Disposed

Bharat Singh Baghel and Ors. v. S.E.C.L. and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC13 Jul 2010WP/2667/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of a previous petition seeking salary parity for teachers in SECL-affiliated schools. The court held that the core issue of employer-employee relationship had become final. While dismissing the claim for mandamus enforcement, it directed the respondents to decide the petitioners' specific representations under the settlement within six months.

What did the court decide?

Disposed with direction to respondents to decide the petitioners' representations regarding claims under the Settlement dated 6-12-1994 and MOU within 6 months.

Bharat Singh Baghel and Ors. Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2010)

¶1

EN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.1

¶2

WRIT PETITIONNO .5^^ / 2006

¶3

IPETITIONERS

¶4

•' \ y ft l*
ffxy
y \B^/
/^,^' &?/i Sf
.•• -^ K
w ^/

¶5

/^sss^
f&&^"^
iiOi!iy/ Ai-AHNAAsi—'.iii'";!AVS1, '. ^'•s\l '
SAlc^T'ffJ, ^4 11
/ I,
^£';'i"':h»aw%;?

¶6

¶7

Bharat Singh Baghel, Son of Shri Rambhan Singh Baghel, aged about 48 years, Teacher, Resident of Jhagrakhand Colliery, Korea (C.G.).

¶8

Rajmani Tripathi, Son of Late Shri Jyoti Tripathi, Principal, aged about 57 years, Resident of Qr. No. B-ll, South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Korea (C.G.). Raghubansh Prasad Dubey, Son of Late Shri Vishnu Dutt Ram, Teacher, aged about 45 years, Resident of Pouradhar Colony, District Anuppur (M.P.). ^ Awadhesh Kumar Tiwari, Spn of Late Shri Tribuwannath Tiwari, aged about 50 years, Teacher, Resident of "Post Pouradhar, Jhimar, District Anuppur, (M.P.).

¶9

"s<%

¶10

	Shiv Pra	sad Shrivastava, Son
	of Late	Shri Suraj Prasad
	Shrivasta	va, aged about 44
	years,	Teacher, Middle
	School	Jhimar, District
	Anuppur	(M.P.).
	Yogman	Agnihotri, Son of
	Shri	Sampat Kumar
	Agnihotri	, aged about 49
	years,	Teacher, Primary
	School	Pouradhar, District
	Anuppur	(M.P.).
	Ramagov	ind Tiwari, Son of
	Shri A	bhimanyu Prasad
	Tiwari, a	ged about 44 years,
	Teacher,	Primary School
	Pouradh	ar, District Anuppur
	(M.P.).
8,	Jaibahad	ur Singh Son of Late
	Shri U	mashankar Singh,
	aged abo	ut 52 years, Primary
	School	Pouradhar, District
	Anuppur	(M.P.).
	Mandhir	Prasad Payasi, Son
	of Shri	Sunder Lal Payasi,
	aged ab	out 47 years, Peon,
	Primary	School Pouradhar,
	District A	nnuppur (M.P.).

¶11

.iw

¶12

-' 1f:
11 !. 11.
lffl
^
igyw

¶13

¶14

Surendra Sharma, Son of > Shri Rameshswar Sharma, aged about 50 years, Teacher, Middle School Jhimar, District Anuppur (M.P.). 11. Sunder Lal Tripathi, Son of Shri Ganga Prasad Tripathi, aged about 45 years, Peon, Middle School Jhimar, District Annuppur (M.P.). 12. Kiran Malaiya, Wife of Shri Surendra Kumar Malaiya, aged about 48 years, Resident of Jhimar, District Anuppur (M.P.). 13. J. Venkatraman Rao, Son of Shri Ramjoga Rao, aged about 48 Teacher years, Primary Schoot Shantinagar, Post Bangawan District Anuppur (M.P.). 14. Bhagwan Singh Son of Late Shri Shivji Singh, aged about 47 Teacher, Primary years, School Shantinagar, Post, Post Bangawan District Anuppur (M.P.).

¶15

^ t

¶16

d i 3 i ..'i t. &

¶17

'Pl|r '"^^
/^ows^ ,r''.'^^" ^,^'" "^-i.I^'^;~\S--2^f^-'
!§' Si%
Kl siTsffi^%di
,^' !
y^... .^ /•ff,

¶18

15,	Banshidhar Mishra, Son of
	Shri Harinarayan Mishra,
	aged about 52 years,
	Teacher, Primary Schoot
	Shantinagar, Post
	Shantinagar, Post Bangawan
	District Anuppur (M.P.).
16.	Upendra Prasad Singh, Son
	of Shri Shivnath Singh, aged
	aboyt 43 years, Teacher,
	Higher Secondary School,
	Jhagrakhand, District Korea
	(C.G.).
17.	Mahendra Pratap Singh
	Yadav, Son of Shri Dashrath
	Yadav, aged about 47 years,
	Teacher, Primar/ School
	Shantinagar, Post Bangawan District Anuppur (M.P.).
.18.	Brijbihari Pandey, Son of Shri
	Baijnath Pandey, aged about
	48 years, Teacher, Higher
	Secondary Schoot
	Jhagrakhand District Korea
	(C.G.).
19,	Chandrika Prasad Verma,
	Son of Shri Parasram Verma,
	aged about 39 years, Science

¶19

^Bsi'

¶20

^:I":"^'i i^.'' Xff'fftS^S/^llrA/{/ ^-^^'; ^^

¶21

	Assistant Teacher, Higher Secondary School Jhagrakhand, District Korea
	(C.G.).
20.	Haricharan Pandey, Son of
	Shri Ramsavare Pandey,
	aged about 43 years, Peon,
	Primary School Shantinagar,
	Post Bangawan District
	Anuppur (M.P.).
21.	Smt. Namita Sengupta, Wife
	of Shri K. R. Sengupta, aged
	about 49 years, Teacher,
	Higher Secondary School,
	Jhagrakhand, District Korea
	(C.G.).
22.	Smt. Krishna Khare,
	Ravendra Kumar Khare, aged
	about 45 years, Primary
	School South Jhagrakhand,
	r/o South Jhagrakhand,
	District Korea (C.G.)
23.	O. P. Vishwakarma, Son of
	Shri M. P. Lal Vishwakarma,
	aged about 46 years,
	Teacher, Middle School South
	Jhagrakhand, District Korea
	(C.G.).

