- (1.) EVEN few decodes back, we were told that while courts existed to do justice, it could only do so according to Law. Justice used to fail, falter and stumble, unless escorted or conveyed by the provisions of law. The tandency of our modern Courts is, however, different and they are now everready to go anywhere to promote or rescue Justice, unless any legal provision stands in and blocks the way. We have now traveled a long distance from "everything is prohibited unless clearly permitted" to "everything is permitted unless clearly prohibited". In the case at hand brother ray. in upholding the decision of the learned trial judge,' has not waited for any set of legal provisions to substantiate his Judgement, but has allowed the cause of Justice to triumph even without the aid of any express provisions of law. I agree with him and concur in his Judgment.
(2.) I also agree for yet another reason. I have, while speaking for Division bench of this Court on a number of occasions, consistently, clearly and categorically declared that since the Court, as pointed out by Mathew, J. , in kesavananda Bharati (AIR 1973 S. C. 1461 at 1949), is mandated by our national Charter, (vide. Articles37,38,39aetc, of the Constitution), to secure and promote Social and Economic Justice and since Socio - Economic Justice, particularly in the present Indian context, would mean Justice to the weaker, the poorer, the lower or the lowlier, a new juristic principle must Inevitably be evolved to the effect that If two views are possible, whether of the facts or the laws, the view in favour of the weaker, the poorer, the lower or the lowlier, Is to be accepted, that our Constitutional resolve to secure and promote socio- Economic Justice is faithfully, fruitfully and effectively carried out. Reference may be made, among others, to the Division Bench decisions of this court in State Bank of India vs. Amal Kumar Sen (1988 Labour and Industrial cases 1585 ). Sudhangshu Mohan vs. Life Insurance Corporation (92, Calcutta weekly Notes 1092) and in United Bank of India vs. Rashyan Udyog (AIR 1990 calcutta 146 ).
(3.) I have no doubt that the view of Ray. J. , In favour of a poor ex-tubercular patient and a retired employee, pitched In an unequal forensic combat against the quondam employer, the State and/or the Calcutta Tramways-Company; is perfectly reasonable, even if I assume arguendo that the same may not be the only possible view. For the reasons stated above, I must accept that view and concur in the Order proposed by hay learned brother.;