An employee of the UP State Road Transport Corporation (SRTC) was sacked because of misconduct in 1975. In 1986, he challenged his dismissal in court. The labour court granted him back wages from 1986 onwards but SRTC (UP) appealed. The high court refused to interfere so SRTC (UP) approached the Supreme Court, which held that since the man had been appointed on a temporary basis, it was highly unlikely that he had remained unemployed for such a long time. It, therefore, refused to grant him back wages. Instead, the court ordered the SRTC to pay him Rs 50,000 within eight weeks (UP State Road Transport Corporation vs Man Singh).
The adopted son of a railway employee applied for a job on compassionate grounds after the death of his father. The Railways refused him employment, contending that his adoption was invalid because not only was his adoption deed unregistered, there were actually two deeds in existence, with different birth dates. The man contended that the second deed was made to correct the wrong date of birth in the first one. The Gujarat High Court held that since the railways had earlier allowed the petitioner to avail of medical facilities due to the son of an employee, they have already recognised his adoption as legal. The authorities cannot now refuse him a job by questioning the validity of his adoption (Mangesh Sahedev Tandlekar vs Union of India and others).
The district court granted Rs 7 lakh as compensation to the parents of two children who died due to electrocution. The government contended that the amount was excessive since the children were electrocuted when they trespassed into an electric transformer enclosure. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court refused to reduce the compensation amount, pointing out that one side of the transformer enclosure was open and there was no signboard indicating danger. The court held that the state and its functionaries had been negligent in adopting safety measures (State of JK vs Mohd. Iqbal).
SOLON
