A legal assistant of a sugar

mill raised an industrial dispute challenging his employers? decision to abolish his post. The employer contended that the labour court should not entertain the case as the employee was not a workman. The Supreme Court held that the definition of workman provides that the duties must be in the nature of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical operation, clerical or supervisory. The employee concerned represented the employer in all types of cases and also acted as enquiry officer in departmental proceedings. The nature of his job did not make him a workman (Management of M/s Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills vs Ajit Singh).

Two cheques were dishonoured on the basis of stop memos issued by the accused persons. When the matter came up for trial the complainant contended that the original cheques were lost and filed affidavits explaining reasons for inability to produce the cheques. The magistrate ordered discontinuance of proceedings. The Kerala High Court held that when cheques have in fact been lost, the complainant cannot be denied an opportunity to redress his grievance by adducing secondary evidence (copies of the cheque). The magistrate was directed to continue with proceedings (Chittaranjan vs Jayarajan).

When a nine-year-old girl died in an accident, the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 67,000, taking into consideration her parents? status, surrounding circumstances etc. as it is difficult to assess a child?s earning capacity. On appeal for enhancement of compen- sation, it was submitted that she was a brilliant student. However, no supp- orting evidence was produced. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that non-proof of brilliance is inconse- quential. Dependence of parents on a girl child at old age and mutual love and affection, in the present day?s context, would be equivalent to that of a boy child. The court enhanced the amount to Rs 1 lakh (Karveti Rathnamma & Ors. vs M/s New Sunbulk Carrier).

SOLON