List of Current Affairs

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, the bench of Justices  Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra has held that a direct master-servant relationship must be documented for an employment claim. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education v. Raj Kumar Mishra (2025). 

What was the Background of Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education v. Raj Kumar Mishra (2025)? 

• Raj Kumar Mishra was working as a Junior Assistant at CBSE through a contractor named M/s Manpower Security Services. 
• In 1999, Mishra's services were terminated through an oral order, which he claimed was illegal and unjustified. 
• Conciliation proceedings between Mishra and CBSE failed to resolve the dispute regarding his employment status. 
• The matter was subsequently referred to the Central Industrial Tribunal in Kanpur for detailed examination. 
• The tribunal initially found that Mishra was engaged with CBSE and had worked as an employee, awarding him compensation of Rs. 1 lakh. 
• Despite the compensation, the tribunal did not order Mishra's reinstatement to his previous position. 
• Mishra challenged this decision, arguing that reinstatement should have been mandatory under Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
• CBSE consistently maintained that Mishra was a contract worker and not a direct employee, presenting contractor bills as evidence of his employment arrangement. 
• The core dispute centered on whether Mishra had a direct master-servant relationship with CBSE or was merely a contract worker supplied by a manpower agency. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court meticulously scrutinized the fundamental legal principle of establishing a master-servant relationship, emphasizing that such a relationship must be conclusively documented through explicit paperwork. 
• The Court critically examined the respondents' primary contention that supervisory and jurisdictional control automatically constitutes an employment relationship, summarily rejecting this simplistic legal interpretation. 
• After comprehensive analysis, the Court determined that merely being posted at various locations and performing diverse work duties does not inherently establish a direct employment offence or master-servant relationship. 
• The judicial bench comprehensively evaluated the presented documentary evidence and found insufficient substantive proof to validate the respondents' claim of being direct employees of the appellants. 
• Recognizing the absence of compelling documentary evidence, the Supreme Court concluded that remanding the matter back to the Labour Court would be an futile procedural exercise, thereby directly intervening to resolve the jurisdictional dispute. 
• The Court ultimately allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's orders for remand and effectively quashing the previous awards granted to the respondents. 

What is Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 

• Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deals with the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. 
• Section 25F mandates specific procedural and compensatory requirements that an employer must strictly follow before retrenching a workman who has completed continuous service of not less than one year. 
• The provision establishes three critical conditions precedent to lawful retrenchment:  
  • Providing one month's written notice to the workman, explicitly stating the reasons for retrenchment. 
  • Alternatively, paying full wages in lieu of the notice period. 
  • Ensuring complete wage compensation equivalent to fifteen days' average pay for each completed year of continuous service. 
• The compensation calculation is specifically designed to protect workers' financial interests, with provisions for:  
  • Fifteen days' average pay for every completed year of service. 
  • Pro-rata compensation for service periods exceeding six months. 
• The employer is legally obligated to serve formal notice to the appropriate government authority or a specified government-designated authority through the prescribed official channel. 
• These conditions are mandatory and non-negotiable, creating a statutory protection mechanism for workers against arbitrary dismissal. 
• Any retrenchment conducted without adhering to these specified conditions would be considered illegal and potentially actionable under industrial law. 
• The provision fundamentally aims to ensure fair treatment, financial security, and procedural transparency in workforce reduction processes. 

Source: Jammu & Kashmir High Court 

Why in News? 

Justice Rajnesh Oswal has held that the court noted that a Commissioner under Order XXXIX Rule 7 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is appointed for inspection purposes, while a Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is meant for investigation to elucidate disputed facts. 

• The Jammu & Kasmir High Court held in the case of Saraj Din v. Liyaqat Ali (2025). 

What was the Background of the Saraj Din v. Liyaqat Ali Case? 

