IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for October 2015

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 As per provisions of section 2(n) of the Factories Act, 1948, in case a factory is owned or controlled by the Central/State Government or any local authority, the person(s) appointed to manage the affairs of the factory, by the Central/State Government or any local authority, shall be deemed to be occupier of that factory. and Activities including repairing of faulty signals, sanitation systems, loading and unloading of goods, supply of power continuously for railway tracks, railway station, etc. are to be taken as ‘manufacturing process'. Moradabad Division along with all appurtenant lands, yards, etc. are ‘premises'. Hence, the Moradabad Division of Northern Railways is a ‘factory' as per section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948.
2015 LLR 1009
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Factories Act obligates to maintain a canteen when staff strength exceeds 250.
2015 LLR 1009
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 When a canteen ipso facto corresponds to a ''statutory canteen'', its staff would be treated as employer''s servants.
2015 LLR 1009
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Location of head office or registered office only may not be sufficient for concluding the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal, as held by Supreme Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and others, 2008 (3) SCC 456.
2015 LLR 1015
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Location of head or registered offices not sufficient for territorial jurisdiction of labour dispute since its situs is relevant.
2015 LLR 1015
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Non-resuming duty at the place of transfer while holding transferable post may justify termination of services of an employee.
2015 LLR 1017
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Termination justified if employee fails to comply with transfer order.
2015 LLR 1017
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Quasi -judicial authority should pass a speaking order reflecting the application of mind.
2015 LLR 1018
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 Non-furnishing of list of witnesses would vitiate the enquiry.
2015 LLR 1019
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 Not mentioning of name of Enquiry Officer would not render charge-sheet invalid. 
2015 LLR 1019
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 An enquiry must be held on the basis principles of natural justice. 
2015 LLR 1019
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 When code No. is allotted to a contractor under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, it becomes an establishment under section 2(e) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 making it liable to pay EPF contributions of its employees.
2015 LLR 1023
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Principal employer not liable for provident fund dues of contractor with independent code number.
2015 LLR 1023
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Principal employer can be liable for EPF contribution of contractor when the latter does not have code number.
2015 LLR 1023
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 A show-cause notice cannot always be treated as a charge-sheet.
2015 LLR 1027
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Presumption that the workman has abandoned the job only on the basis of his being absent unauthorisedly is not sustainable if the Management has not informed the workman about it or not called the workman to report for duty since such inaction on the part of the Management is non-compliance of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
2015 LLR 1030
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Mere delay of two years in raising industrial dispute would not deprive workman''s right.
2015 LLR 1030
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Abandonment without information to workman will amount to illegal retrenchment.
2015 LLR 1030
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 When the enquiry is held to be ‘not fair and proper' by the Labour Court and the Management fails to prove guilt of the workman by leading substantial evidence before it, quashing the punishment of dismissal is appropriate.
2015 LLR 1032
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Fresh evidence can be led by employer if the enquiry is quashed.
2015 LLR 1032
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement with back-wages is appropriate when the Management fails to prove charges.
2015 LLR 1032
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Dismissal to be quashed when enquiry is not fair and proper.
2015 LLR 1032
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Non-denial of an averment of the workman in specific terms categorically in the written statement by the Management would mean that Management has failed to rebut the same.
2015 LLR 1034
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Non-production of documents by employer would lead to adverse inference. 
2015 LLR 1034
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Non-rebuttal of an averment will amount to its admission.
2015 LLR 1034
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 A plea not taken in Labour Court, can''t be entertained in the judicial review.
2015 LLR 1034
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 If the workman immediately has raised the demand notice after his termination specifically averring that he was not gainfully employed after termination of his services, the burden shifts upon the Management to prove contrary that the workman has been gainfully employed, otherwise the workman will be entitled to back-wages and Management will stand liable to make payment of the back-wages to the workman.
2015 LLR 1036
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement with back-wages to follow if termination is held illegal.
2015 LLR 1036
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Non-payment of retrenchment compensation will render termination illegal.
2015 LLR 1036
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 As per section 4 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, Internal Compalints Committee consisting of 4 members is to be constituted to enquire into the allegations.
2015 LLR 1038
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Lady member of ICC not necessarily to be senior in rank of the complainant.
2015 LLR 1038
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 One member in ICC for sexual harassment should be independent, preferably from an NGO.
2015 LLR 1038
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Lady member of ICC in sexual harassment is to be of senior level.
2015 LLR 1038
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Taking into account the sincere endeavour on the part of the employer to liquidate the dues and to maintain the establishment which presently provides employment to 1213 employees, opportunity to be given to the employer to pay the amount as determined under section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in appropriate instalments, is justified.
2015 LLR 1040
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 does not provide for any limitation for initiation of proceeding for levying damages but the power should be exercised within a reasonable period.
2015 LLR 1041
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 No prejudice will be caused to employee on delayed deposit of PF contribution.
2015 LLR 1041
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Employees'' Provident Fund Organisation is not a profit-making body.
2015 LLR 1041
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 No limitation is prescribed to levy damages for delayed payment of EPF contributions.
2015 LLR 1041
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Exemption under section 17(1) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, exempts the establishment from the operation of all or any provisions of the Provident Fund Scheme only and not from the provisions of the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme.
2015 LLR 1045
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Exempted establishment cannot escape interest for delay in PF payment. 
2015 LLR 1045
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Relationship not established when principal employer has not issued appointment letter to the workers of contractor.
2015 LLR 1052
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

 Non production of records despite notice by Labour Court, would lead to adverse inference.
2015 LLR 1052
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

 Prosecution for violation can be only of the occupier of the factory.
2015 LLR 1056
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 For appeal under Payment of Wages Act decreed amount is to be deposited.
2015 LLR 1061
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Prosecution under CLR&A to be quashed if filed after 3 months.
2015 LLR 1062
PATNA HIGH COURT

 Heart problem aggravated by stress, would be accident of bus driver.
2015 LLR 1068
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 For accident compensation, it does not mean that workman must be working at that time.
2015 LLR 1068
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Terminated workers of contractor cannot claim reinstatement from principal employer.
2015 LLR 1071
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Workers of contractor, having licence, not to become employees of principal employer.
2015 LLR 1071
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Deposit of PF contributions for contractor''s employees not to mean that they are the employees of principal employer.
2015 LLR 1071
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Forfeiture of gratuity is valid on termination for misconduct under section 4(6) of Gratuity Act. 
2015 LLR 1076
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Forfeiture of gratuity justified on termination for immense financial loss.
2015 LLR 1076
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Retrenchment not illegal when compensation was not collected by the retrenched workman.
2015 LLR 1083
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Milk allowance paid to each workman is ''wages'' to attract ESI contribution.
2015 LLR 1087
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 If extra work is done during paid holiday, it will be wages under ESI Act.
2015 LLR 1087
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Loss of confidence in employee justified when misappropriation is proved.
2015 LLR 1091
GAUHATI HIGH COURT

 In disciplinary proceedings, standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities.
2015 LLR 1091
GAUHATI HIGH COURT

 One half of the members of ICC for sexual harassment are required to be women.
2015 LLR 1095
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 A nominee has to disburse the collected amount to legal representatives of the deceased.
2015 LLR 1098
KERALA HIGH COURT

 A part-time employee is a ''workman'' under ID Act.
2015 LLR 1105
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT