APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OFFENCE

CASE STUDY : DLF COMPANY CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF

INTRODUCTION

DLF Limited Delhi Land & Finance is one of the largest commercial real estate developers in
India. It was founded by Chaudhary Raghvendra Singh in 1946 and is New Delhi,
India based. DLF developed residential colonies in Delhi such as Shivaji Park (their first
development), Rajouri Garden, Krishna Nagar, South Extension, Greater Kailash, Kailash
Colony, and Hauz Khas. DLF builds residential, office, and retail properties. In the mid-1970s,
the company started developing their DLF City project at Gurgaon. Its plans include
hotels, infrastructure and special economic zones-related development projects.

CASE STUDY

COMPAT found DLF abusive in its practices, especially in relation to modifying super area,
common area, increasing the height of the building midway through the project and imposing
holding charges the Competition Commission of India (CCI) had found DLF violating fair trade
norms and imposed a fine on it following a complaint by a Belaire Owners' Association in
Gurgaon.

Sanjay Bhasin, president of the Belaire Owners Association said this order has paved the way for
buyers in the DLF projects to file compensation claims.

The complaints against dlf were they increased the number of floors from 19 to 29, the project
was abnormally delayed causing losses to the buyers,the apartment buyers agreements were
signed month after the falts were booked.

In a development that will provide succour to thousands of aggrieved home-buyers across the
country. the Competition Appellate Tribunal today upheld a penalty of Rs 630 crore on real
estate firm DLF for abusing their dominant position in industry against buyers. DLF said that
they will examine the order and decide on the next step.
In 2011, the Competition Commission of India had slapped the penalty after complaints by flat
buyer associations of two DLF projects in Gurgaon, DLF Park Palace and The Belaire.
The buyers had alleged that the builder had delayed possession of apartments as they had
changed their original plan to accommodate more floors. DLF now moves to the Supreme Court
against the COMPAT order.

The company said that it has successfully delivered Park Place, Belaire and Magnolia projects
which were the subject matter of the above appeals. "The company has respected in true letter
and spirit the customer commitments made by it.

In testament thereof, out of over 2,600 total number of apartments, over 2,200 have been handed
over, and over 1,800 number of families are already residing therein.

The company DLF said that they shall be challenging the said order passed by the Compat in the
Supreme Court for which Compat has given us 60 days time.

DLF today said it will move Supreme Courtagainst the Competition Appellate
Tribunal (Compat) ruling that has upheld the CCI order imposing Rs 630 crore penalty on the
country's largest realty firm for unfair business practices.

The Compat has pronounced the order today upholding certain findings of the earlier orders of
CCI. The DLF Company is yet to examine the detailed order, therefore, the company at this stage
will not be in a position to make any further comments.

This judgement would restore the balance between the real estate developers and property
buyers.

The court then dismissed the appeal of DLF and upheld the Rs 630 crore penalty imposed
by CCI.
Reacting to the Compat order, Belaire Owners Association President Sanjay Bhasin said that this
is a huge victory for all the buyers of real estate in our country who has so far felt completely
helpless against dominant real estate companies.

Raka Sarkar(153)

CASE STUDY

The appellate. in these three appeals are the president & the secretaries of the Mill Mazdoor
Sabha, a union of the textile workers in Bombay registered under the Indian Trade Unions Act.
There are two other unions with which we will be concerned in the present appeals. They are, the
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Sangh, which has been registered as a representative union of the textile
workers in Bombay under the provisions of Section 13 of the Industrial Relations Act, 1946,
(Bom. XI [11] of 1947), & the Girni Kamgar Union. It appears from the evidence that towards
the end of 1949 there was a dispute between the textile workers & the Millownera' Assocn. with
regard to bonus claimed by the former for the year 1949 to make up as they put it the deficit in
the living wage & in order to obtain an adequate share in the profits of the industry. The dispute
was referred to the Industrial Tribunal, which made an award after hearing as the representatives
of labour the Rashtriya Mill Mazoor Sangh, which was entitled to represent the textile workers
under the provisions of Section 30 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. At the time when the
disputo was referred to arbitration, there was no provision for any party aggrieved by the award
filing an appeal; but during the pendency of the dispute there came into force the Industrial
Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, under which a party aggrieved by the award made by
the Industrial Ct. could appeal to the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the
Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, which it would be convenient for the purpose
of the present appeals to refer to as the Appellate Tribunal Act. The Industrial Ct. made its award
on 7-7-1950, & the Millowners' Assocn. filed an appeal to theAppellate Tribunal on 9-8-1950.
Daring the pendency of these appeals on 14-8-1950, the three applts. made speeches, which, it is
no longer in dispute, exhorted the audience composed principally of the members of the Mill
Mazoor Sabha & other unorganised workers of the textile industry inciting them to go on strike.
The prosecution case was that the appellates. consequently committed an offence punishable
under Section 27 of the Appellate Tribunal Act. That section provides :

"Any person who instigates or incites others to take part in, or otherwise acts in furtherance of, a
strike or lockout, which is illegal under this Act shall be punishable. ....."
An illegal strike has been defined by Section 25 of the same Act as a strike declared, commenced
or continued in contravention of the provisions of Section 24, & Section 24 prohibits any
workman who is employed in any industrial establishment from going on strike during the
pendency of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The prosecution case is that a strike
commenced or continued during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Tribunal would
be an illegal strike, & inasmuch as the appellates. incited the workers of the textile industry to
take part in such a strike, they have committed an offence under Section 27 of
the AppellateTribunal Act.

Dixit J.--In this case (criminal Appeal No. 675 of 1950) the appellate. who is a secretary of the
Mill Mazdoor Sabha was prosecuted for an offence under Section 27 of the Industrial Disputes
(Appellate Tribunal) Act (XLVIII [48] of 1950). He was convicted by the Presidency Magistrate,
5th Ct. Dadar, & sentenced so suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months & to pay a fine of Ks.
1000 in default, rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. The accused appeals.

The facts leading up to the prosecution of the accused are briefly these. It appears that there are,
in Bombay, three labour unions representing a portion of the textile workers. They are (1)
Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor Singh, (2) Mill Mazdoor Sabha & (3) Girni Kamgar Union. The applt. is
connected with the second of these unions. The first named union represents, on ita roll, 15 per
cent membership of the textile workers, the second about 10 per cent. & the third even less, so
that the first named union has the largest membership on its roll, & is a recognised representasive
union for the purpose of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Rashtriya Mill Mazdoor
Sangh gave a notice of change claiming bonus for the year 1949. This notice was given to the
Millowners' Assoen. & the dispute was refd. to the Industrial Ct. on 23-12-1949, under Section
73A of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. The Industrial Ct. issued notices to the
millowners concerned & gave an award on 7-7-1950, which was published on 13-7-1950. At the
date when this dispute was refd. to the Industrial Ct. there was in the Act no provision by way of
an appeal. However, on 20-5-1950, the Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950, came
into force. This Act allowed an appeal to be preferred as provided in Section 7 of the Act. On 8-
S-1950 an Appellate Tribunal was constituted & on the next day viz. on 9-8 1950, the
Millowners' Assocn. preferred an appeal against the award. On 14-8-1950, the applt. made a
speech exhorting the workers to continue the strike which had commenced some time before.
That the applt. made the speech in question is not in dispute. Nor is it in dispute that he
advocated the continuance of the strike. On 14-8-1950, the Comr. of Labour filed against the
applt. a complaint alleging that the applt. had committed an offence under Section 27 inasmuch
as he had on 14-8-1950, instigated & incited the textile workers to continue the strike.

AKANCHA BANSAL

ROLL NO. 151