Category: Uncategorized

This Connect provides an overview of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the Mineral Area Development Authority case, wherein the Court overturned its previous decision and held that mining royalty paid under a mining lease deed is not a tax.

In National Highways Authority of India v. M/s Hindustan Construction Company Ltd., the Supreme Court reiterated that the construction of the terms of contract is to be decided by the arbitrator and the grounds for interference by the courts are limited unless the decision is found to be unfair or unreasonable.

The Bombay High Court, in The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. case in July 2024, held that the Industrial Court cannot stay a transfer of employee simply because it is exceptional or due to prior litigation between the employer and employee. This Connect analyses the judgment and reasoning of the High Court.

This Connect provides an overview of the new guidelines issued by the Supreme Court of India in the Indian Medical Association case mandating the issuance of a self-declaration by advertisers/agencies to protect consumers on the Broadcast Seva Portal of the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. & Ors., case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that exclusion clauses in insurance contracts are interpreted strictly and against the insurer as they have the effect of completely exempting the insurer of its liabilities.

The Supreme Court in S. Shivraj Reddy (Died) through his LRS and Another v. S. Raghuraj Reddy and Others where it held that even if the plea of limitation is not set up as a defence, the court has to dismiss the suit if it is barred by limitation.

The Delhi High Court, in Delhi Tourism and Transportation Development Corporation case, held that in arbitration proceedings, the “seat” will be decided only by its relationship to the arbitral procedures, not by the underlying dispute’s cause of action. This Connect analyses the judgment and reasoning of the High Court.

This Connect provides an overview of the notification of the Telangana government extending exemption to IT and ITeS establishments from certain provisions of the state shops act subject to conditions.

The Karnataka High Court, in N. Bhuvaneshwari vs The Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd., held that the persons carrying managerial and supervisory responsibilities do not fall within the scope of a ‘workman’, as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It further held that once it is determined that the person is not a ‘workman’ under the Act, the Labour Court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate whether their termination was proper or not.

This Connect provides an overview of the notification issued by the Karnataka Government, extending exemption granted to IT, ITeS and other establishments for another five years from applicability of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.

In Mr.Gopal Vittal, Bharti Airtel Ltd. & Ors. v. Mr.Kamatci Shankar Arumugam, case, the Madras High Court held that circulation of a list of persons who are not vaccinated against Covid-19 does not tantamount to circulation of sensitive personal data and does not violate privacy nor constitute an offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The Uttarakhand High Court, in Naveen Ram and other batch cases, held that the right for execution of award passed by Labour Court lies only with Labour Court. This Connect analyses the brief judgement and reasoning of the Uttarakhand High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, in Executive Engineer Roads and Buildings, Bandipora vs Nazir Ahmad Teli case, held that it shall be the responsibility of the employer to pay all wages required to be paid under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 in case the contractor, any person employed by the contractor or the person designated by the employer fails to make such payment.

This Connect analyses the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the Jetpur Municipality case where it held that in case of an illegal termination, reinstatement is not automatic and labour courts can instead grant compensation.

The Bombay High Court, in Nilesh Shejwal case, held that due to a shift in the field of contemporary arbitration, where disputes involving fraud were deemed unsuitable for arbitration, arbitral tribunals are now known to review vast volumes of evidence in a wide range of dispute situations. Thus, it concluded that the antiquated notion that fraud cannot be arbitrated due to its complexity is obsolete and does not apply to modern arbitration processes. This Connect analyses the judgment and reasoning of the High Court.

The Delhi High Court, in Nitin Kwatra v. Stadhawk Services Pvt. Ltd. case, held that even if a business agreement confers exclusive jurisdiction on a different court, courts having jurisdiction over the seat of arbitration will retain supervisory authority over the arbitral process. It held that the presence of a generic exclusive jurisdiction clause does not diminish HC’s jurisdiction in determining the seat of arbitration.

This Connect provides an overview of the notification passed by the Gujarat government exempting certain entities from certain provisions of the state shops act.

In Rajendra v. State of U.P. and Another, the Allahabad High Court held that a notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 sent through email or WhatsApp fulfils the requirements of Information Technology Act, 2000 and is therefore valid.

This Connect analyses the judgement of the Allahabad High Court in the Vinod Kumari case where it ordered a UP Government department to pay interest on stamp duty refund that it had illegally held beyond the ordered payment date despite the presence of a provision allowing payment of interest.

The Supreme Court, in Thanagam and another case, held, that the written statement must have paragraph-wise reply to the plaint, and otherwise allegations are deemed to be admitted unless specific denials are made. This Connect analyses the judgment and reasoning of the Supreme Court.

In XXX v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, represented by State Public Prosecutor and Others, the Karnataka High Court affirmed that the right to be forgotten is a basic right under the right to informational privacy and that the right of an individual to exercise control over his personal data and, to be able to control his or her own life would encompass his right to control over its existence on the internet.

The Karnataka Government has recently notified the Karnataka Compulsory Gratuity Insurance Rules, 2024 mandating private establishments to obtain compulsory gratuity insurance for its gratuity obligations under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
This Connect analyses the key features of the Rules.

This Connect analyses the judgement of the Madras High Court in the TTK Prestige case where it held that the reliefs granted by the Courts must be seen to be logical and tenable within the framework of the law.

The Bombay High Court in Rohit Dembiwal case, held, that IT analyst of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd is not a “workman” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Connect analyses the judgment and reasoning of the Bombay High Court

In the case of Executive Engineer Roads & Buildings, Bandipora vs Nazir Ahmad Teli, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court held that the responsibility of payment of all wages under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, lies with the employer in case the contractor or the person designated by the employer fails to make such payment to the contract workers.This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the Court.

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that a person who did not themselves sign a compromise, which led to passing of a compromise decree, but subsequently acted upon the same, could not thereafter avoid or challenge the decree merely on the ground that they had not put their signature on it.

This Connect analyses the dark pattern guidelines issued under the Consumer Protection Act, 2009 which aims to regulate deceptive online behaviours.

In Newton Engineering and Chemicals Limited and Others v. Uem India Pvt. Ltd,, the Delhi High Court reiterated that arbitration and action under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be proceeded simultaneously since each is a separate cause of action.

The apex court in the Reliance Life Insurance Company case, while recently setting aside two orders passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, held that the date of issuance of life insurance policy would be the relevant date for all the purposes and not the date of proposal or the date of payment of premium.

In the case of Anil Puri vs. State of Haryana, the Haryana High Court scrutinised the laws pertaining to director’s liability. The Court held that a former director of an employer-company, who resigned before the workman raised an industrial dispute, cannot be held responsible for non-compliance of Labour Court’s order.This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the Court.

The Supreme Court of India recently held that the courts should not be swayed by hyper-technicalities and insignificant discrepancies and must assess the impact of any procedural violation against the overall fairness of the inquiry and that allegations of sexual harassment at workplace should be considered within the broader context of the case and should not be judged merely on the basis of a procedural violation.

The High Court of Karnataka in the Eagle Hunters Pvt. Ltd. case, while setting aside the order of an EPF Tribunal, held that it is illegal if an employer reduced wages to avoid provident fund contributions.

The Telecommunications Act, 2023 has received the assent of the President of India on 24th December, 2023 though it is yet to be brought into force by the Central Government (CG). It overhauls the telecom regulatory landscape replacing the existing laws of previous centuries and seeks to regulate the development, expansion and operation of telecom services and networks, assignment of spectrum etc. It also grants greater powers to the CG. This Connect highlights the key aspects of the Act.

Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in Raghunath Builders case, held that under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, it was not within the scope of the Single Judge to reinterpret the parties’ contract and substitute the finding of the Arbitrator’s despite it being un-reasoned. This Connect analyses the judgment and reasoning of the Division Bench.

Delhi HC in ARG Outlier Media case, held that any agreement with an arbitration clause that is not properly stamped is not admissible in court. But once the agreement is admitted into evidence and the arbitrator makes an award based on it, the award cannot be set aside on the grounds that the agreement was not sufficiently stamped. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement of the court.

The High Court of Allahabad, in the Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company case, while setting aside an adverse order of the district magistrate, held that it had the power to intervene and set aside an order without going into its merits if the order violated principles of natural justice.

The High Court of Delhi in Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. case, held, based on Supreme Court’s 2023 subsequent ruling in N.N Global Mercantile, that HC cannot allow review of Section 11 Petition. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement of the court.

The Rajasthan High Court, in Aseem Watts case, held that the court, within whose jurisdiction the seat of arbitration falls under, shall have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain applications for appointment of arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the Sudheer Kumar Sharma case held that an employee employed purely on a contractual basis has limited rights to seek continuity of service.

In Revanasiddappa & Anr. v. Mallikarjun & Ors, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India, in a reference made by its two-judge Bench, held that children born out of void or voidable marriages are entitled to a share in their parents’ property i.e., self-acquired and ancestral. However, such a child does not become a coparcener in the Hindu Mitakshara Joint Family and does not acquire any right by birth to the property, as enjoyed by a coparcener.
This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the Court.

In Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited vs S. Kiran, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court upheld the Single Bench’s ruling that the absence of a workman due to depression, not being wilful, does not provide adequate grounds for termination. As a result, the Court ordered his reinstatement.
This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the Court.

The High Court of Delhi in the Gannon Dunkerley and Co case held that that the arbitral tribunal is the master of both quality and quantity of evidence that it may rely upon to evaluate claims since the rules of the Indian Evidence Act are not applicable to arbitral proceedings. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Supreme Court recently held that a person will become vicariously liable when a company is accused of the offence for dishonour of cheques under the Negotiable instruments Act, only if that person was “in charge of” and was “responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company” at the time the offence was committed. This Connect examines the ratio of the judgement.

Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh HC, in Abdul Rashid Dar case, held that Counter Claim has independent status and can continue despite dismissal of the primary suit. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Calcutta High Court in the Banani Chattopadhyay case held that when the complaint is against an employee and not the employer itself, a duly constituted Internal Committee is the competent authority and the complaint does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Committee.This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the Court.

The High Court of Madras in the Settu Sundar case reiterated the limited grounds on which an order passed by a Labour Court can be challenged. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Supreme Court in a landmark decision of September 6, 2023, recently held that, ‘for any commercial purpose’ under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 must be understood as covering cases other than those of resale of the goods. If commercial use is by purchasers for earning livelihood by self-employment, they will be considered as ‘consumers’ under the Act. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the Court.

The Delhi High Court recently held that the situs of a workman’s employment is a determining factor in adjudicating the territorial jurisdiction of a labour court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the Court.

The Allahabad High Court recently held that the burden of proving the unauthorized absence of the employee was willful in nature, is on the disciplinary authority. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Supreme Court in the Food Corporation of India case interpreted the terms ‘approbate’ and ‘reprobate’ and held that an employer cannot challenge an award ordering reinstatement after reinstating the workman and absorbing them for over 2 decades. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Supreme Court has recently held that maternity benefits must be granted even where the duration of maternity benefits overshoots the tenure of a contractual employment.
This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Madras High Court in the S Raja case held that use of abusive language by a workman is not a serious offence warranting dismissal of their services. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

A Canadian court recently held that the use of a thumbs-up emoji creates a legally valid and binding contract. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

Supreme Court in M/s B and T AG vs. Ministry of Defence, held that parties’ merely engaging in negotiations will not postpone limitation period for Arbitration. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Calcutta High Court in the Raju Mishra case reiterated that it is well-settled legal position that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing regularisation of an employee. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The High Court of Karnataka, in the case of Naveen Kumar R v. State of Karnataka, observed that data thieving has become a serious issue for organisations.

Calcutta High Court in SREI Equipment Finance Limited, on April 11, 2023, held that an award passed by a unilaterally appointed arbitrator is null and void and cannot be enforced under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Delhi High Court in the Dr. Sohail Malik case where it clarified that the POSH Act applies to employees from different departments and emphasized on its broad applicability. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Gujarat High Court in the Barad Vajesing Rambhai vs. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd., held that termination of a trainee on the completion of an extended training period does not amount to retrenchment. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

Supreme Court in Sarabjit Kaur v. The State of Punjab & Anr. case, held that a simple breach of contract does not qualify as cheating for purposes of criminal prosecution. This Connect highlights the judgment and reasoning of the court.

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh, in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Sita Devi, held that maternity leave is a fundamental right under Article 29 (Protection of interests of minorities) of the Indian Constitution. This Connect highlights the judgment and reasoning of the court.

The Gauhati High Court, in the Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. and Others vs. Workmen Rep. by The General Secretary, Petroleum Refiners Union, Numuligarh Refinery, Golaghat case, held that special allowance paid to workmen does not form part of the ‘ordinary rate of wages’ while calculating overtime wages. This Connect highlights the judgment and reasoning of the court.