¶22

«il

¶23

24;" Sfflf^'lbn^Das D/8 SKrrRrN: Das, aged about 45 years, Teacher, Primary School Rajnagar, District Anuppur (M.P.). y25. Shiv Shankar Kushwaha, Son of Shri Mangal Kushwaha, aged about 48 years, Peon, Higher Secondary School, Jhagrakhand, District Korea (C.G.). i^26. Dr. R. S. Sharma, Son of Shri Mathilisharan Sharma, aged about 48 Lecturer, years, Higher Secondary School North Jhagrakhand Colliery, District Korea (C.G.). ^ 27. Subhashchand.ra Jha, Son of Shri Nenalal Jha, aged about 45 Peon, Middle years, School South Jhagrakhand, District Korea (C.G.). 28. Santosh Kumar Gupta, Son of Shri Amrit Lal Gupta, aged about 44 years, P.T.I. Higher Secondary School North Jhagrakhand Colliery, District Korea (C.G.).

¶24

wm •^ ^?:ij^ M'i IIs 1 !,M

¶25

s^asa;..
'^ONMj
.'y
foy^pARNA
11 ^AU/in
3 i n:?2..-
'¥:iC..^'",
^s^-^-^'^^i;sg;
''•^S-ssS''"

¶26

<' 29.	Kamal Kishore Vishwakarma,
	Son of Shri Ramnaresh
	Vishwakarma, aged about 43
	years, Peon, Higher
	Secondary School, North
	Jhagrakhand Colliery, District
	Korea (C.G.).
30.	Nirpat Singh Rajput, Son of
	Shri Ram Singh Rajput, aged
	about 44 years, Peon, Higher
	Secondary School North
	Jhagrakhand, District Korea
	(C.G.).
31.	Rajendra Kumar Mourya, Son
	of Shir Baldeo Ram Mourya,
	aged about 45 years,
	Teacher, Middle School
	Jhimar District Anuppur
	(M.P.).
32.	Vijay Kumar Tripathi, Son of
	Late Shri Dharmdeo Tripathi,
	aged about 43 years,
	Teacher, Middle School
	Jhimar District Anuppur
	(M.P.).
33.	Rekharani Khare, Wife oflate
	Shri Krishna Kumar Khc

¶27

' l:i

¶28

ESSi-iSSSf,--"1^^!'. ^!%F ssssss^ —HS%;:. SSSSSssSK''-

¶29

¶30

"^•^aii^StfS

¶31

^aged about 481 yyeeii^ Assistarit Li brarian; Higf-l^F: SecoSdSiy };^^^^c^^^^^^ ^ Jhagi-akhand, District Korea ,';;;tC.G.).,-.^'.:.::^-'..^ •y 34. S. K, Singh Yadav, SQn Iof Late Shri Babulal Sirigh Yadav, aged about 43 years^ Teacher,' Priniary s sgcH Jhimar, District Ariu|Spui'CM.P.). .'.'••• ;;.:"1.:;'.1: .:.~:: ^ 35. Naresh Kumar Sinha, Soh of Shrj Virghdra Prasad SiWha, aged; at)©ut 45 years,; TeaGl'ier, Primary SChool Jhimar ^ District AhuRpur' •.fM.:P.:).'^.::.-.'';::''.:'.';-^^^'^

¶32

Mukytniani Tripathii< Son df Late Shri Jagdamba Prasad Triisathi, aged about 48 years, Assistahf Grade-II, B- 1, SQuth Jhagrakhahd Colliery, District Kcirea

¶33

:^.;;(C,G.)..:.;::1:;. ,

¶34

¶35

•f'

¶36

37/^^DeYi3rrani Pancley, Son ofStiri

¶37

•<••'•

¶38

Rampratap Pandey, ag6d

¶39

.^about 50 < years, Teaclier,

;^s,

^s^iES'^f3S;K

^ 39.

^-40.

^-41.
..{^'i'i-SGS:
^^ms^h
^Ay 'x'^y^.'•*^'.
^°7 ff^f &r::n,-...'^t i AS:A?<NA VS
li+? MAHfiVA W
%.,?lc

¶48

¶49

C.R.O. Camp Rajnagar, District Anuppur (M.P.). Triloknath Dubey, Sonof Shri Ramakshabar Dubey, aged about 46 years, Lecturer, Resident of South Jhagrakhand Colliery, District Korea (C.G.).

¶50

Ashok Kumar Son of Shri Hanuman Dutt, aged aboufc 37 years, Peon, Resident of Badidafai, South Jhagrakhand Colliery, District Korea (C.G.).

¶51

Rajkumar Tripathi, Son of Shri Swaminath Tripathi, aged about 49 years, Peon, Resident of North Jhagrakhand, District Korea (C.G.).

¶52

Smt. Lalita Ambasth, Wife of Shri Satish Kumar Ambasth, aged about 44 years, Resident of B Type Quarter, Near Kali Mandir, Ra]nagar, District Anuppur (M.P.) L. K. Sharma, Son of Late Shri R. B. Sharma, aged

;»•

•SSSBBB y.^^^^ %'

@ ^'

about 49 Lecturer, years, Higher Secondary School North Jhagrakhand, District Korea (C.G.). 43. General Secretary Madhya Pradesh Koyla Mazdoor Sabha, Wright Town Jabalpur (M.P.) VERSUS IESPONDENTS 1. The South Eastern Coal ^ Fields Limited, Through: Its Chief Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Chief General Manager, Hasdeo Area, S.E.C.L. District Ko^ry/Vj^AA-^ Mai4effaregarh (C.G.) 3. Singhi Collieries Education Society, through it's '<^^\ ^y Chairman, Chief General Manager, S.E.C.L, Hasdeo Area, P.0. South Jhagrakhand, District Koriya (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CO N STITUTION OF INDIA

