Hyderabad: Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji declared that the report of the internal complaints committee (ICC) in a case under the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Work Place Act, 2013 was sufficient to proceed against the delinquent employee.
No separate and independent enquiry was required, the bench ruled, and allowed a writ appeal preferred by the Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) against an order of a single judge who had ruled to the contrary.
The litigation relates to the termination of services of Duraiswami Bhaskaran, human resource manager, by GAIL on charges of sexual abuse at the work place.
The officer was successful before the single judge who ruled that there needs to be a separate enquiry as provided for under the disciplinary rules, and that the report of the ICC could not be the basis for the punishment.
The Chief Justice speaking for the bench referred to the history of legislation in this regard — the Vishakha case and the subsequent enactment of law on the subject — and said that a ruling of a larger bench of the apex court was binding on it.
It ruled that neither the Protection of Women from Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act nor the GAIL rules envisaged a second enquiry. The bench held that such inquiry as was done in this case must be in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. The punishment of termination which was interfered with by the single judge was accordingly set aside.
GAIL had forfeited the gratuity payable to the employee. On this aspect, the bench set aside the order. The Chief Justice pointed to the evolution of the law relating to gratuity and ruled that it could have been recovered only if the employee suffered a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. It recorded a finding that there was not even a complaint before the police in the case. That part of the order forfeiting the gratuity was set aside and GAIL was directed to pay the gratuity amount to the employee.
Notice to textile commissioner on subsidy
A two judge bench of the Telangana High Court on Tuesday ordered notice in a writ appeal on the question of grant of subsidy under the Technology Upgradation Scheme (TUS). The bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji entertained an appeal filed by Sitaram Spinners Private Limited after a single judge had rejected a petition seeking similar relief.
The petitioner pointed out that the firm had obtained machinery on a Rs 67-crore loan under the TUS. It was for the consortium of banks, SBI and Andhra Bank, to file an application for benefits including subsidy under the scheme before the textile commissioner. The textile commissioner rejected the application on the ground that the bank made a belated application.
The petitioner pointed out that there had been a subsequent order of the High Court to the textile commissioner to consider the case afresh. Even in the second round, the textile commissioner rejected the application as being time barred. Counsel said the rejection on the ground that it was time-barred was contrary to the court direction which only required the textile commissioner to examine whether the machinery was purchased and whether under the other guidelines of the scheme they were entitled to subsidy.
Plea says read down Sarfaesi Act clause
Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy of the Telangana High Court ordered notice to the Centre in a writ petition challenging the Sarfaesi (Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002) rules.
The writ questioned the rule which empowers the bank to forfeit 25 per cent of the sale amount when the auction winner fails to deposit the balance 75 per cent within the stipulated time, as the Union Bank of India had done on February 21.
The petitioner contended that the bank was party to an order of the Debt Recovery Tribunal which effectively stalled the sale and yet the bank was insisting on the payment of the balance sale amount illegally. The petitioner pointed out that the rule on forfeiture must be read down in giving such power to the bank only in cases where the failure to deposit the balance 75 per cent is attributable to the auction purchaser. An erring bank cannot be allowed to take advantage of the statue, senior counsel L. Ravichander said.
HC quashes tax demand on dead person
A two-judge bench of the Telangana High Court set aside a service tax demand made against a dead person. The bench of Chief Justice Ujjal Bhuyan and Justice N. Tukaramji allowed a writ petition filed by S. Arun Kumar which questioned an order in original demanding service tax of Rs 3,10,592 against S.L. Manohar Rao a dealer of chimneys, drinking water bores, motor pumps etc. The arrears were said to be for the period from 2014-15, The order of demand was made on February 28, 2022, while the assesse died in a road accident in December 2018. The bench upheld the plea that there was no provision under the taxing statute empowering collection of tax from legal representatives. The bench quashed the order as a nullity.
The Telangana High Court dismissed a writ appeal filed by the excise department, requiring it to return the demand drafts, each worth Rs 1 lakh, collected from 58 persons in 2021 towards tender application fee for 2B bar licences. A single judge had faulted the government for holding back the amounts. The government contended that the amount was non-refundable and was retained because of litigation on the issue of whether the area for which the application were called for — Manuguru —was a gram panchayat or a municipality. The bench of Chief justice Ujjal Bhuyan and N. Tukaramji observed that there was no illegality in the order of the single judge that warranted intervention in an intra court appeal.
