Moot court problem Moot court problem Moot court problem, Study notes of Bankruptcy Law

Download Moot court problem Moot court problem Moot court problem and more Study notes Bankruptcy Law in PDF only on Docsity!

MOOT COURT AND INTERNSHIP – CLINICIAL PAPER I

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE SURPREME COURT OF INDIA

ORIGINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION

UNDER ARTICLE 132 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

Capital Corporation................................................ PETITIONER

V.

SADANAND ……RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE NO

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 03

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 04

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 07

STATEMENT OF FACTS 08

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 09

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 10

ISSUE NO 1, - WHETHER SADANAND’S ACTIONS WERE NEGLIGENT

IN NATURE?

ISSUE NO 2 – WHETHER THE DISMISSAL OF SADANAND WAS IN

ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND DID THE LABOUR TRIBUNAL

HAVE THE POWER TO RE-EXAMINE THE CASE?

ISSUE NO 3 – WHETHER GRAVITY OF OFFENCE HAS TO BE TAKEN

INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DISMISSING AN EMPLOYEE?

PRAYER 20

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

SERIAL NO. ABBEVIATION FULL FORM

1. AIR All India Reporter
2. SC Supreme Court
3. SCC Supreme Court Cases
4. Co. Company
5. Pvt Private
6. Ltd Limited
7. PIL Public Interest Litigation
8. IPC Indian Penal Code
9. DT Digital Technology
10. Art Article
11. UOI Union of India
12. Hon’ble Honourable
13. & And
14. Anr. Another
15. Ors. Others
16. V. Versus
17. Writ Petition WP
18. No. Number

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

i. LIST OF CASES

1. Additional District Magistrate Delhi v Shri Ram, [2000] 3 SCR 1019 (India)
2. Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2010) 5 SCC 246
3. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate, (2005) 2 SCC 489
4. Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co – 1856 11 EX 781
5. Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC 669
6. Corpn. of Calcutta v. Padma Debi, (2003) 7 SCC 389
7. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co Ltd v Labor Court (1970) I LLJ 23 (SC)
8. Devinder Singh v Municipal Council , (2011) 6 SCC 584
9. Donoghue vs Stevenson, 1932 UK House of Lords 100
10. Eastern Electric & Trading Co. v. Baldev Lal, (1975) 4 SCC 684
11. Global Energy Ltd. v Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, [2009] AIR SC 3194 (India)
12. Govind v State of MP, AIR 1975 SC 1378 (India)
13. Hedley byrne v Heller Elaw 1964 AC 465 House of Lords
14. Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd and Ors v Their Workmen 1958 SCR 667
15. M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986
16. Minor Veeran vs T.V. Krishnamoty, AIR 1966 Kerela 172
17. P.M. Ashwathanarayana Setty v. State of Karnataka, [1989] Supp (l) SCC 696 (India)
18. Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928] 248 N.Y. 339
19. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v Union Of India, [1996] AIR 1997 SC 568 (India)
20. Philips v Williams Whitley, Ltd (1938) All ER 566
21. Rajni Kumar v. Suresh Kumar Malhotra. (2004) 3 SCC 297
22. Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics, (2005) 6 SCC 1
23. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector (2012) 5 SCC 342
24. RE Delhi Laws Act Case AIR 1951 SC 332 (India)
25. Saran Motors (P) Ltd v Vishwanath (1964) 2 LLJ 139 (SC)

26. Saurabh Chaudri v. Union of lndia, [2003] 11 SCC 46 (India)
27. Scott v. London & St. Katherine Dock Company, 1865 HCC 596
28. Shayara Bano v Union of India [2017] 9 SCC 1 (India)
29. Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v Justice S.R Tendolkar, [1958] 1959 SCR 279 (India)
30. Smt Ujjam Bai v State of U.P, [1962] Writ Petition (Civil) 79 of 1959 (India)
31. State of Karnataka v H. Ganesh Kamath, [1983] 2 SCC 402 (India)
32. State of Karnataka v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2001 S.C
33. State of M.P. v. Kedia Leather & Liquor Ltd., (2004) 12 SCC 770
34. State v. Kulwant Singh, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 52
35. TELCO v SC Prasad (1969) 3 SCC 372
36. The Punjab National Bank Ltd v Its Workmen (1960) 1 SCR 806; AIR 1960 SC ii. LIST OF STATUTES/ LEGISLATIONS

