Workmens Judicial Victory
When a company is declared sick or goes in liquidation,the persons most affected are the employees. Companies Act provides for priority in which debts of creditors are to be paid and for preferential payments. A bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices G S Singhvi and H L Dattu recently ruled that though Parliament in enacting Section 529A did not declare workmens dues as first charge nonetheless having regard to the underlying purpose of the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) Act,provident fund dues of workmen will get priority over debts of other secured creditors. The Court reasoned that Parliament could not have intended to create a first charge in favour of the secured creditors and give priority to their debts over provident fund dues of workmen. This judgment will be beneficial to lakhs of workers who were employed with companies which have been declared sick and are now under liquidation. It is a commendable example of purposive interpretation by the Court and heralds a welcome trend in favour of employees upon whose sweat and toil the companies were built and which subsequently became sick primarily on account of mismanagement by those in charge of the companies.
Judges,Mind Your Words
Judges understandably express strong indignation when striking down arbitrary,unfair action. However,the Supreme Court in 1986 ruled that judges should not use strong and carping language while criticising the conduct of parties and they must act with sobriety,moderation and restraint. Harsh strictures may later turn out to be unjustified in which case they can do considerable harm to the party.
Unfortunately,a Bench of the Kerala High Court did not heed this admonition whilst trying an action for contempt of court. The alleged contemnor Jayarajan was convicted and sentenced to jail. In the judgment Jayarajan was called a reptile and a worm. This was intemperate language as rightly observed by a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices R M Lodha and H L Gokhale hearing a Special Leave Petition against the conviction of the alleged contemnor. Strangely,the High Court did not suspend the conviction even for a short period to enable the party to approach the Supreme Court and seek a stay. The Bench disapproved of the action of the High Court. Justice Lodha pertinently observed: Judicial process required that the judgment should have been suspended as a matter of course. Judges must not be influenced by anything. He is amenable to the judicial process. If the judgment is upheld,he will have to face the sentence,but you cant deny him the right to appeal. A good reminder that justice cannot be dispensed in anger or in haste.
Names Matter
Shakespeare was wrong when he made Juliet declaim,Whats in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Experience shows that when the name of a particular judge of a High Court whose order is challenged before the Supreme Court in appeal was mentioned,the instant reaction of the Court was: Notice and stay. Names of certain litigants also do not exude fragrant odour and they have a tough time in getting bail. If names did not matter,Salman Rushdie would not have spent time and energy in ensuring that his name,Salman Rushdie,appeared in his Facebook account and not the name Ahmed Rushdie.
A lawyer in the Bombay High Court who was proud of his name,Servulus Baptista,was crestfallen when a judge on the Bench referred to him as Lobo to the uncontrollable amusement of lawyers present in the Court room. Thereafter,unfortunately,the name Lobo stuck to him. In the Supreme Court,Frank Anthony,a flamboyant,leading Anglo-Indian lawyer,during his arguments addressed Justice Jaganmohan Reddy who was on the Bench as Jagmohan Reddy. When the judge politely pointed out the error,Frank Anthony pompously said,My lord,what is a name after all. The judges response was: In that case,I will now call you Mark Anthony. Frank was stumped and thereafter addressed the judge by his correct name. Names do matter.
