Wife can’t be simply evicted from home after divorce: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India

PTI NEWS

 A Hindu woman cannot be evicted out of the matrimonial home after divorce except through procedure established by law, as there is no provision for her automatic eviction, the Supreme Court has ruled. A bench of justices G S Singhvi and S D Mukhopadhyay, in a judgement, said that though a woman may not have a legal right to continue in the house of the ex-husband, yet the latter cannot forcibly evict her. The apex court gave the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by Ranjit Kaur challenging the decisions of the Punjab and Haryana high court which had upheld her eviction from the house of a disputed property upon a decree of divorce granted to the husband Major Harmohinder Singh, an Army officer. “Learned counsel is right in his submission that even though in the decree of divorce, the appellant has not been given a right of residence and her occupation of the suit property can be treated as unauthorised, respondent No 1 (Singh) cannot evict her except after following the procedure established by law. “The material placed on record shows that the appellant had entered into the property as the wife of respondent No. 1. Therefore, even though, after passing of the decree of the divorce she may not have a legal right to continue to remain in possession of the suit property, respondent No. 1 cannot be given liberty to forcibly evict her,” the bench said.

Advertisements

Employees can’t be forced to work under new management: Supreme Court

Supreme Court of India

PTI NEWS

NEW DELHI: Employees cannot be compelled to work under a new management and are entitled to retirement or retrenchment benefits, the Supreme Court has held.  The apex court rejected the argument of Philip’s India Ltdthat since the employees had neither retired nor retrenched, hence they were not entitled to the benefits. “It is settled law that without consent, workmen cannot be forced to work under different management and in that event, those workmen are entitled to retirement/retrenchment compensation in terms of the Act.”In view of the same, we are of the view that the workmen are entitled to the benefit of such direction and it is the obligation on the part of the management – Philip’s India Ltd., to comply with the same,” the apex court said. A bench of justices P Sathasivam and J Chelamewar passed the judgement upholding the appeal filed by aggrieved workers of erstwhile Philip’s India Ltd which had sold its consumer electronics factory at Salt Lake, Kolkata to Kitchen Appliances India Ltd.

The aggrieved workers were not keen on continuing with the company and instead sought VRS from new management which was turned down by the company on the ground that the earlier scheme had lapsed in 1997. The Calcutta high court while upholding transfer of the ownership however, on October 10, 2001, directed the management to pay retirement, retrenchment benefits to the workers who were not keen to continue with their association in the company. As the management failed to comply with the direction, the workers appealed in the apex court.

Apex court rules cess on builders constitutionally valid

In a relief to millions of workers in the building and construction sectors, the Supreme Court has upheld the finding of the Delhi High Court that certain legislations and rules – which allowed the levy of a cess on builders and contractors to create a fund for welfare of these employees, were Constitutionally valid. The court turned down the contention of the appellants – Dewan Chand Builders and Contractors – that the cess was a “tax” and that there was no nexus between the levy and the intended purpose.

The court said, “The inevitable conclusion is that in the instant case there does exist a reasonable nexus between the payer of the Cess and the services rendered for that industry and therefore, the said levy cannot be assailed on the ground that being in the nature of a ‘tax’, it was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament.”

The principal ground for challenge to the validity of The Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act (or the Cess Act), 1996 by the appellants was the lack of legislative competence of Parliament. The core issue arising for consideration was whether the cess levied under the scheme of the Cess Act is a ‘fee’ or a ‘tax’.

The apex court said, “There is no doubt in our mind that the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Cess Act, clearly spells out the essential purpose (of what) the enactment seeks to achieve, that is to augment the Welfare Fund under The Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 (or the BOCW Act).”

“It is clear from the scheme of the BOCW Act that its sole aim is the welfare of building and construction workers, directly relatable to their constitutionally recognised right to live with basic human dignity, enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” it said. “The levy of Cess on the cost of construction incurred by the employers on the building and other construction works is for ensuring sufficient funds for the Welfare Boards to undertake social security schemes and welfare measures for building and other construction workers. The fund, so collected, is directed to specific ends spelt out in the BOCW Act. Therefore, applying the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it is clear that the said levy is a ‘fee’ and not ‘tax’,” the court said.

Earlier, the Delhi High Court had rejected the builders’ plea challenging the cess levied under the BOCW Act. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the BOCW Act says, “It is estimated that about 8.5 million workers in the country are engaged in building and other construction works. Building and other construction workers are one of the most numerous and vulnerable segments of the unorganized labour in India. The building and other construction works are characterized by their inherent risk to the life and limb of the workers.”

Its preamble says that it is “An Act to regulate the employment and conditions of service of building and other construction workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare measures and for other matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/industry-and-economy/economy/article2647624.ece?ref=wl_industry-and-economy