1. The Constitution of India, 1950
2. The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ii. BOOKS REFERRED
   1. B P BANERJEE, WRIT REMEDIES: REMEDIABLE RIGHTS UNDER PUBLIC LAW (Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee & Sankar Prosad Banerjee, 6 th Edition, Lexis Nexis,
   2. D J DE, THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (3rd. Edition, Asia Law House,
      2008. DOCUMENTS, (6th edition, LexisNexis 2010)
   3. DURGA DAS BASU, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA (8th
   4. DURGA DAS BASU, SHORTER CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (14th edition, edition, LexisNexis 2011)
   5. H.M SREEVAI, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW OF INDIA (4th edition LexisNexis 2007)
   6. I-IV CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES (Lok Sabha Secretariat,2009) INDIA (10TH Edition, Orient Publishing Company, 2009)
   7. K. MAJUMDAR & R.P. KATARIA, COMMENTARY ON THE CONSTITUTION OF LexisNexis, 2009)
   8. MP JAIN, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW WITH CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES (2nd Edition, Aarti & Co., 2012)

9. SAMARADITYA PAL, INDIA’S CONSTITUTION ORIGINS AND EVOLUTION

(Lexis Nexis, 2014)

10. SURESH MANE, INDIAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW: DYNAMICS AND iv. LAW LEXICONS
11. GARNER, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, Thomas & West, U.S.A, 1990, 9th Edition.

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The appellants in this instant case have exercised the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Honorable Supreme Court under Article 132 of the Indian Constitution.

Statement of Facts.  Sadanand was an employee of Capital Corporation in 1988, and was hired to do the work of a machine operator.  On the 22nd^ of November 1990, there was a scuffle between two employees, and Sadanand who was working at the time went to pacify the situation. While he went to do that, the machine Sadanand was operating was left activated with raw materials inside of it.  By the time Sadanand returned, an entire 20-22 minutes later, the raw materials had already been damaged and rendered unusable. It is to be noted that Sadanand knew that the raw materials were sensitive in nature.  The loss of the raw materials amounted to a total of 15,000 INR; and due to the non- availability of raw materials, the Corporation also lost out on a deal that could have made them close to 10 Lakh INR.  A disciplinary committee was set up to review the conduct of Sadanand and the committee found him to be negligent and initially suspended him for a period of 1 month. Sadanand also accepted his mistake.  Furthermore, despite being suspended for a month, Sadanand returned to work on the 24th of November. This caused the disciplinary committee to review their decision and they decided to dismiss him from his job due to his negligent behaviour.  Sadanand filed a case in the Labour Tribunal, and both the Labour Tribunal and the High Court erroneously awarded the judgement in favour of Sadanand, due to which Capital Corporation has appealed this instant case to the Supreme Court in the interest of Justice, and Equity.

STATEMENT OF ISSUES

ISSUE 1

Whether Sadanand’s actions were negligent in nature? ISSUE 2 Whether the dismissal of Sadanand was in accordance with the law and did the Labor Tribunal have the power to re-examine the Case? ISSUE 3 Whether Gravity of offence has to be taken into consideration while dismissing an employee?

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

ISSUE 1 – WHETHER SADANAND’S ACTION WERE NELGIGENT IN NATURE?

It is submitted before this Honorable Court that Sadanand’s action were negligent in nature, and the counsel for the appellant will attempt to establish the same through 3 distinct parameters – firstly, that there was an existence of a duty of care; secondly, the defendant was in breach of the duty of care; and thirdly, the victim suffered injuries and damages as a consequence thereof. ISSUE 2 – WHETHER THE DISMISSAL OF SADANAND WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND DID THE LABOR TRIBUNAL HAVE THE POWER TO RE- EXAMINE THE CASE? It is submitted before this Honorable Court that Sadanand’s dismissal was in accordance with the law of the land, and that the Labor Tribunal did not have powers to re-examine the case as there was a departmental inquiry constituted which was non-bias in nature. ISSUE 3 – WHETHER GRAVITY OF OFFENCE HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DISMISSING AN EMPLOYEE? It is contended before this Honorable Court that gravity of an offence has to be taken into consideration while considering dismissal of an employee; and such dismissal has to pass the doctrine of proportionality which the dismissal of the defendant does in this instant case.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue No 1, - Whether Sadanand’s actions were negligent in nature?  It is the submission of the counsel for the appellant that in this instant case, Sadanand’s action were negligent in nature. The appellants will attempt to establish the same in the following arguments.  It is the submission of the counsel for the appellants that to establish a case of negligence, one needs to establish 3 distinct parameters – i. The existence of a duty of care; ii. There was a breach in the duty of care; iii. The victim suffered injuries and damages as a consequence thereof.^1 The counsels will attempt to establish each of the above-mentioned parameters. i.) The defendant owed a duty of care to the appellant.  It is the humble submission of the appellant that the law implies a duty of care on a party who may or may not have been negligent, if the party possessed special skills or attributes and thus the common neighbour (in this case, the plaintiff) trusts him to exercise a duty of care. If there is a case of negligent behaviour, though honest and unintentional, a breach of duty may give rise to a cause of action.^2 In this instant case, Sadanand was hired for utilising his skills as a machine operator, a duty which he ignored when he went to pacify a squabble between the workers, something that was completely out of the scope of his job.  Furthermore, in the landmark case of State of Karnataka v State of Andhra Pradesh, the court held that to establish duty of care, 3 further parameters have to be established – a. Was the loss to the claimant foreseeable? (^1) Minor Veeran vs T.V. Krishnamoty, AIR 1966 Kerela 172 (^2) Hedley byrne v Heller Elaw 1964 AC 465 House of Lords