In the case of Anil Kumar vs. Presiding Officer, the Division Bench of the Punjab High Court concluded that if an employee fails to resume their duties despite receiving multiple notices from the employer, it can be considered abandonment of employment. The court also ruled that the employer is only obligated to conduct an inquiry into the employee’s behavioral issues or absenteeism if the employee has completed a minimum of 240 days of service under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Supreme Court of India in the Aureliano Fernandes case while determining the validity of a POSH inquiry, gave directions to all employers to ensure effective implementation of the POSH Act.

The Delhi High Court in Fauzia Rubbani vs. Delhi Woman Commission & Ors., took a stern view against the employer’s failure to constitute the Internal Committee under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.

The Bombay High Court in the case of X v. The Dean, directed educational institutions in Maharashtra to permit transgender individuals to change their name and gender in official documents and certificates.

The Supreme Court, in the National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harsolia Motors and Others case held that hiring of insurance policy by a company is for indemnification of losses and not for profit generation. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The High Court of Karnataka in the WeP Peripherals case reiterated that the employees’ provident fund officer cannot make a claim for shortfall of contribution without identification of beneficiaries. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Supreme Court, recently, in N.N. Global Mercantile Private Limited vs. Indo Unique Flame Limited & Others held that unstamped arbitration agreements are not legally valid. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The High Court of Delhi in the Sunil Kumar Chandra case held that in case there is inconsistency between two clauses in an agreement, the former clause will have precedence over the latter clause. It also reconfirmed the legal position that one party cannot choose the arbitrator to resolve disputes between the parties. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Union Ministry of Electronics and Technology has proposed the ‘Digital India Act, 2023’ (DIA) by way of a presentation. This presentation lists the DIA’s key aspects and analyses the current information technology framework of India.

The Karnataka High Court, in the A.M. Rajashekaraiah s/o Late A.M. Malappa v. The Secretary, Department of Labour, Bangalore & Ors. case held that interest is payable on gratuity if not disbursed within 30 days of superannuation. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The High Court of Delhi in the P v. Union of India case held that employers are responsible for properly constituting the Internal Committee under POSH law.This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The High Court of Allahabad in the Saroj Kumari case held that maternity benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 is applicable even after the birth of a child. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The High Court of Madras in the Hindustan Institute of Engineering & Technology reiterated the basic principles to be followed in case of wrongful termination of a workman.
This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement of the court.

The High Court of Patna affirmed a ruling by a Single Judge in the case of The Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank and Ors. v. Ramendra Prasad Gauro, where the employer was directed to reinstate its employee with back pay. This was because Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank had committed a breach of statutory provisions and principles of natural justice by neglecting to take into account the employee’s response to its enquiry order.

Karnataka HC in M Manjunatha v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation case, where an employee remained unauthorizedly absent for a period of 52 days only and therefore claimed that the quantum of punishment imposed on him was excessive, HC held that unauthorized absence of employee for a long period of 15 months is grave misconduct and dismissal is proportionate penalty.

Karnataka HC, in the Karnataka State Medical and Sales Representatives Association and Ors. v. Astra Zeneca Pharma India Ltd. case, where an employee claimed that he was not provided accommodation and his legitimate expectation of better service conditions was violated, held that employees are barred from alleging better service conditions post acceptance of appointment letter.

Delhi High Court in the case of Divya Jain V. State Bank of India and others held that transfer of an employee cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is mala fide.

The High Court of Bombay in the case of The Management of Manganese Ore (India) Ltd. vs. Naseem Ahmad, held that termination of an employee on their probation period on the grounds of non-performance is not stigmatic, provided they were given ample opportunities for improvement.

The High Court of Calcutta in the Pawan Kumar case held that all cases of sexual harassment at workplace must be investigated as per the Sexual Harassment of Woman at Workplace (Prevention. Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013.
This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

Supreme Court in the case of Amar Nath V. Gian Chand and Another held that production of original power of attorney at the time of registration of any other document is not necessary under the Registration Act.

Kerala High Court in The Managing Director, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Suresh Babu and Anr. case, where an employee was terminated from his services for sexually harassing employees at workplace, opined on the essentials of ICC Hearing in a POSH complaint. While it held that failure to cross-examine witnesses in the presence of respondents did not amount to violation of principles of natural justice, for other reasons it directed the ICC to re-conduct inquiry and gave specific directions.

