SERVICE LAW:

Recovery of dues mistakenly paid to employee - A Division Bench of Supreme Court observing apparent difference of opinion in Shyam Babu Verma and Saheb Ram Verma, on the one hand, and Chandi Prasad Uniyal, on the other, referring the appeals to three Judge Bench - Held: The observations made in Shyam Babu Verma and Saheb Ram Verma not to recover the excess amount paid to employee were in exercise of extraordinary powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution of India which vests the power in Supreme Court tg pass equitable orders in the ends of justice - Whereas, in Chandi Prasad Unival's case, a specific issue was raised and canvassed and the Court after taking into consideration various decisions, laid down the law that even if by mistake of employer amount is paid to employee and on a later date if employer after proper determination of the same discovers that excess payment is made by mistake or negligence, the excess payment so made could be recovered - Thus, the law laid down in Chandi Prasad Unival's case, no way conflicts with the observations made in the other two cases - The Court is, therefore, of the considered opinion that the reference was unnecessary and, as such, without answering the same, the matters are sent back to the Division Bench for its appropriate disposal - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 136 and 142.

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950:

Arts. 136 and 142 - Scope of the ·two provisions and difference between - Explained - Held: Distinctively, although the words employed under Art. 136 and Art. 142 speak of the powers of Supreme Court, the former vests a plenary jurisdiction in Supreme Court in the mater of entertaining and hearing of appeals by granting special leave against any judgment or order made by a court or tribunal in any cause or matter - The powers under Art. 136 are plenary to the extent that they are paramount to the limitations under the specific provisions for appeal contained in the Constitution or other laws - It is a corrective jurisdiction that vests a discretion in Supreme Court to settle the law clear - It makes the law operational to make it a binding precedent for the future instead of keeping it vague - Thus, it declares the law, as under Article 141 of the Constitution - Art. 142, on the other hand, is the exercise of jurisdiction to pass such enforceable decree or order as is necessary for doing 'complete justice' in any cause or matter - Art. 142 is supplementary in nature and cannot supplant the substantive provisions - The directions issued under Art. 142 do not constitute a binding precedent unlike Art. 141 - Service law.