparing handwriting of Ext.P7 (an agreement) and cheques Exts.P8–P10, arguing the handwriting was not exclusively that of the defendant and that the suit could be delayed. The plaintiff asserts that the endorsements on Ext.P7 and the writings on the cheques are in the defendant’s handwriting, and seeks comparison to establish execution and liability; the Sub Judge held that even if the documents were not in the defendant’s handwriting, liability could be inferred since the cheques were proved, and found the plea an attempt to delay disposal of the suit. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the reasons given by the trial court were untenable and that it would be proper to send the documents for handwriting comparison, especially given the plaintiff’s pleadings. The respondent’s counsel contended that once signatures are admitted, requesting a handwriting comparison would be an abuse of process, and relied on a Supreme Court judgment (Chennadijalapathi Reddy v. Baddam Pratapa Reddy) in support. The High Court, invoking Article 227, holds that interference is warranted to allow the evidence to be examined properly, set aside Ext.P6, and directs appointment of a panel of private handwriting experts, to complete the comparison within six months from receipt of their report and to expedite the matter.
This is a revision petition under Section 125 CrPC challenging the Family Court, Tirur, order in MC No. 227/2013 directing the husband, Aboobacker Siddique, to pay maintenance to his wife, Sajida, at Rs 3,000 per month from the date of petition. The respondent had claimed monthly maintenance on grounds of cruelty and separation after their marriage on 13.11.2005. The Family Court consolidated three proceedings: maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, restitution of conjugal rights, and return of patrimony/past maintenance. Evidence included two witnesses for the respondent and one for the petitioner; the Family Court found that the petitioner earned about Rs 20,000 per month through construction work, while the respondent worked as a home nurse. The petitioner contended the respondent left the home without sufficient cause and that he, a coolie, could not maintain her; he argued the respondent had means. The court proceeded to determine the petition on social justice grounds, citing Rajnesh v. Neha and Anr, Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v. Veena Kaushal and Bhuwan Mohan Singh v. Meena, to justify maintenance and the estimation of notional income. The High Court, noting absence of evidence of disability and using notional income Rs 15,000, upheld the Family Court’s Rs 3,000 monthly obligation as reasonable and justifiable; it dismissed the revision petition.
The petitioners, Manu and Aneesh, challenge proceedings arising from Crime No. 370/2007 of Varkala Police Station, now pending as S.C. No. 864/2020 before the Assistant Sessions Court, Attingal. The underlying offence is arson at the Deepu Saw Mill owned by the defacto complainant, alleged to have occurred on 27 June 2007. The F.I.R. (Annexure-1) and the final report (Annexure-2) formed the basis of the case, followed by a supplementary UN report (Annexure-3) stating the offence as undetected. Previously, the trial had proceeded in S.C. No.1336/2009; the 2nd accused (father of the petitioners) was acquitted by the ASJ as per Annexure-7. The case was split and refiled as S.C. 364/2020. The petition seeks quashing of Annexure-2 and all further proceedings, arguing that the acquittal of one accused destroys the substratum of the prosecution and undermines the case’s integrity. The State counters that the acquittal of one accused does not automatically terminate proceedings; guilt must be determined on trial evidence. After considering the materials, the judge finds serious inconsistencies in witness testimonies (PW1 and PW4) and lack of analysis into the fire’s cause, including failure to produce an Electrical Inspector report, and notes multiple litigations between parties. Applying the Moosa principle, the court holds that the substratum is lost and quashes the proceedings, concluding further prosecution would be futile.
Shibu K.L., a Sub-Inspector of Police, moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC to quash Annexure-C complaint and Annexure-D order in S.C.No.300/2020, pending in the Sessions Court (Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act) at Thiruvananthapuram. The petition was heard on 19 December 2022 by Justice A. Badharudeen. The Special Judge had earlier held that the offences alleged under the SC/ST Act had to be examined against respondents 1 and 2, while finding that respondent 3, though a member of the Scheduled Caste, could not be subjected to the Act. The cognizance order dismissed some counts under Sections 120B, 294B, 342, 447 and 427 r/w 34 IPC and took cognizance on offences under 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act against respondents 1 and 2. The final report (Refer Report) in Crime No.1423/2016 and protest petitions in Crl.M.P.1677/2017/1677 were discussed; the court relied on Parameswaran Nair v. Surendran (2009(1) KLT 794), which lays down six propositions on refer reports, protest complaints, and cognizance. The High Court observed that the order did not spell out the fate of the Final Report, but after considering the refer report and protest, it found cognizance to be legally sustainable. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn, leaving the Sessions Court proceedings intact.