Bombay High Court in Anil Vishnu Anturkar V. Chandra Kumar Popatlal Baldota held that the legal communication between an advocate and client is privileged and the advocate’s obligation not to disclose it will continue even after the employment of the professional has ceased.

The High Court of Orissa while setting aside an order of the Labor Court of Bhubaneshwar in the Express Publication case strictly interpreted the definition of workman working in supervisory capacity. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

This Connect is Part II in the series that summarises the key features of the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022, which was issued by the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology, on November 18, 2022. The Bill seeks to establish a consolidated framework for data protection in India, and details rights and duties of Data Principals and compliance obligations of Data Fiduciaries.

On November 18, 2022, the Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology released the Digital Personal Data Protection Bill, 2022 (Bill) for public consultation. This Bill seeks to provide a comprehensive framework for the processing of digital personal data. In two parts, Counselence Connect will analyse the Bill. Part I yields its focus to the salient features of the Bill with respect to Chapter I (Preliminary) and Chapter II (Obligations of Data Fiduciary). Part II, which will be released next week, will summarise the Bill in the context of Chapters III-VI.

In light of large-scale separations by some tech companies, the Minister of Labour informed the Parliament that employers must take “prior permission” from the appropriate government in order to carry out the terminations. As per the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, retrenchment in compliance with the conditions precedent in Section 25F is final. This CEC assesses the legal position vis-à-vis the Minister’s views.

Karnataka High Court, in The Management of Grasim Industries Ltd. v. The General Secretary, Harihar Polifibers Employees’ Union and Ors. case, where the industry challenged the enhancement of retirement age from 58 years to 60 years, held that the retirement age of workmen in the industrial sector has been enhanced based on the increased life expectancy and improvement in medical sciences and as a necessity based on the present circumstances.

Supreme Court (“SC”) in The Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Others V. Sunil Kumar B., on 4th November 2022 upheld the constitutional validity of the 2014 amendment to the Employee Pension Scheme capping the maximum pensionable salary at Rs. 15,000 a month.

Tripura High Court, in the case of Shila Debnath vs. National Institute of Technology, while ordering from fresh inquiry of a POSH complaint, held that deviation from laid-down procedure including giving the aggrieved woman an opportunity of being heard is a ground to render the IC proceedings invalid. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Delhi High Court, in the Food Corporation of India case, while allowing employee unions to raise industrial dispute, observed that an employer notifying change in service conditions is mandatory under the Industrial Disputes Act and the format of notice must be as prescribed. This Connect highlights the reasoning and judgement passed by the court.

The Kerala High Court, in Trayi v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, held that House Rent Allowance must be excluded from basic wages when determining employers’ Provident Fund contributions.

Allahabad High Court, in the Leayan Global Private Limited v. Presiding Officer and Ors. case, where a workman was terminated on the grounds of his work being supervisory or managerial in nature, held that the nature of work of a person is determined based on the principal duties and not on ancillary tasks such as allocation of work to other employees or approving leave permissions.

The Kerala High Court in the Kerala Medical Services Corporation case held that termination of an employee for non-performance in the absence of an employment contract will constitute as retrenchment. This Connect highlights the facts, order, and reasoning of the High Court.

Madras High Court in R. Ramalingam case allowed the employee to nominate one of his family members subsequent to death of his wife (nominee) to receive the benefit of 10% return of the capital on his death.

The Delhi High Court, in the Asia-Pacific Institute of Management case, held that maternity benefit can only be denied to an employee if her dismissal was on account of serious misconduct. The court also held that any contract of service between an employer and employee which contracts out of the provisions of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, is contrary to law.

The Supreme Court, in the Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India case, where a police was terminated from services on the ground of suppression of facts or providing of false information at the time of recruitment, held that the decision to terminate him is at the discretion of the employer and is a valid ground for termination.

The Supreme Court in the Jeetubha case reiterated that the restitutionary approach must be followed by courts while ordering reinstatement and back wages. This Connect highlights the facts, and the reasoning given by the court.

Supreme Court, in Thomas Daniel v. State of Kerala and Ors. case, where a claim for recovery of erroneous excess payment was made after ten years post retirement of an employee, held that any payments made by employer by erroneous interpretation of a rule/order, wrongful application of a principle or by wrong calculations are not recoverable.