¶60

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶61

WRIT PETITION N0. 2667 Of 2006

¶62

PETITIONERS

¶63

Bharat Singh Baghel and 42 others

¶64

Versus

¶65

RESPONDENTS

¶66

The South Eastem Coal Fields

Limited and others

ORDER

Postfor 13>-7-2010

Sd/N.K. Agarawal Judge

¶72

/y\

¶73

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶74

WRIT PETITION N0. 2667 OF 2006

¶75

PETITIONERS Bharat Singh Baghel and 42 others

¶76

Versus

¶77

RESPONDENTS The South Eastern Coal Fields

¶78

Limited and others

¶79

SB:- HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J

¶80

PRESENT:

¶81

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal with Shri Alok Bakshi, Advocates for the petitioners. Shri Ajit Sinha, Sr. Adv. With Shri P.S. Koshy, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶82

ORDER

¶83

( 13 -7-2010)

¶84

Jhagrakhand and Rajnagar Collieries belonged to private companies. The Directors belonged to Singhi family of Kolkata. These private companies were running five schools in Jhagrakhand collieiy and one school in Rajnagar Colliery. Later they formed a society and got it registered under the name of Singhi Colliery Education Sociely, Jhagrakhand- respondent No. 3. Schools were transferred to the said society some time in June, 1963. In January, 1973, the coal mines were nationalized and vested in the Central Government. Subsequently the coal mines came to be owned and managed by the Government undertaking - Coal India Limited. 2. Petitioners' case case in brief is is as follows:3. The claiming that even though the petitioners management of the schools ostensibly vested in the Singhi Colliery Education Society, Jhagrakhand No. 3), in fact, they were owned and (respondent managed by the owner of the Jhagrakhand and Rajnagar Collieries and for all purposes the petitioners were the employees of.the said private companies. After vesting of

¶85

Petitioners' case case in brief is is as follows:-

¶86

the Coal Fields, petitioners became employees of Westem Coalfields Limited and at present they are employees of the respondents No. 1 and 2. The respondents No. 1 and 2 for all purposes took over the management of the schools wherein the petitioners were working as teachers. It was further pleaded that the respondents No. 1 and 2 are running fhree types of schools in its collieries in order to provide education facilities to the workers i.e. the schools entirely run, managed and paid by the respondents; the schools run and managed by the D.A.V. schools/Central Board of Secondary Education, expenditure for which is provided by the respondents including accommodation, furnitures and the schools run by the Society/respondent No. 3.

¶87

Some time in the year 1984, the Misc. Petition No. 735/84 (Shivpher Ram Yadav and others -v- South Eastem Coalfields Limited and others) was filed seeking a direction to pay salary and other allowances at par with the SECL employees. The respondents No. 1 and 2 in that petition, denied that they were the owners of fhe schools run by the respondent No. 3 / Society wherein the petitioners^{wereworkingasteachers.Itisadmittedthat} the management is providing certain facilities to these schools but denied that they were liable for maintenance of the schools. As regards the allegation that these respondents were paying higher salaries to teachers of other schools, in particular, the Central School, respondents denied the same and pleaded that the Central Schools Board on their request opened a Central School in Jhagrakhand area. It was not specifically denied that the salaries of the teachers employed in the Central School were reimbursed by these respondents to the Central School Board but it was denied that the teachers employed in the Central School were the employees of the Coal Fields and that the petitioners for that reason are entitled to salaries and

¶88

Jf'fc-'i'-€?^^' ?fc \ e Y 0?;^

¶89

emoluments equal to the salaries and emoluraents paid by the Central School Board to its employees.

¶90

The Division Bench of the High Coi.u-t of Madhya Pradesh vide its order dated 12-1-1987 dismissed the petition (Annexure P-5) holding the teachers employed in the Central School are not employees of the respondents No. 1 and 2 but are Central Government employees working under the Central Govemment. The fact that as a result of agreement with the Board, the respondents No. 1 and 2 are reimbursing the expenditure incurred by the Board does not make the teachers of the Central School employees of the respondents No. 1 and 2. It was further held that allegations of unequal treatment made in the petition could not be sustained. In the light of above finding, the Division Bench of M.P. High Court did not feel necessary to examine whether the schools run by the respondent No. 3/ Society are in fact owned and managed by the respondents No. 1 and 2.

¶91

Hon'ble Apex Court vide its order dated 4-4-1988 (Annexure P-6), permitted the petitioners to withdraw the petition and to approach the High Court of M.P. with a fresh petition.

¶92

The Colliery Teachers Association through Shri L.K. Sharma, General Secretary, South Jhagrakhand Colliery filed Misc. Petition No. 3536/93 before the High Court of M.P. (Annexure P-7) praying for the following reliefs:"i. To issue an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/ directions directing the respondents to treat the petitioners as employees of SECL from the very beginning and pay fheir wages as being paid to the teachers employed by SECL, previously by WCL;

¶93

ii. and/or iri the alternative in any case they should be paid wages as being paid to the School

¶94

¶95

run by DAV College, Delhi or Central Board of Secondary Education, whose service conditions are fully compensated by the South Eastern Coalfieles Ltd.;

¶96

iii. Further to issue a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of wages with interest at the Bank rate."

¶97

¶98

¶99

The High Court of M.P. admitted the writ petition and passed^{interimorderdirectingtherespondentstosee} that the arrears of salary due to the petitioners and other teachers employed in the schools financed by the respondent No. 1 is paid without any delay. On 18-21999, respondents' application for vacating stay order was also rejected. The S.L.P. (Civil) No. 1431/1994 ffled by the respondents was also disniissed.

¶100

The petitioners therein filed a Contempt Petition i.e. M.C.C. No. 344/1994 for non-compliance of the order dated 13-9-1993. During the pendency of the above petition^{andthecontempt} petition,^{asettlementbetween} the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the petitioners in M.P. No. 3536/1993 was executed as follows:-

¶101

"1. At present there are surplus staff, who shall be removed on the following basis:-

¶102

(i) The Teachers employed in B-Seam Primary School which is closed will be deemed to have been removed from the date of closure of the School and will not be taken back on duty;

¶103

(ii) Persons who are carrying other business in addition to the teaching duties will also be removed from services after enquiry is made by a Committee constituting of the Principal and the representative of the Management, nominated by Chief General Manager, Hasdeo Area;

¶104

¶105

(iii) All those teachers who have given poor performance, i.e. in view of the result less than 50% in the past three years in Board examinations will also be removed on the recommendation of the above Committee;

¶106

(iv) 70% of difference of wages and allowance befrween what is paid to them and what is due under the State Govemment Scale from time to time to all those deserving teachers will be paid within 15 days of signing the settlement. This benefit will be available to only those who accept this settlement.

¶107

(v) In case there is subsequent need of appointment of teachers, preference will be given to those teachers who were employed in B-Seam, Primary School and have been removed due to closure of School, subject to the condition that their performance and Conduct while in service have been good.

¶108

(vi) The Principal being head of the Institution will exercise all disciplinary powers including termination from service, suspension etc. and shall have the powers for appointment of vacant posts on the recommendation of a comniittee having at least one member noininated by the Chief General Manager, Hasdeo Area.

¶109

(vii) The Principal on the recommendation of the Committee constituted with the approval of the Chief General Manager, and the School is entitled to increase payment of fees of students. The Principal and the Teaching staff shall make all efforts to bring a good result and a better education.

¶110

-Slg^ ^'ifyar-!*'^

¶111

(viii) The Management as a nieasure of goodwill and as a measure of Welfare activities shall to pay difference between receipt on the basis of increased fees and expenditure in connection with the payment of salary and other allowances as admissible under the Circular of State Government from time to time including 5% contingency.

¶112

(bc) The Union and the teachers will unconditionally withdraw the contempt petition i.e. MCC No. 344/94 as well as M.P. No. 3536/93.

¶113

(x) Copy of this Memorandum of Understanding will be sent to the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Jabalpur before whom the case is pending with a request by both the parties to close the case keeping a copy of the settlement on record.

¶114

Both the parties will sincerely and faithfully impleinent the settlenient and shall not raise any objection.",

¶115

On 3-1-1995, the settlement was registered and intimated to the parties. (Annexure P-16)

¶116

¶117

Thereafter, Minutes of Understanding (hereinafter referred to as 'MOU') between the respondents No. 1 and 2 and the General Secretary M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) Union and L.K. Sharma, representing teachers working in Singhi Collieries Education Society was executed in the following terms:

¶118

"(l) The management of SECL will pay a sum of Rs. 20,95,632.50 (Rupees twenty lakhs Ninety five thousand six hundred thirty two and paise fifty only) as ex-gratia payment on account of wages to the teachers from 1-8-1989 to 31-1-1995.

¶119

¶120

The arrears will only be paid to those teachers whose performance is considered satisfactory and who accept the settlement. The performance will be examined by a Committee consisting of the Principal and representative of the Chief General Manager.

¶121

(2) Primary School, B-Seam stands closed with effect from August, 1993 due to non-recognition by the State Govemment inspite of all efforts made for its recognition. The surplus staff cannot be retained in service. It is decided that only those teachers whose performance and service record is not satisfactory and involves in other business other than teaching will be terminated after giving them opportunity for hearing by a Committee consisting of Principal and the representative of Chief General Manager. Action in this respect will be taken before 31s* March, 1995 till then they will continue in service, and the payment to such teachers and staff till March, 1995 will be made in old rate.

¶122

While examining the performance, the Committee will especially take into consideration the result of the Board Examination for the last three years. (3) The benefit of fhis understanding will only be given to those teachers who signs the memorandum of understanding subject to their satisfactory performance to be judged by the School Committee. It is noted that as per the MOU arrived at on 6th December, 1994, the Union and the teachers unconditionally withdraw the Contempt Petition i.e. M.C.C. No. 344/94 as well as M.P. No. 3536/93.

¶123

'\ v ^i ^,-, ^J''./

¶124

(4) Hike in donation at the rate of mininium Rs. 20/- per month per student will be effected with effect from the coming session i.e. wlth effect frorn 1st July, 1995. The Management, however, as a measure of goodwill and part of welfare activities, shall pay the difference between the receipt of the School by way of donation, receipt and expenditure towards the payment of salary and other allowances admissible under the relevant circular of the State Government from time to time.In any case, amount will not exceed Rs. 13 lakhs 70 thousand per year.

¶125

¶126

(5) The Management will arrange for making the payment to the teaching and non-teaching staff in accordance with the MOU and the details referred to herein on or before 31st March, 1995.

¶127

The salary from 1st February, 1995 onwards will be in accordance with the existing revised rates on regular basis, but only in respect of Teachers and Non-teaching staff who accept the settlement and are eligible as per the criteria laid down in this settlement.

¶128

In case the Enancial assistance from the (6) Management is sought for an amount exceeding Rs. 13 lakhs 70 thousand will be decided by the Management in consultation with the Union and the Principal.

¶129

(7) The Principal being the Head of the Institution will exercise all disciplinary powers in respect of teaching and non-teaching staff in the Schools of the Singhi Colliery Education Society, Hasdeo Area, with the approval of the Chief General Manager/Chairman of the Managing Committee.

¶130

'>., ^•'A?"°Y'5 'A A g' "^"•..•.'*s-(h'"(F-~.. .^ if'!^ '. K ^ i

¶131

(8) The Singhi Collieries Education Society is not effectively functioning. This society has to be re-organized and established regularly. All concerned shall cooperate in this respect."

¶132

It was agreed between the parties that the contempt petition as well as M.P. No. 3536/93 would be withdrawn unconditionally. Accordingly M.P. No. 3536/93 and Contempt Petition i.e. MCC No. 344/94 were dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 7-4-1995.

On 14-5-1996, the petitioners' Union filed an application under Section 33(C)-1 of the Industrial Disputes Aet before the Regional Labour Commissioner for recoveiy of a sum of Rs. 41,93,363 P-19). The (Annexure Management of SECL filed reply (Annexure P-20).

¶138

On 4-6-1996, the Regional Labour Commissioner directed the respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs. 23,97,547/- with regard to the difference of salary to the non-teaching stafffrom 1-2-1995 to 30-4-1996 (Annexure P-21). As per the terms of settlement, the respondent's appUcation for recall of the order was also rejected.

¶139

On 14-1-1997, the respondents/SECL filed Writ Petition No. 349/97 before the High Court of M.P. challenging the order dated 16-12-1996 passed by the Regional Labour Commissioner vide Annexure P-23. On 2-5-1997, the Division Bench of M.P. directed the Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur to record necessary finding after hearing the parties whether the relation of master and servant exists between the petitioners on one hand and the schools run by the Society on the other hand.

¶140

The Regional Labour Commissioner submitted its report dated 8-1-1998 before the High Court of M.P. in which it has been recorded that since the respondent No. 3/ Society is under the control of Management of SECL, Hasdeo Area, the employees employed by the Society i.e.

¶141

.'''^""'ir' '^ » .: \ /;'

¶142

¶143

¶144

teachers and staff are also employees of the Management of SECL, Hasdeo Area. After submission of above report, the Division Bench of M.P. High Court vide its order dated 18-2-1999 disposed of the writ petition with a direction that the understanding dated 6-12-94 and MOU dated 29-3-95 be implemented in letter and spirit within a period of two months. The Division Bench further observed that^"if the understandings are implemented perhaps the occasion for setting aside the order of the Regional Labour Officer, would not arise at all."

¶145

¶146

On an application filed by the M.P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha, through its General Secretary Natthulal Pandey, the Regional Labour Commissioner directed the Management of SECL to pay Rs. 78,28,810/- to 47 teaching and nonteaching staff of the respondent No. 3/Education Society in terms of the agreement within a period of 15 days vide its order dated 29a March, 2000 (Annexure P-36). On 105-2000, the Regional Labour Commissioner issued an R.R.C. against SECL (Ex. P-38).

¶147

The SECL challeing the above orders filed Writ Petition No. 3409/2000 and also report of 8-1-1998 . On 8-62000, the High Court granted interim order in favour of the SECL. The application for vacating stay order was also rejected by the High Court. The petitioners herein challenged the said order dated 8-6-2000 passed in the above petition No. W.P. 3409/2000 before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Apex Court had passed the following orderon 19-1-2002:-

¶148

"Without prejudice to the rights of the parties pending hearing and disposal of the writ petition before the High Court, respondent No. 1 is directed to arrange for payment of regular salary to the teachers/lecturers in the schools run by Singhi Colliery Education Society as per the State Government Scales within four weeks from today. Finally, if the High Court arrives at a conclusion

¶149

that the schools are run by the State or Central Govemment, it would be open to the respondent No. 1 to submit to the High Court for appropriate direction for recovery of the said amount. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of."

¶150

¶151

Ultimately, the above writ petition was allowed by the Division Bench of this Court vide its order dated 22-112005, in which in para 24, 31, 33, 47 and 48 the Division Bench observed thus :

¶152

"i. In view of the above decisions, it is held that 'workmen' the teachers are not under the provisions^{of theI.D.Act whichenablethemtofile} an application under Section 33-C(1) of the I.D. Act. Conjoint reading ofthe settlement dated 6-121994 and MOU dated 29-3-1995 make it clear that the said settlement and MOU were signed with clear understanding that the SECL had agreed to pay some amount which would not exceed Rs. 13,70,OOO/- per year, not on the basis that there was employer and employee relationship, but as a measure of goodwill to perform^{welfareactivities.RLC'sreportdated8-1-} 1998 had not stated that the teachers were workmen. However, finding of RLC in the said report that the teachers and staff of Singhi Collieries Education society are also employees of the management of the SECL which was challenged by the petitioners in the pending petition i.e. W.P. No. 349/1997 in the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur, was neither approved nor rejected. It is not correct to say that the said report has attained finality because the petitioners had challenged the report and no order was passed on the legality of the said report.

¶153

b--=-»^E ^"^.s

¶154

¶155

ii. In the present case, admittedly, the teachers were not workmen who were entitled to file this application for claiming money due fron-i an employer under a settlement or an award. The relationship of employer and employee has also not been settled and there is no settlement or an award between the petitioners and respondent No. 1 to claim recovery of any money which was also pre-adjudicated^{andascertained.}

¶156

iii. In the present case, the settlement dated 6- 12-1994 and MOU dated 29-3-1995 cannot be termed as settlement under the provisions of the I.D. Act as setUement contemplates an agreement between the einployer and the workmen. In the present case, SECL cannot be held as employer as had been held in a proceeding under Section 33-C(1) of the I.D. Act and the teachers had been held as not workraen in various decisions of the Supreme Court. Thus, the alleged settlement dated 6-12-1994 and MOU dated 29-3-1995 are held as no settlement to invoke jurisdiction of RLC under Section 33-C(1) ofthe I.D. Act.

¶157

iv. In the present case where the jurisdiction of RLC was never decided and the settlement dated 6-12-1994 and MOU dated 29-3-1995 have been acted upon by the petitioners, there is no application of principles of res judicata and estoppel.

¶158

v. In view of the foregoing, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29-3-2000 P-14) and RRC dated 10-5-2000 (Annexure (Annexure P-17) are quashed. However, respondents No. 1 and 2 are at liberty to seek redressal of their grievance as per the settlement

¶159

dated 6-12-94 and MOU dated 29-3-95 elsewhere before appropriate forum. No order as to costs."

¶160

The petitioners herein preferred S.L.P. .assailing the order. Some of the grounds taken by the petitioners before the Hon'ble Apex Court are as under:-

¶161

¶162

"(d) Because the Respondent management is bound by the agreement and memo of understanding executed by it, which is not in dispute.

¶163

,-» (e) Because the Respondent management can not be permitted to act in such an unfair manner that at first it persuaded the petitioner Union to execute the agreement and memo of understanding which resulted into the withdrawal of Writ Petition No. 3536/93 and Contempt Petition No. MCC No. 344/95 by the petitioners and when the issue of giving the benefit of the said agreement came up, it took the technical stand that the teachers are not workmen.

¶164

(f) Because on the direction of the High Court, the RLC had conducted an enquiry and submitted the report to the High Court by giving a finding that the employer-employees relationship exist between the Respondent management and the teachers, therefore the High Court is not right in taking the view that the report is not final.

¶165

That, the Division Bench of the High Court (h) ignored the fact that the matter has already been settled by earlier judgment of the Hon'ble High Court passed in M.P. No. 3536/93 and W.P. No. 349/97 and the HonTale High Court has clearly directed the respondent to implement the settiement.

