Employment as obtained on false caste certificate is rightly set aside.
2008 LLR 1066
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dismissal of union secretary not to be interfered when he has humiliated his superiors to sweep the premises.
2008 LLR 1009
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Definition of ''employee'' under section 2(9) of ESI Act does not intend to cover every person.
2008 LLR 1070
DELHI HIGH COURT
Canteen workers not being employees of Management, Standing Orders will not apply.
2008 LLR 1104
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Labour Court should not have interfered with dismissal of bus conductor for misappropriation of funds.
2008 LLR 1016
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Back-wages not justified to a workman dismissed for absence
2008 LLR 1009
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Food Allowance will not be treated as Dearness Allowance for provident fund contributions.
2008 LLR 1013
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
When the conduct of employee rendered her unfit, it must entail her termination.
2008 LLR 1066
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A person coming to the Court, not with clean hand, can''t seek equitable relief.
2008 LLR 1066
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Employees'' Insurance Court erred in de-coverage of an establishment when the owner''s father admitted employing more than 10 workers.
2008 LLR 1044
DELHI HIGH COURT
Right to last drawn wages will not extinguish merely because the reinstated workman has not applied for.
2008 LLR 1046
DELHI HIGH COURT
Reference of a dispute cannot be illegal merely on denial of ''employer and employee'' relationship.
2008 LLR 1026
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
During the pendancy of proceedings under I.D. Act, retrenchment of workman does not change service conditions.
2008 LLR 1026
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A small explosion in the factory will not be construed as cognizable offence under Factories Act.
2008 LLR 1039
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A Factory Inspector is empowered to enter any factory within his local limit.
2008 LLR 1039
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Developing land for construction of houses for sale will be covered under the Factories Act.
2008 LLR 1036
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Employees'' Insurance Court erred in not quashing of recovery when no inspection report was supplied by ESIC
2008 LLR 1018
DELHI HIGH COURT
Merely that the post-mortem report revealed the deceased has consumed alcohol, compensation for accident cannot be denied.
2008 LLR 1032
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Acquittal of employer will not to be interfered when the Provident Fund Inspector did not lead supporting evidence.
2008 LLR 1048
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Disciplinary proceedings not necessarily to be stayed during pendency of criminal trial.
2008 LLR 1059
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Supervisors or engineers at the construction site will be ''workmen'' under the Workmen''s Compensation Act.
2008 LLR 1052
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reinstatement of a workman without deciding that he has worked for 240 days is not tenable.
2008 LLR 1057
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
An employee opting and receiving all benefits of VRS cannot take recourse under section 2A of the I.D. Act.
2008 LLR 1087
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dismissal of an active unionist based upon false complaint of Foreman is liable to be quashed
2008 LLR 1098
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of civil court in matters of employer-employee relations is barred by the Act.
2008 LLR 1093
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Self-serving statement of the workman to have worked for 240 days will not be believable.
2008 LLR 1022
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Death of a lorry driver, developing chest pain while driving will be an accident for compensation.
2008 LLR 1028
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Enquiry proceedings cannot be challenged before its completion.
2008 LLR 1043
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dismissal of bus conductor justified when he remained absent from work for 130 days.
2008 LLR 1050
DELHI HIGH COURT
Murder by a subordinate, since the deceased did not sanction his leave, will be an accident for compensation.
2008 LLR 1052
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Supervision and control by the principal employer on contractor''s workers is the decisive factor to determine ''employer-employee'' relationship.
2008 LLR 1070
DELHI HIGH COURT
A person engaged casually would not make him a coverable ''employee'' under ESI Act.
2008 LLR 1070
DELHI HIGH COURT
An employer can be prosecuted for obtaining undertaking from an employee that she will not claim maternity benefit on her third delivery.
2008 LLR 1101
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Workers of contractor in the statutory canteen, controlled and supervised by the Company, will be employees of the principal employer.
2008 LLR 1080
KERALA HIGH COURT
Civil Court cannot grant relief of status quo to an employee whose services have been terminated.
2008 LLR 1093
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
A writ against interim order of the Enquiry Officer will not be tenable.
2008 LLR 1043
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
No damages for delayed payment of compensation when employer''s obligation was not clear.
2008 LLR 1052
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Special care and assistance of motherhood is one of the basic rights.
2008 LLR 1101
MADRAS HIGH COURT
When canteen contractor was only a glorified supervisor, workers will be employees of Company.
2008 LLR 1080
KERALA HIGH COURT
Reinstatement to a contract labourer with the principal employer and back wages by contractor is not proper without deciding real employer.
2008 LLR 1078
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A workman opting for VRS, receiving benefits and collecting provident fund is debarred from challenging his option.
2008 LLR 1087
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reinstatement, instead of re-employment, will be appropriate when the workman was victimized for union activities.
2008 LLR 1098
MADRAS HIGH COURT
An employer, despite knowledge of the dispute not participating in the beginning, has been rightly proceeded ex parte.
2008 LLR 1095
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reinstatement of a daily-wager, raising dispute after 18 years of alleged termination, is to be set aside.
2008 LLR 1022
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Claim for compensation will not be time-barred on removal of shortfall of stamp duty after expiry of limitation.
2008 LLR 1052
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Even a female employee is entitled to maternity benefit..
2008 LLR 1101
MADRAS HIGH COURT
25% back wages will be appropriate when canteen workers through contractor were regularized.
2008 LLR 1080
KERALA HIGH COURT
After acceptance of benefits under VRS, an employee ceases to be a ''workman''.
2008 LLR 1087
MADRAS HIGH COURT
An Award by the Labour Court in a dispute referred by State government is to be quashed when the appropriate government was Central government.
2008 LLR 1120
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
While adjudicating a dispute for termination, Labour Court can''t direct for payment of gratuity. (SN)
2008 LLR 1109
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Executive instruction, depriving a citizen to seek employment even in his State, would be violative of Constitution of India.
2008 LLR 1110
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Under section 25-N(6) of the I.D. Act, the appropriate Govt. can either review its order or refer the matter to the Tribunal. (SN)
2008 LLR 1110
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Neither back-wages nor bonus would be part of wages under the Payment of Wages Act. (SN)
2008 LLR 1111
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
A Development Officer of Life Insurance Corporation will be a ''workman''.
2008 LLR 1119
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Labour Court can review its Award only when it requires correction of clerical or arithmetical slip
2008 LLR 1113
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Termination of a Trainee Probationer not justified when she failed to qualify test because of miscarriage.
2008 LLR 1111
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A settlement will not be vitiated when out of 1240, workmen have accepted it.
2008 LLR 1112
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A settlement can be made even during the pendancy of dispute. (SN)
2008 LLR 1112
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Employer engaged in construction activity with 100 workers would need permission for retrenchment of workers.
2008 LLR 1036
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Awarding compensation for accident to a widow of the deceased who was given compassionate appointment is liable to be quashed.
2008 LLR 1033
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A claim for compensation after 4 years, without explaining delay, is not tenable
2008 LLR 1033
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Withholding of gratuity, because of non-furnishing clearing slip for vacation of the quarter, will not be illegal.
2008 LLR 1030
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act a claim lies only on undisputed existing right.
2008 LLR 1030
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
ESI Corporation must furnish relevant information to concerned employer before recovery of dues.
2008 LLR 1118
DELHI HIGH COURT
The yardstick of standard of proof in a criminal case is different from departmental proceedings.
2008 LLR 1059
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