b. Was there sufficient proximity between the parties? c. Is it fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care?^3 It is the submission of the appellants that these 3 distinct parameters are met in this instant case. Sadanand was a machine worker, who understood that the leaving his machine while it was on with raw materials could have disastrous affects, as it ended up resulting in the loss of raw materials worth 15,000/- INR and affected a subsequent deal of more than 10 Lakhs. To the question of establishing sufficient proximity between the parties, it is the submitted before this honorable court that the concept of proximity can be understood by how close the link or the relationship between the two parties are.^4 In this instant case there is a direct relationship between the appellant and the defendant, as they were employer-employees. Furthermore, to the question of fairness in establishing a duty of care, the counsels for the appellant submit that due to the fact that defendant was hired because of his special skills related to the operation of machinery, it is only fair to assume that the defendant would do his job without any distractions, and certainly without causing damage to his employer. Therefore, it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty of care.  In the landmark case of Donoughue v Stevenson, the court held that – “You must take reasonable care to avoid such acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbor.”^5 In this instant case, it was foreseeable by Sadanand that the appellant would incur damages due to this action; in fact, Sadanand even stipulated that he was in the wrong.  By the above-mentioned arguments, it is the submission of the counsel for the appellants that a duty of care has been established. ii.) There was a breach in duty of care. (^3) State of Karnataka v State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 2001 S.C (^4) Palsgraf v Long Island Railroad Co [1928] 248 N.Y. 339 (^5) Donoghue vs Stevenson, 1932 UK House of Lords 100

 It is the submission of the counsel for the appellants that there was a clear breach in the duty of care displayed by the defendant. It is argued that a man/institution is acting unreasonably if he holds such professional skills which requires him to show an average amount of competence in relations to discharge of proper duty and care in regards to the profession and he fails to take adequate measures and ends up hurting the victims.^6 In this instant case, Sadanand was hired for the specific purpose of operating machines, he was selected because he holds such professional expertise. However, he wilfully ignored his responsibilities and that resulted in the loss of an extraordinary amount of money.  In the landmark case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, the court defined the essence of negligence as – “Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do.”^7 It is submitted before this Honourable Court that in this instant case, a bare perusal of the facts would make any layman prudent person understand that leaving the machine whilst it was on and had raw materials was not the right thing to do, hence the action amounted to negligence.  Furthermore, a worker can forsake liability from a negligent act, if said act happened during the course of their employment.^8 However, a bare perusal of the facts of the case would stipulate the evident fact that stopping the squabble between the two employees was not part of Sadanand’s ordinary course of employment. He was hired for his skills as a machine operator, and nothing else. Sadanand cannot forsake liability in this instant case.  Thus, one the basis of the above facts and arguments it is clear that there was a clear breach in the duty of care by Sadanand.