¶166

(i) That fhe settlement was entered into by the respondents with open eyes and the respondents had speciGcally agreed in settlement dated 6-121994 to provide wages to the teachers at par with the teacher employed by the State Government and on fhe aforesaid basis writ petition^and contempt petition were withdrawn. The respondents cannot question the setUement on the ground that the teachers are not the workmen and the RLC has no jurisdiction to pass the order.

¶167

(j) The High Court has committed an error of law overlooking the fact that the respondent conipany was estopped from challenging the settlement by its conduct on the principle of estoppel and it could not have been granted any reUef since principle of acquiescence is also attracted.

¶168

(k) That the High Court further committed an error of law ignoring the fact that the respondent company had voluntarily entered into settlement with the petitioner and it had agreed to pay the salary to the teachers at par with the teachers employed by the State Government and on the basis of aforesaid settlement, they were successful in persuading the Union to withdraw the writ petition and contempt petition. Subsequently also the respondent had agreed before the Division Bench to follow the settlement. Hence on the principle of estopples and acquiescence, no relief could be granted to the respondent.

¶169

(1) That the High Court committed an error of law by holding in para 31 of the judgment that the relationship of employer and employee has also not been settled between the respondents and the petitioner without discussing any facts in

¶170

¶171

support of the aforesaid findings and contrary to the earlier findings of the Division Bench. Earlier the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court had directed the Regional Labour Cominissioner (C) Jabalpur to give findings as to whether the relation between the Master and Servant exists between the SECL management and the teachers. After hearing and giving sufficient opportunity to the parties, the Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Jabalpur had found that employer-employee relationship exist between the respondent management and the petitioners. This finding of Regional Labour Commissioner has not been reversed. Hence it has becoine final and the subsequently Division Bench of the High Court could not have taken contrary view between the same parties on same facts. It is contrary to the principle of resjudicata.

¶172

(m) That the High Court committed an error of law by holding in para - 33 of the judgment that SECL cannot be held as employer as had been held in the proceedings under Section 33-C(1) of the I.D. Act. The above Jinding is contrary to the earlier finding of the Division Bench where it has been categorically held that the respondent SECL is the employer and that finding has not been reversed by any other subsequent proceedings."

¶173

¶174

Hon'ble Apex Court dismissed the above S.L.P. vide its order dated 17-4-2006 (Annexure R-9).

¶175

At this stage, the present petition has been preferred by the teachers in Higher Secondary Schools which are under the management of Singhi Colliery Education Society, JhagraKhand a society registered under the C.G. Societies Registration Act, 1959 claiming for following reliefs:-

¶176

¶177

A. The respondent S.E.C.L. be directed to implement the settlement dated 6-12-1994 and the memorandum of understanding dated 29-3-1995 in its letter and spirit as committed by them. before the High Court of M.P.

¶178

B. The respondent S.E.C.L. be directed to pay the salary to the petitioners at par with the State Government scales with all other beneBts.

¶179

G. The respondent S.E.C.L. be directed to pay the arrears of salary due to the petitioner (with interest thereon @ 18% thereon) in view of the orders of the Supreme Court dated 19-2-2001 (which comes to approximately 1,25,00,000/-).

¶180

D. The respondent S.E.C.L. be directed to not to make any recovery from the petitioners on account of alleged extra payment made to the petitioners by S.E.C.L. as the same is misconceived.

¶181

E. The respondent S.E.C.L. be directed to treat the petitioners as their employees in view of the fact -

¶182

iinding report of the R.L.C.

¶183

F. The respondent S.E.C.L. be directed to pay difference of amount as per the settlement and MOU, claimed in accordance with the State Government scale w.e.f. month of October, 2005 onwards with interest thereon @ 18% per annum, the S.E.C.L. be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2,33,53,000 (approximately) (arrears from October, 2005 to March 2010) with interest threon @ 18% per annum on the aforesaid amount and this Court to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get salary at par with the State Govemment scale and to command the respondents to pay salary to the petitioners as per the State Government scale regularly.

¶184

f-l^ \ .'"3sfe 1 "^s ~SS'a!-sfiy

¶185

¶186

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that:-

¶187

i. The schools though on papers are shown to be run by the Society but the schools were managed and are fully under control of SECL. The officers of the respondents company were office bearer of the Society. They were ex-officio post holders of the Society and were having' all the supervision and administration over the Society. Even the appointment orders were issued by the officers of the SECL in the capacity of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Society. The settlement dated 6-121994 (Clause vi and vii) and MOU dated 29-3-95 (Clause 2 and 7) clearly shows that any decision could be taken by the principal, only with the prior approval of the General Manager of the Hasdeo Area of SECL, which clearly indicate that there was complete control of SECL on the schools. Hence SECL is liable to pay salaries to the petitioners as their employee.

¶188

ii.

¶189

The contention of the respondents that a maximum cap of Rs. 13,70,OOO/per year^is payable^tothe petitioners as the salary in terms of setUement dated 6-12-94 and MOU dated 29-3-95 is nothing but misinterpretation of the terms of the above agreement. The settlement / MOU has to be read as a whole. It would be clear that the respondent SECL is obliged to pay salary as payable under the State Government Scale from time to time. The report of the Regional Labour Commissioner dated 8-1-1998 was not challenged by the respondents and therefore, relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and SECL has attained finality.

<\ %

^^ K'...

^^•'^'

r ^

iii.

A bare reading of the note-sheet dated 20-3-94 (Annexure P-14) would reveal that the respondents themselves realized that the position of the schools in question are different from , other privately managed schools run in all areas of SECL including Hasdeo Area for the reason that the school is directly controlled / financed by the management of SECL. Out of total 65 teachers, 17 teachers will be removed, 9 teachers may not accept the tenns and conditions of the settlement dated 6-12-94, therefore Rs. 13,70,OOO/- per annum will be paid by the company to the schools which may go down in the coming years, which will depend on the strength of pupils as also the fee of pupils going up in the due course and due to this it was thought that Rs. 13,70,000/- per year would serve the purpose, but further Clause (vi) has been mentioned in the MOU which provides if the financial assistance is needed over and above Rs. 13,70,000/- the same will be decided by the Management in consultation with the Union and the Principal and, therefore, it cannot be said that the maximum cap is Rs. 13,70,OOO/- per year.

