SEPTEMBER - 2010
- Public Interest Litigation: When the petition was filed on behalf of all residents of Mhow seeking direction to the Union of India to recognise their rights stating that the land belonged to the Union rather than State of MP would be maintainable. When the suit would have been maintainable, then even PIL would be maintainable. Association of Residents of Mhow v. Union of India, (HC of MP).
- Employees of the local authorities who although fall within the definition of State under Article 12 of Constitution of India, and employees' therein are also entitled for payment of pension & gratuity under the applicable service rules, would not stand debarred from obtaining gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 unless & until the local authority stands specifically exempted by the appropriate government. Ram Shanker Namdeo [represented by Chandak Chambers] v. State of Madhya Pradesh & another (HC of MP).
- Under the EPF Act, 1952, for an employee who was a member of the fund prior to 1971, he would be entitled for the benefits of Family Pension Scheme 1971 as well as the subsequent Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 only when an employee had opted for the pension scheme at the time of introduction. However, membership for Scheme of 1995 is compulsory for every member who subscribe to the fund after 1995. Subhashchand Jain v. Madhya Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & others [represented by Chandak Chambers] (HC of MP).
- Under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 compensation which has been voluntarily paid to the employee by the employer under the Workmen's [Employees'] Compensation Act, 1923 would not be deducted unless the said application has been made by the claimant himself. Further, when the said benefit has not been withdrawn by the claimant under the Act of 1923, then the said amount cannot be deducted under the Act of 1988 while computing the quantum of compensation. Smt. Lalmati v. Smt. Savita Jain [represented by Chandak Chambers], (HC of MP).
- Under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961, when a suit is instituted for eviction for non-use of tenanted premises, the initial burden of proof is upon the landlord to prove that the tenanted premises have not been used for six months preceding filing of suit without any reasonable cause. Once the said burden is discharged by the landlord, then the burden shifts upon the tenant to demonstrate that it has reasonable cause for not using the premises. Mazhar Khan v. Shyamkishore, (HC of MP).