IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for January 2008

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Allowing equal benefits to the canteen workers as available to VIP Guest House employees liable to be set aside.
2008 LLR 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 High Court would not interfere with the dismissal of workman guilty of scuffle and assault with co-worker.
2008 LLR 10
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement, despite holding enquiry to be fair but wrongly concluding that workman was absent for 17 days, not sustainable.
2008 LLR 11
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement not to be interfered when bank has failed to prove misappropriation against the workman.
2008 LLR 13
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Pensionary benefit, though introduced unilaterally but having become privilege for employees cannot be fettered by Gratuity Act.
2008 LLR 19
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Withdrawal of pensionary benefit without notice of change merely that Gratuity Act has been extended, will not be justifiable.
2008 LLR 19
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Mere delay in raising dispute for resumption of pension will not debar workers than from their right.
2008 LLR 19
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of workman for violence and destruction of property of the employer will not be set aside.
2008 LLR 27
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Employer and employee relation, when disputed, is to be determined in presence of all the concerned parties.
2008 LLR 30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Reinstatement of workmen not tenable when they were they were engaged for a short period.
2008 LLR 30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Workers engaged not by appointing even having worked for 240 days that will not ensure job security to them.
2008 LLR 30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 High court should not have declined to interfere with an Award simply on the ground that it involved question of facts.
2008 LLR 30
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Bonus not payable on the suspension allowance since employee did not actually work.
2008 LLR 30
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Termination of the workman merely on the basis of vague admission has been rightly set aside by the Labour Court.
2008 LLR 33
DELHI HIGH COURT

 A conductor facing enquiry stating that he was mentally upset and did not know shortfall of tickets, it will not amount to admission.
2008 LLR 33
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Admission of guilt by a workman should be clear, conclusive and unambiguous.
2008 LLR 33
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Dispensation of holding enquiry on unambiguous admission by a workman will not be justified.
2008 LLR 33
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Conciliation has to endeavour for settlement and not to adjudicate the dispute.
2008 LLR 38
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Cognizance be taken by Labour Authorities when a worker alleges unfair labour practice.
2008 LLR 38
DELHI HIGH COURT

 A complaint for unfair labour practice will lie even when a dispute a refereed for adjudication
2008 LLR 38
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Two firms functioning separately having own sales tax number and electricity connections not to be clubbed for coverage under ESI Act.
2008 LLR 42
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 Mere designation of'' Manager'' will not exclude him from payment of Wages Act.
2008 LLR 44
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Cinema Hall will be covered under the Payment of Wages Act.
2008 LLR 44
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 A State industrial dispute not tenable even though Limitation Act does not apply.
2008 LLR 46
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 In the absence of rebuttal by the workman-challenging enquiry, it will be presumed to be fair and proper.
2008 LLR 46
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement of the workman, whose habitual absence is proved is rightly set aside.
2008 LLR 48
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Unlike Motor Vehicles Act, under Workman''s Compensation Act Interest on compensation is mandatory.
2008 LLR 5
KERALA HIGH COURT

 The term ''fell due'' under Workman''s Compensation Act means that the compensation to be calculated as on the date of accident.
2008 LLR 5
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Declining to grant adjournment and leading evidence by employer not proper by tribunal.
2008 LLR 52
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 When the workman has taken 5 years for his evidence, reasonable opportunity has to be given to the Management.
2008 LLR 52
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Association of Small Scale Industries, rendering services to the members only, will not be ''industry'' under the I.D. Act.
2008 LLR 54
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Allegation of obtaining signature on bank papers will be naught when the employee admitted to have signed resignation letter.
2008 LLR 56
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Burden of proof will lie upon workman when he alleges that his resignation was obtained under duress.
2008 LLR 56
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 No work, no pay'' will be applicable when the workman did not resume duty despite offers.
2008 LLR 58
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

 A Store In charges occasionally discharging supervisory functions will be a ''workman'' under I.D. Act.
2008 LLR 58
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Employer and employee relationship will not emerge in the absence of control by employer over night guards.
2008 LLR 62
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 A company, outsourcing jobs to other units, not liable for ESI contributions in the absence of control over the employees of such units.
2008 LLR 64
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Electricity Board can recover refund from an employee who, after retirement, worked for 5 years by manipulation of his date of birth.
2008 LLR 66
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Electricity Board must take action against an employee who manipulated date of birth of an employee work for 5 years after retirement.
2008 LLR 66
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement of an unconfirmed probationer terminated is liable to be set aside.
2008 LLR 67
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of bus conductor, for collection of fare but not issuing tickets, would not be interfered.
2008 LLR 68
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Worker''s claim not based on existing rights will not be tenable under section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act.
2008 LLR 71
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Setting aside dismissal of workman by labour court for habitual absence amounted to misplaced sympathy.
2008 LLR 74
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Labour Court has erroneously exercised its powers by modifying the punishment for habitual absence of the workman.
2008 LLR 74
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Back Wages for interregnum when not awarded cannot be claimed u/s 33c(2) of the I.D. Act.
2008 LLR 76
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 A resignation can be withdrawn by a workman till its acceptance is communicated to him.
2008 LLR 77
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 For an effective resignation it is imperative that its acceptance be communicated to the employee.
2008 LLR 77
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Rigid standard of proof is required in criminal trials but not in disciplinary proceedings.
2008 LLR 8
DELHI HIGH COURT

 While disposing of an application for approval of dismissal of a workman, Tribunal cannot reappraise evidence.
2008 LLR 81
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Tribunal has erred in rejecting the approval for dismissal of bus conductor for non-issuing of tickets despite receiving fare.
2008 LLR 81
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Neither the conveyance nor the site allowance will form part of wages for calculation of gratuity.
2008 LLR 84
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 A resignation, tendered voluntarily and also received dues in full will not be construed under coercion.
2008 LLR 86
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Burden of Proof for 240 days'' working in a year lies upon workman and not the management.
2008 LLR 87
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Airlines employee feigning certificate for Australian visa is rightly dismissed.
2008 LLR 93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Mere non-furnishing of enquiry report to the employee will not vitiate the order of punishment.
2008 LLR 95
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Disciplinary authority has to furnish enquiry report to the employee when the enquiry has been conducted by another person.
2008 LLR 95
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 In banking service, high standard of diligence, devotion and honesty is utmost important
2008 LLR 95
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Govt. cannot adjudicate a dispute on merit instead of reference for adjudication.
2008 LLR 99
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 It is for Tribunal and not the Govt. to decide whether a contract between workers is a sham or not.
2008 LLR 99
BOMBAY HIGH COURT