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case (CRL.MC 4691/2023) before the Kerala High Court arises out of Crime No. 529/2008 registered at Attingal Police Station for offences under Sections 326, 324 read with 34 IPC. The petitioner, accused no.1, along with accused no.2, allegedly assaulted the de facto complainant in 2008 in furtherance of their common intention. The prosecution record states that the injuries were sustained through the use of sticks; the 2nd accused could not be traced. The petitioner’s counsel contends that the parties have reached an amicable settlement, supported by Annexures, and that the entire dispute between the parties has been resolved. The State, through the Public Prosecutor, acknowledges the absence of any other serious crimes against the petitioner but expresses reservations about quashing solely on settlement. The court directed investigation to record the injured’s statement and to verify the settlement’s genuineness and the absence of impediments to quashing. The bench relies on a line of Supreme Court decisions summarized by State of MP v. Laxmi Narayan and others, elucidating that Section 482 CrPC can be invoked to quash non-compoundable private offences where disputes are settled, subject to scrutiny of antecedents and public interest. Weighing gravity, injuries, antecedents, and the amicable settlement, the court held that quashing would serve ends of justice and would not harm society. The FIR and all proceedings were quashed.
This is a regular bail application (B.A. No. 1371/2023) filed by accused 1 to 9 in Crime No. 53/2023 of Panur Police Station, Kannur, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., before the Kerala High Court. The allegations arise from an incident on 16.01.2023, around 12:15 a.m., during the Champeth road festival near Panniyannur Koorumba temple, where accused 1–5 allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and attacked a person repairing temple lights with deadly weapons such as iron rods and sticks, resulting in serious injuries including fractures. The prosecution pleads offences under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 326 and 308 IPC r/w 149 IPC. The petitioners contend innocence, point to a counter case and note that a Sessions Court in CMP 858/2023/Crl.M.C. 78/2023 granted bail to some accused in a related case but refused bail to them. The court reviews the case diary and observes that the incident involved trespass on the complainant’s residence, use of various weapons, and injuries to multiple people. Although the investigation is at an early stage, the judge ultimately finds prima facie seriousness but imposes stringent conditions, including bond, sureties, non-interference with witnesses, regular reporting to the IO, and restrictions on leaving the country. The order culminates in a grant of regular bail to accused Nos.1–9 with specified conditions, signaling a controlled release during ongoing investigation.
The petitioner, Shine L. Stephen, was appointed as an Upper Primary School Assistant in the New Higher Secondary School, Nellimoodu, with effect from 1 June 2009, under an order later scrutinized for the initial appointment date. He challenges the non-approval of his appointment from the date of initial appointment, arguing that government orders during and after the ban on appointments shaped his entitlement. The background is that the government imposed a ban on appointments in additional division vacancies by G.O.(P) No.317/2005/G.Edn (17 Aug 2005) and later lifted it with conditions via G.O.(P) No.10/10/G.Edn (12 Jan 2010), including a requirement that managers sign bonds and appoint from a protected list to balance appointments during the ban period. Subsequently, G.O.(P) No.199/2011/G.Edn (1 Jun 2011) approved a comprehensive teacher’s package, under which the petitioner’s appointment was regularised to 1 Jun 2011. The petitioner contends that this court has consistently directed deeming bonds as executed by managers and required a matching number of protected appointments when initial appointments are approved, citing decisions like Suma Devi. The respondents argue that 1:1 apportionment is mandatory if bonds are not executed and that several related matters are pending before the Apex Court. The court ultimately disposes of the petition with directions, balancing the petitioner's claims with ongoing Apex Court proceedings.
Present writ petition challenges the Labour Court's award in I.D. No. 109/92, which had granted reinstatement to respondent No.3 with full back wages for alleged misappropriation of stock placed in joint custody with an Accountant. The petitioner (the management) contends that the Labour Court misread and misdirected the evidence, and that the evidence does not establish respondent No.3’s guilt, as there is no document bearing his signature implicating him in the misappropriation. Fresh evidence was adduced by the management, introducing stock registers and product classifications; the Labour Court nonetheless held the Accountant primarily liable, while not sustaining respondent No.3’s direct involvement. The petitioner further argues that the award of back wages was not properly reasoned and that the burden to prove gainful employment rests on the employer, with the management having shown the absence of evidence of respondent No.3’s gainful employment. Reliance is placed on Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and on legal principles laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya (D.ED.) and Others (2013) SCR 1. The respondent No.3 contends that the Labour Court’s findings are based on a preponderance of evidence and that this Court should not reappraise the evidence in a writ proceeding. On legal maxims, burden of proof and the normal rule that reinstatement with back wages is the default, but with exceptions, guide the decision. The High Court upholds the misappropriation findings but revises the back-wages order, directing reinstatement up to the retirement date. Writ petition stands disposed off.
