Criminal Complaints, Gratuity and Eviction

Dear Reader,

Today is the second Sunday of the month and therefore I will be writing about the judiciary.

The Commissioner of Police and Ors

Versus

Devender Anand & Ors

SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court held that filing of a criminal complaint to settle a dispute of a civil nature is an abuse of the process of law.

In this case the Respondent #1 entered into an agreement to sell a house with respect to the Respondents #2 and #3 herein for a consideration. Then he learnt that the Respondents #2 and #3 had mortgaged the property to Andhra Bank. He paid the mortgage money and got the message redeemed and thereafter got the sale deed executed in his name.

Thereafter, he filed the complaint alleging cheating by the sellers which got rejected by the Magistrate. Thereafter he again filed a criminal complaint. Again during the pendency of this complaint he filed a writ petition before the High Court which it entertained and gave some directions in an order.

The Supreme Court set aside the order and quashed all criminal proceedings.

Leftist Analysis:

Leftism is based on the belief that the State must promote economic welfare of its citizens. It must therefore intervene in the financial disputes between citizens.

Civil disputes are disputes that are between private citizens. They are resolved by the defendant compensating the plaintiff. The State is not a party to the dispute.

Criminal disputes are disputes between the State and citizens. The dispute is resolved by the accused being imprisoned by, or paying a fine to, the State.

A leftist would therefore desire that a financial dispute be treated as a crime, which would allow the State to become a party in order to protect the party that has been wronged.

This judgement states that this financial dispute is a civil dispute and therefore no criminal proceedings can happen in it.

Therefore it is not a leftist judgement.

Rightist Analysis:

Rightism is based on the belief that the State must protect the economic freedom of its citizens. It must therefore not intervene in the financial disputes between citizens.

A rightist would prefer that financial disputes be settled between private citizens as civil disputes. This would prevent the State from intervening.

This judgement states that this financial dispute is a civil dispute and therefore no criminal proceedings can happen in it.

Therefore it is a rightist judgement.

Authoritarian Analysis:

The authoritarian ideology believes that the government must increase its intervention in the disputes of its citizens.

Therefore it would favour allowing criminal proceedings in civil disputes.

This judgement does not allow criminal proceedings in civil disputes, preventing the government from increasing its intervention in the disputes of its citizens.

Therefore it is not an authoritarian judgement.

Libertarian Analysis:

The libertarian ideology believes that the government must decrease its intervention in the disputes of its citizens.

Therefore it would not favour allowing criminal proceedings in civil disputes .

This judgement sets aside a High Court Order which treated allowed criminal proceedings in civil disputes. This decreases the State’s control intervention in the citizens.

Therefore it is a libertarian judgement.

My Analysis:

I believe that financial disputes should be resolved by private citizens. Unless they affect the public at large. This case does not affect the public therefore I agree with the judgement not allowing the State to become a party in it. I also believe that criminal proceedings should not be allowed in civil disputes. I therefore, agree with this judgement.

I believe, according to the previous analyses, that this is a right-wing libertarian judgement.

Shri Shankar Dadoba Naik

vs

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Palghar Division

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

In this case the Bombay High Court reiterated that Gratuity of an employee cannot be forfeited until his services are terminated.

The writ petition was filed by an employee of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (Respondent), who was a conductor in one of its buses. When his bus was checked, certain serious defaults were noticed. The petitioner was accordingly charge-sheeted and a show-cause notice was given to him.

He questioned the show-cause notice in a complaint. Such complaint was dismissed and such order was confirmed in Revision Application by an Industrial Court.

The petitioner was aggrieved by this order and filed a writ petition before the High Court and the Court directed that status quo to be maintained during pendency of the petition.

According to petitioner, services of the petitioner were never terminated and he continued in service by virtue of above order passed in Writ Petition. He was served with a show-cause notice as to why his gratuity should not be forfeited before the date of his superannuation. The said notice though was replied by the petitioner, his gratuity was forfeited.

The petitioner filed this Writ Petition in order to have his gratuity restored. The Court allowed the Writ Petition.

Leftist Analysis:

Leftism is an ideology that favours the working class. It advocates for worker’s interests which include gratuity. Leftists believe that employers should be obligated to pay gratuity to their workers.

This judgement obligates the employer to pay the gratuity of his worker. It favours the working class.

Therefore it is a leftist judgement.

Rightist Analysis:

Rightism is an ideology that favours the capitalist class. It advocates for the employer’s interests. Rightists believe that workers do not have a right to gratuity from their employers.