¶198

On the other hand, Shri Ajit Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that:-

¶199

¶200

The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3409/2008 has elaborately considered all the claims raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition and as such, since the Division Bench has already given a finding of fact on a particular issue, on the same set of facts and issues, the second writ petition filed for the same relief between the same parties is barred by the principle of resjudicata.

¶201

ii. The Division Bench of this Court has categoricaUy held that the settlement of grievance of the petitioners as per settlement dated 6-12-1994 and

¶202

¶203

—7¥-ri-^-
/. ,^-.\ '- -•a\ ';?
.- K'.
')'•
1
('^^tf'p
EC^-

¶204

iii.

¶205

iv.

¶206

MO.U dated 29-3-1995 has to be raised elsewhere before appropriate forum. From the above finding, the writ court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India would not be in any manner appropriate forum and the present petition is not maintainable.

¶207

The present petitioners also preferred S.L.P. (C) No. 1373/2006 before the Supreme Court taking all the grounds and same was dismissed vide order dated 27-4-2006 and thus the order passed by the Division Bench dated 22-11-2005 had attained finality.

¶208

In any event, this Court sitting singly cannot vary, modify, interpret or take a different view from that of the Division Bench taken in W.P. No.3409/2004.

¶209

¶210

v. The Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3409/2000 has held that the Regional Labour Commissioner was not justified in giving a finding that there was an employer-employee relationship. The Division Bench further held in para 24 of its judgment that the report of the Regional Labour Commissioner dated 8-4-1998 cannot be accepted as the basis for enforcement of the MOU dated 6-12-94 and 29-3-95. The Division Bench further held that whatever financial assistance which the Management is making was purely as a measure of goodwill to perform the welfare activities and not on fhe basis of there being any employer and employee relationship. Thus the same issue cannot be re-agitated by filing separate petition and the present petition is not maintainable.

¶211

vi.

¶212

On a plain reading of the settlement dated 6-12-94 and MOU dated 29-3-95, it would be clear that the SECL had itself agreed to pay only as a measure of goodwill to perform welfare acdvities. In view of above, there was no liability accrued or vested right

¶213

y^'^

¶214

'-~;:-".'. ^ )-' / :.'-^

¶215

which can be enforced by way of mandamus under Article 14 ofthe Constitution oflndia.

¶216

vii. In view of the fact that Division Bench of M.P. High Court has already ordered for implementation of setUement dated 6-12-94 and MOU dated 29-3-95 vide its order dated 18-2-99 in W.P. No. 349/97, the same relief cannot be now again agitated and the present writ petition is hit by principle of resjudicata.

¶217

¶218

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶219

A careful reading of record would reveal that the petitioners are claiming status of employee of respondents SECL and salary as paid to teachers employed by SECL or as being paid to the school run by DAV College, Delhi or Centrsd Board of Secondary Education whose sendce conditions are fully compensated by the SECL since inception and after execution of settlement dated 6-12-1994 and MOU dated 29-3-1995 for its implementation. While dismissing the MP No. 735/84, the Division Bench ofM.P. High Court in its order dated 12-1-87 has observed as under:-

¶220

"Perusal of the petition and rejoinder filed by the petitioners does not show expressly or impliedly as to which are those schools that are owned and managed by respondents No. 1 and 2, who are the teachers employed therein and what are their salaries. The only reference is to the establishment of a Central School by the Central School Board on the request of respondents No. 1 and 2 in Jhagrakhand Colliery area and fhe obligation of the respondents to reimburse the expenditure incurred by the Central School Board for running the said school. Obviously the teachers employed in the Central School are not the employees of respondents No. 1 and 2 but are Central

¶221

Government employees working under the Central School Board. The fact that as a result of the agreement with the Board, respondents 1 and 2 are reimbursing the expenditure incurred by the Board does not make the teachers of the Central School employees of the Coal India Limited. Thus, this basic allegation of discrimination or unequal treatment made in the petition could not be

¶222

sustained."

¶223

Letter on, after withdrawing the petition with liberty to file afresh from the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners have filed fresh petition clairning the same reliefs bearing M.P. No. 3536/93. During the pendency of the above petition,^the parties^{haveenteredintosettlementand} accordingly, the said petition was dismissed as withdrawn. On the basis of settlement, the Regiongd Labour Commissioner directed the respondents to pay. certain amount regarding arrears of salary. The same was assailed by the respondents by filing Writ Petition No. 349/97. The same was disposed of by the Division Bench of High Court directing the respondents to implement the settlement and MOU in its letter and spirit." 26. As per the petitioners, the said direction was not complied with, and therefore, they again approached the Regional Labour Commissioner who directed payment of certain amount against the respondents. Thereagainst the respondents have preferred W.P. No. 3409/2000 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of C.G. High Court vide its order dated 22-11-2005 by which it was declared that the above settlement and MOU cannot be enforced under the provisions of Section 33-C(1) of the I.D. Act, also granted liberty to the present petitioners to seek redressal of their grievance as per the settlement dated 6-12-95 and MOU dated 29-3-95 elsewhere before the appropriate forum.

¶224

¶225

¶226

It cannot be disputed that the issues raised and settled by the Division Bench of this Court or the issues raised and decided by the Division Bench of High Court of M.P. cannot be re-agitated. It is also not in dispute that although in view of Division Bench decision of this Court in W.P. No. 3409/2000, the settlement dated 6-12-94 and MOU dated 29-3-95 cannot be enforced invoking jurisdiction of Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 33-C(1) of the I.D. Act, but the parties are abide by the above settlement and MOU in view of the Division Bench decision ofM.P. High Court in W.P. No. 349/97. In essence, the dispute between the parties appears to be implementation of the above settlement and MOU in its true perspective.

¶227

¶228

The relief regarding direction to implement settlement dated 6-12-94 and MOU dated 29-3-95 is concerned, the same has already been granted by Division Bench of M.P. High Court in W.P. No. 349/97 which has attained finality and, therefore, there is no sense in granting the same relief in the instant petition and Shri Sinha is correct in his submission that the said relief cannot be granted in the instant petition. Hence the instant petition,^{sofarasthereliefofdirectiontoimplement} above settlement and MOU is concerned is not maintainable.