• 6 Philips v Williams Whitley, Ltd (1938) All ER
• 7 Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co – 1856 11 EX
• 8 Scott v. London & St. Katherine Dock Company, 1865 HCC

iii.) The victim suffered injuries and damages as a consequence thereof  Through a bare perusal of the facts at hand, it is prima facie clear that the appellant has gone through significant economic loss, - firstly due to the loss of the raw materials, which amounted to a loss near 15,000 INR, secondly, due to the loss of raw materials, it led to a loss of an imminent contract whose figures went upwards of 10 Lakhs.  The occurrence of the unfortunate event points to a prima facie case, as it was a result of want of due care. The maxim of Res Ipsa Loquitor (the object/event/thing speaks for itself) can be applicable here, as the injury caused to the appellant was a direct result due to the negligence of the defendant.^9 Therefore, in light of the above arguments, it is clear that the defendant Sadanand owed a duty of care to the appellant, which he breached, resulting in severe economic loss to the appellant. Therefore, it is the contention of the counsel for the appellants that Sadanand is liable for negligence in this instant case. Issue No 2 – Whether the dismissal of Sadanand was in accordance with the law and did the Labor Tribunal have the power to re-examine the case? (^9) M.C. Mehta And Anr vs Union of India & Ors on 20 December, 1986

 It is the submission of the counsel for the appellants that in this instant case, the dismissal of Sadanand was in accordance with the law of the land. The counsels for the appellants will attempt to establish the same in subsequent arguments.  It is submitted before this Honorable Court that for the dismissal of Sadanand to be valid, he has to come under the purview of a ‘workman’ under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. The definition can be understood as, - “(s) "workman" means any person (including an apprentice) employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute.”^10 The court, in Devinder Singh v Municipal Council analyzed Section 2(s) and held that for a workman to fall under Section 2(s) of the ID Act of 1947, the following factors have to be fulfilled - (a) whether there is a Master-Servant relationship; (b) when a person is performing various functions which overlap in their characteristics, the nature of main function for which the claimant is employed should be considered; (c) work is either manual, skilled, unskilled, technical operational, clerical or supervisory in nature, the mere fact that it does not fall within the exception would not render a person to be workman; and (d) that the exceptions are not applicable. Further, designation, source of employment, method of recruitment, terms and conditions of employment/contract of service, the quantum of wages/pay and the mode of payment should not be considered while determining whether a person can be termed as "workman."^11 (^10) Section 2(s) – Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. (^11) Devinder Singh v Municipal Council , (2011) 6 SCC 584

It is the submission of the counsel for the appellant that in this instant case, the work Sadanand did was technical in nature, as he was a machine operator. Furthermore, there was a direct master-servant relationship as he was an employee in the company; and lastly, he does not fall under any of the exceptions under Section 2(s) of the ID Act of

1947. Therefore, it is established that he is a workman under the definition of Section 2(s) of the ID Act of 1947.  It is the submission of the counsel for the appellants that a Labor Tribunal can only overturn or re-examine a decision of the management, in the following cases – i. There is want of bona fides or good faith; or ii. It is a case of victimization or unfair labor practices or violation of the principles of natural justice, or iii. There is basic error of facts; or iv. There has been a perverse finding on the materials.^12 It is argued by the counsels for the appellants that in this instant case, none of the above- mentioned conditions are satisfied. There has been no violation of good faith or bona fides, basic error of facts, or perverse finding on the materials as the company as the defendant himself stipulated to the fact that he was in the wrong here, and accepted his mistake. Furthermore, he was informed of the fact that there was going to be a disciplinary hearing, and he could have presented his case therein, and this points to the fact that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.  Furthermore, in the landmark Indian Iron and Steel Co Ltd case, the court held that if the decision of the management was without bias, and inherently fair, the labor tribunal could not re-examine its decision.^13 In this instant case, the management could a fair decision to terminate the employment of the defendant as his conduct had resulted in the loss of an extraordinary amount of money. Furthermore, Sadanand himself attested to his mistake.  To further prove that there was no mala-fide intention, or violation of natural justice, the court has held in several cases that the mere fact that an enquiry officer is an employee of (^12) Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd and Ors v Their Workmen 1958 SCR 667 (^13) Indian Iron and Steel Co. Ltd and Ors v Their Workmen 1958 SCR 667

