Lawfully yours: By Retd Justice K Chandru

Empower RWA to avoid supply getting snapped for your neighbour’s defaults

Ours is a 28-year-old residential complex. The other day, the Metro Water supply was disconnected to the complex as one of the members had not paid the water charges/water/sewerage tax. This led to the deprivation of water even for those who have been paying the charges/tax regularly. When questioned, the CMWSSB stated rules which authorize them to cut the water supply. Even considering that the act of the Board is to ensure that everyone falls in line with the rules and regulations, it is just a bit of mocking at those who pay regularly. Why cannot the Board instead devise other ways to make those who delay the payment? The Board, on the other hand, gives a long rope to those who perennially delay payment.

— VS Jayaraman, Chennai

To punish your co-resident for not paying water tax/charges, you must incorporate in the bye-laws of your residents’ association the power to disconnect his water supply by the association. Without such sanction, you cannot make him pay and get an uninterrupted water supply. The Tamil Nadu Apartment Ownership Act, 2022 attempted to do such things but did not entrust the Resident Welfare Associations (RWAs) with such powers. Till such time you got to suffer for the sins of your neighbours.

Court orders are not written using AIto have near unanimity

Why do two judges give two different judgments on an identical issue? While in my termination case, the Principal Labour Court, Chennai, asked me to ‘go to appropriate forum’ for getting a remedy for non-payment of retrenchment compensation and non-adherence to ‘first-come-last-go’, in a similar case, the Additional Labour Court - I, Chennai, took up the issue of non-payment of retrenchment compensation and non-adherence to ‘first-come-last-go’ rule and adjudicated the same — one under Wage Board System and another under Contract System.

— S Madhavan, Madipakkam

“The illiteracy of the Bench is the reflection of the illiteracy of the Bar,” said Justice VR Krishna Iyer. We are not writing orders through AI (artificial intelligence) to have near unanimity. The first court’s direction was clearly erroneous. That used to be the practice after mechanically understanding the Sindhu Resettlement Corporation case earlier. In that case, the SC said: “If there was no demand by the workmen the government cannot make a reference for a different demand.” That case has been explained in several subsequent cases. In any event, the labour court has the power to fix the quantum of compensation in a regular dispute also without driving the workers to other forums.