¶229

¶230

So far as relief regarding relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and SECL is concerned, it is not in dispute that the petitioners have claimed fhe said relief in W.P. No. 349/97 which was disposed of directing the respondents to implement the settlement dated 6-12-94 and MOU dated 29-3-95 in its letter and spirit. The terms and conditions mentioned in the above documents are binding upon both the parties.

¶231

¶232

As per Clause 6 ofMOU, in case financial assistance from the management is sought for an amount exceeding Rs.

¶233

¶234

13,70,000/-, the same will be decided by the management in consultation with the Union and the Principal. As per Clause 8 of the Settlement dated 6-1294, the manageinent as a measure of goodwill and as a measure of welfare activities shall pay the difference between receipt on the basis of increased fees and expenditure in connection with the payment of salary and other allowances as admissible under the Circular of State Government from time to time including 5% contingency. As per Clause 8 of MOU, Singhi Colliery Education Society/Respondent No. 3 is not effectively functioning. This Society has to be re-organized and established regularly. The above clause of Settlement and MOU would show -"*^ that the respondents as a measure of goodwill and as a measure of welfare activities have to provide financial assistances to the teachers of Singhi Collieiy Education Society.

¶235

Giving financial assistance did not necessarily mean that all the teachers and staff who were working in the school had become employees of SECL. Admittedly, the schools are being run by the respondent No. 3, a registered society. The SECL is only a commercial venture of the Government and its activities cannot be equated with that of State Government. Its object is to raise coal and sell coal. Imparting of education is not its predominant object.

¶236

¶237

The Supreme Court in case of S.C. Chandra and others -i>- State ofJharkhand and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 279 in para 8 and 20 has observed as under:-

¶238

"8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. The basic question before us is whether a writ of mandamus could be issued against the management of HCL. The learned Single Judge relying on the Division

¶239

¶240

-^. s.N».,^ '~<^':^:. ^ ^:

¶241

Bench in an identical matter pertaining to Bharat Coking Coal Liraited dismissed the writ petition of the appellants. This issue was examined in ah analogous writ petition and in the aforesaid case, this issue was extensively considered as to whether the management of the school is the direct ,responsibility of HCL or not. After considering the matter in detail, the leamed Single Judge relying on the aforesaid judgment found that there is no relationship of master and servant with that of the teachers and other ^taff of the school with HCL as the management of the school was done by the Managing_Caxamittee though liberal financial grant was being made by the Corporation. By that there was no direct connection of fhe management of HCL with that of the management of the school. Though through various communication an impression was sought to be given that the school is being run by HCL but in substance HCL only used to provide financial assistance to the school ^but the management of the school was entirely different than the management of HCL. Giving financial assistance does not necessarily mean that all the teachers/and staff who are working in the school have become the employees of HCL. Therefore, we are of the view that the view taken by the learned Single Judge appears to'be correct that there was no relationship of the management of HCL with that of the management of the school though most of the employees of HCL were in the Managing Committee of the School. But by that no inference can be drawn that the school had been established by HCL. The children of workers of HCL were being benefited by the education imparted by this school. Therefore, the management of HCL was giving financial aid but

¶242

¶243

•«>..iv .?:^;":: .!;' 'v ^

¶244

by that it cannot be construed fhat the school was run by the management of HCL. Therefore, under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge appears to be correct.

¶245

After going through the order of the Division Bench we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court is correct. Firsfly, the school is not being managed by BCCL as from the facts it is more than clear that BCCL was only extending financial assistance froro time to time. By that tf cannot be saddled with the liability to pay these teachers of the school as being paid to fhe clerks working with BCCL or in the Government of Jharkhand. It is essentially a school managed by a body independent of the management of BCCL. Therefore, BCCL cannot be saddled with the responsibilities of granting the teachers the salaries equated to that of the clerks working in BCCL.

Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 3409/2000 has held in para 31 of its judgment fhat the relationship of employer and employee between the petitioners and SECL has also not been settled. The appeal preferred thereagainst by the petitioners herein raising all the issues involved in this petition has also been dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

¶250

In view of above, there is no sense in re-agitating the same issue again and petition regarding above relief also deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶251

However, it appears that the parties are litigating since 1984, in view of the Settlement dated 6-12-94 and MOU dated 29-3-95, the only dispute which appears to be left open is implementation of the direction of High Court of M.P. passed in W.P. No. 349/97 vide its order dated 18-2-

¶252

-";--:;'"^ '"" /^a"^! •- ^. fi f \ K'a^; , '^&zs?^''

¶253

¶254

99 in its proper perspective. A careful reading of notesheet dated 20-3-94 (Annexure P-14) , MOU dated 29-395 would reveal that after taking into consideration the facts mentioned in the note sheet dated 20-3-94, the parties have entered into MOU dated 29-3-95 after entering into Settlement dated 6-12-94 which is clarifactory in nature. As per Clause 6 of the MOU, in case financial assistance from the Management is sought to an amount exceeding Rs. 13,70.000/-, the same will be decided by the Management in consultation with the Union and the Principal. Therefore, ends ofjustice would be subserved if the respondents are directed to decide the representation which may be submitted by the petitioners in a specified time frame and to implement the settlement accordingly.

¶255

Therefore, the petition is disposed of wifh the direction to the respondents that in case, the petitioners file representation stating their claim in the light of the above Settlement and MOU, the same shall be decided by the respondents authorities as early as possible preferably within a period of 6 months frora the date of representation, in its true perspective..

¶256

The petition is accordingly disposed of. 37. No order as to costs.

¶257

Sd/N-K-Agarawal Judge

Bharat Singh Baghel and Ors. v. S.E.C.L. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Singh Baghel and Ors. v. S.E.C.L. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxman Das Bajaj and Another Vs Manchit Rao Varaskar and Others

Raghuraj Singh and Ors. Vs Shanti Bai and Ors.

Smt.Kamla Bai Vs Muneer Ali and Others

Smt.Ujjawala Sarkar and Ors. Vs Dipankar Kundu and Anr.

Div.Manager, United India Insu.Co.Ltd. Vs Govind Narayan Pandey and Another

Shiv Prasad and Anr. Vs Shekh Abdul Salem