nA workman filed an appeal in the high court after a tribunal held up the termination order issued by his employers. The workman, along with two others, Vakil and Chunnu, had gone on a strike. Initially, all three were suspended but the employers reinstated Vakil and Chunnu after the two apologised unconditionally. The high court ordered reinstatement and held that the workman was on an equal footing with the others. However, the Supreme Court, hearing the employers’ appeal, set aside the high court order and said that the workman had continued to justify his action by not apologising and, therefore, did not deserve to be reinstated (M/s Obette Pvt. Ltd. vs Mohd. Shafiqu Khan).
After her marriage in 1992, the wife left for her parental house when she became pregnant. When she did not return for four years, the husband sent her a divorce notice. The wife, who was teaching in a school near her parental home and earning Rs 7,000 per month, said she would return to him if his monthly income would be at least Rs 5,000. The high court upheld the divorce and the wife appealed to the Supreme Court. But the apex court said that the wife knew about her husband’s income before marriage. Besides, she hadn’t visited her husband’s house during the four years and so, divorce was justified (Geeta Jagdish Mangtani vs Jagdish Mangtani).
A freedom fighter’s pension was cancelled after 25 years because there was no conclusive evidence to prove that he was indeed a freedom fighter and that he was too young (15 years) during the concerned period (1942-43). The Allahabad High court quashed the cancellation order and held that it was common knowledge that several minors participated in the movement and that it was not expected that detailed records would be preserved till now. (Ram Singhasan Thakur vs Union of India).
SOLON
