IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for October 2009

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Misconduct of habitual negligence and using abusive language will justify dismissal.
2009 LLR 1057
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 An Advocate of company can be an enquiry officer and no bias can be presumed.
2009 LLR 1057
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Past conduct of an employee is a relevant factor for imposing punishment.
2009 LLR 1057
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 No fault can be found in notice of enquiry sent by registered post intimating time, date & venue of enquiry.
2009 LLR 1057
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Natural justice stipulates that no man should be judge of his own cause and delinquent be fairly heard.
2009 LLR 1057
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 No prejudice can be presumed if delinquent is denied to be represented by an advocate.
2009 LLR 1057
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 High Court, in judicial review, should not remand the dispute for adjudication again.
2009 LLR 1057
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Tribunal can set aside mala fide dismissal and direct reinstatement of workman.
2009 LLR 1057
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Transfer of an employee from Lucknow to Calicut not to be interfered when there is no mala fide
2009 LLR 1064
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Allegations of malafide must inspire the confidence of the Court.
2009 LLR 1064
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Petrol flows from the tank to vehicle through power hence ESI Act will apply.
2009 LLR 1066
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Compensation will be appropriate even when employer failed to prove that the workman left the job of his own.
2009 LLR 1068
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Section 17B of the I.D. Act providing last drawn wages during pendency of proceedings in the higher Court provides a support for sustenance of a workman.
2009 LLR 1069
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Deposit of ESI contribution before filing of complaints, is no ground for discharge of liability by accused.
2009 LLR 1073
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Compensation is justified when frequent absenteeism of workman is undisputed.
2009 LLR 1074
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Merely because an issue was not framed, back wages can''t be denied.
2009 LLR 1074
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 An airline employee, accepting bribe from a passenger, is rightly dismissed.
2009 LLR 1079
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Persons employed due to exigencies of work for a very short period would not be covered under the EPF Act.
2009 LLR 1082
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Apprentices, directors, domestic servants and daily wagers are not to be counted for coverage under Provident Fund Act.
2009 LLR 1082
DELHI HIGH COURT

 A claim rightly rejected when the workman alleging that he has signed a blank paper.
2009 LLR 1089
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Thirty per cent back wages will be appropriate relief when workmen are reinstated.
2009 LLR 1090
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Even in ex-parte enquiry supporting reasons of findings are to be given.
2009 LLR 1092
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Compensation would be appropriate relief if employee challenged his termination before 11 years.
2009 LLR 1092
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 When services of employees are regulated by centralized regulations, a writ petition will be maintainable.
2009 LLR 1092
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 A settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act becomes part of the service conditions.
2009 LLR 1094
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 High Court will not interfere with Award of the Labour Court declining to give the relief.
2009 LLR 1096
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 When charges are proved, court would normally not interfere with decision of penalty.
2009 LLR 1099
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Setting aside termination bereft of any reasoning by Labour Court cannot be sustained.
2009 LLR 1099
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Even when termination is void ab initio , reinstatement with full back wages would automatically follow.
2009 LLR 1100
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 On just and valid reasons, Labour Court can award compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
2009 LLR 1100
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Setting aside dismissal of the workman, who has neither submitted explanation to the charge-sheet nor participated in the enquiry, is erroneous.
2009 LLR 1103
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 When in past record workman is reprimanded, no leniency can be shown to him.
2009 LLR 1103
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Dismissal is liable to be set aside when order is stigmatic and no enquiry is held.
2009 LLR 1106
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Dismissal is liable to be set aside by Appellate Authority when it includes the Disciplinary Authority.
2009 LLR 1108
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 It is settled proposition that a person should not be a judge in his or her own cause.
2009 LLR 1108
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Industrial Disputes Act makes no distinction between a parttime and a full-time employee.
2009 LLR 1112
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement is proper for a part-time employee terminated without compensation.
2009 LLR 1112
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 In the absence of specific pleadings on unemployment during interregnum, back-wages will be only 15%.
2009 LLR 1114
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Compensation is lieu of reinstatement will be appropriate when termination is violative of section 25F of I.D. Act.
2009 LLR 1116
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Compensation Commissioner erred in holding that the Bank Manager was a ''workman''.
2009 LLR 1117
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Provident Funds Act not to be applicable merely because three units were owned by the same family.
2009 LLR 1123
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Setting aside of e x-parte Award is rightly declined without sufficient cause.
2009 LLR 1129
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, will be appropriate after 9 years of termination.
2009 LLR 1129
DELHI HIGH COURT

 instatement of employee could be fatal to either party as they would function with mis-trust - that too in a security agency.
2009 LLR 1129
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, has been rightly awarded to a workman with only 2 years'' service.
2009 LLR 1134
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Rejection of petition of the workman is wrong if it was filed after a recovery certificate was issued.
2009 LLR 1134
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Continuous absence will justify termination of a bank employee.
2009 LLR 1135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Presumption can be drawn when employee fails to join duty within a specified period.
2009 LLR 1135
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Reinstatement with back-wages to a callous driver is erroneous and deserves to be set aside.
2009 LLR 1138
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Termination of service for loss of confidence will not be tenable when there was no proof.
2009 LLR 1141
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Termination of workman, by giving one month''s notice, has been rightly set aside.
2009 LLR 1141
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Termination of a habitual absentee bus conductor is rightly upheld.
2009 LLR 1142
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of a driver for continuous unauthorised absence is to be upheld.
2009 LLR 1144
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Non-appointment of presenting officer will not vitiate an enquiry.
2009 LLR 1144
DELHI HIGH COURT

 A resignation, tendered on 15.4.1994 to be effective from 30.6.1994, is rightly accepted so as to relieve petitioner on 31 st July, 1994.
2009 LLR 1146
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Resignation, when rightly accepted, can''t be said to be under coercion.
2009 LLR 1146
DELHI HIGH COURT

 When not rebutted by employer, Mining Engineer will be a ''workman''.
2009 LLR 1148
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Discretion of employer for imposing punishment should not be interfered.
2009 LLR 1149
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 A bus conductor holds position of trust hence amount is immaterial for punishment.
2009 LLR 1149
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Setting aside dismissal of a bus conductor with blemished record will amount to misplaced sympathy.
2009 LLR 1149
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Punishment reduction without supporting reasons will not be tenable.
2009 LLR 1149
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 An employee working in clerical capacity is not a ''workmen'' under Workmen''s Compensation Act.
2009 LLR 1153
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Gratuity of an employee can be forfeited only dismissed for prescribed misconducts
2009 LLR 1156
GUJARAT HIGH COURT