• The case involves a land dispute between two parties: Saraj Din (70 years old) and Liyaqat Ali, both residents of Firdosabad Sunjwan in Jammu District.  
• The dispute centers around a piece of land with Survey No. 356 min, measuring approximately 16 marlas, located in Village Sunjwan. 
• Saraj Din initially filed a suit seeking a permanent prohibitory injunction regarding the land in Survey No. 356 min.  
• Liyaqat Ali had already filed a written statement in response to this suit. 
• Subsequently, Liyaqat Ali filed his own suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction. 
• His suit sought to restrain Saraj Din and his representatives from interfering with his peaceful possession of the land. 
• The land in question has the following dimensions: 
  • North side: 75 feet 
  • South side: 68 feet 
  • West side: 65 feet 
  • East side: 65 feet 
• Both parties are essentially claiming possession of the same piece of land, leading to parallel legal proceedings in the court. 
• Liyaqat Ali filed an application requesting the appointment of a commissioner to conduct a land demarcation (nishan dehi) to clarify the boundaries and possession of the land. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The J & K High Court made several significant observations regarding the case: 
  • The court noted that under Article 227 of the Constitution, orders of civil courts can only be examined in exceptional cases where there is a manifest miscarriage of justice. 
  • High Courts can interfere when there is:  
    • Patent perversity in orders. 
    • Gross and manifest failure of justice. 
    • Violation of basic principles of natural justice. 
  • The court distinguished between two types of Commissioner appointments:  
    • Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC: For property inspection. 
    • Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC: For local investigation to elucidate matters in dispute. 
  • The trial court had prematurely appointed a commissioner when:  
    • Evidence had not yet been led by parties. 
    • The court itself had concluded both suits could be decided by common evidence. 
    • There was no specific matter requiring elucidation. 
  • A Commissioner can only be appointed when the court cannot reach a definitive conclusion based on existing evidence. 
  • The term "investigation" in Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC is broader than "inspection." 
  • Commissioner appointment should occur after issues are framed, not before evidence is presented. 
  • The High Court rules that the trial court committed a jurisdictional error by appointing a Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC at this stage of the proceedings. 

What are Commissions? 

About 

• Commission is an instruction or role given by the Court to a person to act on behalf of the Court. 
• The court authorizes the person so appointed to do everything that the Court requires to do for the accomplishment of justice. 
• A person so appointed is known as a Court commissioner. 
• Courts power to issue commission is discretionary, it can be exhausted by the court either on application by a party to the suit or on its own motion. 

Appointment as a Commissioner 

• Generally, there is a panel of commissioners which is formed by a High Court in which advocates competent to carry out the commission issued by the Court, are selected. 
• The person appointed as commissioner should be independent, impartial, disinterested in the suit and the parties involved in it. Such a person should have the requisite skills to carry out the commission. 

Power of Court to Issue Commissions 

• Section 75 of CPC deals with the power to court to issue commissions. It states that- 
• Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed; the Court may issue a commission— 
  • to examine any person; 
  • to make a local investigation; 
  • to examine or adjust accounts; or 
  • to make a partition; 
  • to hold a scientific, technical, or expert investigation; 
  • to conduct sale of property which is subject to speedy and natural decay, and which is in the custody of the Court pending the determination of the suit; 
  • to perform any ministerial act. 

What is Order XXVI of Rule 9 of CPC? 

• Commission for Local Investigation 
  • As per Rule 9 of Order XXVI, the court can issue commission for local investigation. 
  • The court can issue commission, if it considers proper at any stage of the suit, for the following purposes: 
    • For explanation in any disputed issue. 
    • For determination of the market value of any property. 
    • For determination of mesne profits, damages, annual net profits etc. 
    • To issue such commission depends upon the discretion of the court. 

Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News?

A bench of Justice C Hari Shankar held that exclusive jurisdiction clause prevails over seat of arbitration. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt Ltd v. Rudrapur Precision Industries & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Precitech Enclosures Systems Pvt Ltd v. Rudrapur Precision Industries & Anr. (2025) Case?