This judgement protects the right of the worker to gratuity from his employer. It does not favour the capitalist class.

Therefore it is not a rightist judgement.

Authoritarian Analysis:

Authoritarianism is an ideology that advocates for increased State intervention in the employer-employee relationship. This means that it can determine by law when the employer may forfeit gratuity to the employee.

This judgement states that the employer cannot forfeit gratuity to the employee until his services are terminated by superannuation which is what the law (The Payment of Gratuity Act) says.

This judgement allows the State to determine by law when the employer may forfeit gratuity to the employee. In other words it increases State intervention in the employer-employee relationship.

Therefore it is an authoritarian judgement.

Libertarian Analysis:

Libertarianism is an ideology that advocates for decreased State intervention in the employer-employee relationship. This means that it cannot determine by law when the employer may forfeit gratuity to the employee.

This judgement states that the employer cannot forfeit gratuity to the employee until his services are terminated by superannuation which is what the law (The Payment of Gratuity Act) says.

This judgement allows the State to determine by law when the employer may forfeit gratuity to the employee. In other words it does not decrease State intervention in the employer-employee relationship.

Therefore it is not a libertarian judgement.

My Analysis:

I believe that the State should not intervene in the employer-employee relationship. However I do believe that it must prevent either side from being exploited.

In this case the employer was exploiting the employee by forfeiting gratuity to him before his superannuation, despite enjoying his services. I therefore believe that this judgement preventing him from doing that, is correct.

Conclusion:

This is a left-wing authoritarian judgement.

Chandigarh Administration And Others

Versus

Hari Ram

SUPREME COURT

The Supreme Court held that a slump in business cannot be the reason for default in payment of rent.

Facts:

The Respondent — Hari Ram was allotted a booth by the Appellant — the Chandigarh Administration on a lease basis. The respondent made the initial payment and possession was handed over to him accordingly. The respondent has not paid the first, second and third installments and ground rent.

Years later, the lease granted to him was cancelled due to his failure to deposit these three installments.

Therefore, the respondent filed an appeal before the Chief Administrator Chandigarh. Meanwhile the order of eviction was passed against him. Challenging the order of eviction, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority-Additional District Judge Chandigarh. The order of eviction by the Estate Officer was set aside.

The appeal before the Chief Administrator Chandigarh was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a revision before the Advisor to the Administrator, Chandigarh which was dismissed. Therefore, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court which was allowed and ordered that the Respondent must be given time to pay his dues.

Feeling aggrieved, the Chandigarh Administration has preferred this appeal.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and stated that if the Respondent failed to pay the outstanding rent in six-months then the Administration shall proceed with the eviction according to the law.

The Respondent’s argument that he should be excused from paying his rent due to a downturn in his business was dismissed.

Leftist Analysis:

Leftists believe that in a dispute between a landlord and a tenant that the State should support the tenant. This is because they believe that housing is a right not a privilege. Therefore the tenant should not be evicted for not paying his rent if he does not have the means to pay it.

This judgement allows the landlord to evict the tenant due to non-payment of rent even though he does not have the means to pay it.

This judgement does not view housing as a right but as a privilege. It does not support the tenant.

Therefore, it is not a leftist judgement.

Rightist Analysis:

Rightists believe that in a dispute between a landlord and a tenant that the State should support the landlord. This is because they believe that housing is a privilege not a right. Therefore the tenant should be evicted for not paying his rent whether or not he has the means to pay it.

This judgement allows the landlord to evict the tenant due to non-payment of rent even though he does not have the means to pay it.

This judgement views housing as a privilege. It supports the landlord.

Therefore, it is a rightist judgement.

Authoritarian Analysis:

Authoritarians believe that housing provided by the State can be denied by the State whenever it so desires.

This judgement allows the State to deny housing to the tenant due to non-payment of rent, but not whenever it so desires.

Therefore it is not an authoritarian judgement.

Libertarian Analysis:

Libertarians believe that housing should not be provided by the State.

This judgement allows the State to provide housing.

Therefore it is not a libertarian judgment.

My Analysis:

I believe that the State should provide housing but only to people who do not have taxable income. But the tenants must pay rent and should be evicted if they fail to do so, even if they are unable to do so due to a slump in their business. Therefore I agree with this judgement.

Conclusion:

This is a right-wing judgement.

Thus, these three judgments are (i) right-wing libertarian, (ii)left-wing authoritarian and (iii) right-wing.

Thank you for reading.