the management does not mean that there is an inherent bias towards the management, or that they will decide the case in favor of the management.^14 Furthermore, one has to keep in mind that the officers undertaking these inquires are not specialized as lawyers, and therefore it cannot they cannot be expected to adduce and examine evidence at every point of time.^15 However, as was held in the Saran Motors (P) Ltd v Vishwanath , unless there is a presence of a special individual bias, the finding of the inquiry cannot be set aside.^16  In the case of The Punjab National Bank Ltd v Its Workmen ,^17 the court held that – “Where such a proper enquiry has been held in accordance with the provisions of the relevant standing orders and it does not appear that the employer was guilty of victimization or any unfair labor practice, that tribunal is generally reluctant to interfere with the impugned order.” In this instant case, there has been no victimization of the defendant, and therefore the Labor Tribunal went beyond its power to re-examine the findings of the inquiry.  Therefore, on the basis of the above arguments, it is submitted by the counsels for the appellants that the dismissal of Sadanand was done in accordance to the law of the land, and the Labor Court went beyond its power to re-examine the findings of the inquiry. Issue No 3 – Whether Gravity of offence has to be taken into consideration while dismissing an employee?  It is the submission of the counsels for the appellants that gravity of offence has to be taken into consideration while dismissing an employee. The counsels will attempt to prove the same in subsequent arguments. (^14) Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co Ltd v Labor Court (1970) I LLJ 23 (SC) (^15) TELCO v SC Prasad (1969) 3 SCC 372 (^16) Saran Motors (P) Ltd v Vishwanath (1964) 2 LLJ 139 (SC)

(^17) The Punjab National Bank Ltd v Its Workmen (1960) 1 SCR 806; AIR 1960 SC

 It is argued by the counsels for the appellants that punishment given by an employer to an employee has to fit the doctrine of proportionality. The Doctrine of Proportionality has been understood by the Court as the following, - 'Proportionality' is a principle where the Court is concerned with the process, method or manner in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities, reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The very essence of decision-making consists in the attribution of relative importance to the factors and considerations in the case. The doctrine of proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of exercise the elaboration of a rule of permissible priorities.’ ‘De Smith states that 'proportionality' involves 'balancing test' and 'necessity test'. Whereas the former ('balancing test') permits scrutiny of excessive onerous penalties or infringement of rights or interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant considerations, the latter ('necessity test') requires infringement of human rights to the least restrictive alternative.’^18 It is argued in this instant case that the punishment given to Sadanand matches the doctrine of proportionality, and the two tests, - i.e., the balancing test and the necessary test. Sadanand’s actions led to the Corporation losing Lakhs of Rupees, and therefore taking this into consideration, it is only fair that be removed from this job due to this extremely negligent behavior. Furthermore, the question of arbitrariness does not arise in this instant case as Sadanand was informed that an inquiry committee was being set up, and the defendant himself stipulated to his mistake.  It is further argued that once the misconduct of an employee is proved either through an inquiry or the evidence placed before a tribunal, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with by the Tribunal except in those cases wherein the punishment is so harsh as to suggest victimization.^19 In this instant case, the conduct of the employee was proved through the inquiry process, and a punishment was handed out. The Labor Tribunal has no power to interfere in said punishment.  The counsels for the appellants submit that a proved misconduct is the antithesis of victimization in an industrial relations setting. It is obligatory on part of the workman concerned to plead and prove the acts of victimization.^20 It is humbly submitted before this (^18) Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC 669 (^19) Eastern Electric & Trading Co. v. Baldev Lal, (1975) 4 SCC 684 (^20) Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate, (2005) 2 SCC 489

Honorable Court that not only is the misconduct proved, and in fact attested to, the defendant in this case has provided no proof of victimization that can overrule the ruling of the departmental inquiry.  The constitutional requirement for judging the question of reasonableness and fairness of a dismissal by a statutory authority must be considered on a factual basis, and it cannot have a straight-jacket formula.^21 A bare perusal of the facts in this case would make a layman understand that the offence committed by Sadanand led to extraordinary losses on part of the appellant. Facts in this case justify the dismissal of Sadanand from the corporation.  Lastly, it is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that only if the punishment is “shockingly disproportionate” can further judicial scrutiny be allowed into the management’s decision.^22 In this instant case, not only did the defendant’s conduct led to a loss of Lakhs of rupees, he himself attested to his mistake.  Thus, on the basis of the above-mentioned arguments, the counsels for the appellant contend that gravity of offence has to be taken into consideration whilst considering dismissal, and in this instant case, the offence does allow for a dismissal to take place. (^21) Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC 669 (^22) Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC 669

Prayer. Wherefore in the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is humbly requested that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to adjudge and declare: a) That Sadanand’s action were negligent in nature; b) That the dismissal of Sadanand was in accordance with the law of the land; c) That the Labor Court unlawfully re-examined the findings of the Departmental Inquiry; And pass such order writ or direction as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the light of Justice, Equity and Good Conscience, for this the Petitioners shall duty bound pray. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTTED COUNSEL FOR THE PETTITIONER