• Rudrapur and Precitech entered into a Rent Agreement on 15th  July 2017, where Rudrapur sub-leased an industrial land plot in SIDCUL, IIE, Pant Nagar, Uttarakhand to Precitech for manufacturing and storage purposes. 
• The Rent Agreement's Clause 20 specified that courts in Rudrapur, Uttarakhand would have exclusive jurisdiction for resolving any disputes between the parties. 
• Precitech paid rent regularly until March 2021, when financial difficulties arose due to the COVID-19 pandemic and disputes among its directors, which led to the freezing of Precitech's bank account. 
• On 3rd  March 2021, the parties signed a Compromise Deed, settling the total rent at ₹27,75,547/- and agreeing that Precitech would sell a property to Rudrapur for ₹90 lakhs, with the rent to be deducted from the sale proceeds. 
• On 15th  May 2021, Rudrapur unilaterally increased the agreed rent to ₹42,26,854/- and threatened to take forcible possession of Precitech's belongings. 
• Rudrapur also unilaterally appointed Dr. Pankaj Garg as an arbitrator, which Precitech objected to, leading to a court case to terminate Dr. Garg's mandate. 
• Precitech alleges that Rudrapur has taken forcible possession of the disputed premises, preventing Precitech from accessing its machinery and goods. 
• Precitech filed a Section 9 petition requesting the court to: 
  • Restrain Rudrapur from selling or creating third-party interests in Precitech's machineries and stocks. 
  • Direct Rudrapur to hand over possession of Precitech's machineries and equipment. 
• Rudrapur has objected to the maintainability of the petition, asserting that the court lacks territorial jurisdiction. 

What were the Court’s Observations?

• The Court first of all held that the law in regard to seat has been fossilized in law as follows: 
  • Where there is a designated seat of arbitration the Court having jurisdiction over the designated seat would have jurisdiction. 
  • Where there is no seat of arbitration but only venue is provided the venue will be deemed to be the arbitral seat 
  • In such a situation, exclusive jurisdiction clause in the arbitration agreement, vesting jurisdiction in Courts elsewhere, would make no difference. 
• Therefore, generally the legal position is if the agreement contains one clause designating the seat / venue of arbitration and another conferring exclusive jurisdiction on Courts elsewhere over the agreement and disputes that arise out of it, legal or judicial proceedings would only lie before the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the arbitral sweat/ venue. 
• However, a peculiar situation arises where the agreement contains a clause providing the exclusive jurisdiction clause which also expressly covers proceedings relating to arbitration. 
• In the present facts Clause 20 of the Rent Agreement provides exclusive jurisdiction clause. It specifically vests jurisdiction with courts at Rudrapur in respect of “any application to be made under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996”. This would include, needless to say, the present petition under Section 9 of the 1996 Act. 
• In the present case, even if the seat of arbitration has been contractually fixed at Delhi in view of the e-mail dated 4th  April 2022, the e-mail does not purport to re-write Clause 20 of the Rent Agreement. 
• Clause 20 of the Rent Agreement obligates the parties to move the Courts at Rudrapur in that regard, even if, by consent, they have agreed to have the arbitral proceedings conducted at Delhi. 
• Therefore, the Court held that the objection of Rudrapur sustains.

What is the Seat of Arbitration?

• The Seat of Arbitration determines the applicable law governing the Arbitration including the procedural aspects. 
• The regulation of conduct of Arbitration and challenge to an award would have to be done by the courts of the country in which the Seat of Arbitration is located as such Court would be the supervisory court possessed with the power to annul the award. 
• Difference between ‘seat’ and ‘venue’: 
  • The Seat of Arbitration may well be quite independent of the place or the venue where the hearings or other parts of the arbitral process occur or take place. 
  • The Seat of Arbitration is of vital importance, for it is the courts of the Seat that have the supervisory jurisdiction over the arbitral process. 
  • It is not necessary for the Seat of Arbitration and the venue of the Arbitration to be the same. 
  • Location and even when hearings take place during the course of the Arbitration in several different countries, the chosen Seat of Arbitration will remain unaffected independent of the geographical place where the hearings take place.