Employer cannot avoid payment of minimum bonus @8.33% of the wages earned by the employee.
2025 LLR 1126
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Employer is not required to record reasons in detail if report of inquiry officer is accepted.
2025 LLR 1063
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A Senior Engineer, drawing monthly salary of Rs.30,000, is not a ''workman''.
2025 LLR 1079
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Gratuity cannot be forfeited merely because the employee was looking for a job with the rival company
2025 LLR 1115
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Facing language problems is not a ground for setting aside of transfer order.
2025 LLR 1100
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bonus, ex-gratia payments and material costs are not ''wages'' under the ESI Act.
2025 LLR 1111
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
For raising an industrial dispute, making a demand is a pre-condition.
2025 LLR 1075
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The IC report will constitute an inquiry report and the employer can take the final decision.
2025 LLR 1067
DELHI HIGH COURT
Mass resignations on the same day with similar language are invalid.
2025 LLR 1096
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Manhandling and beating senior officials is a grave misconduct justifying dismissal.
2025 LLR 1083
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Establishment to declare lay off in situations involving operational challenges instead of issuing suspension notice.
2025 LLR 1107
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Employer can disagree with the report of the enquiry officer and initiate a new enquiry.
2025 LLR 1091
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
It is mandatory for employers to frame a policy for recruiting apprentices.
2025 LLR 1104
MADRAS HIGH COURT
A simple discharge of a non-workman under the terms of the appointment letter is not 'retrenchment'.
2025 LLR 1079
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Resignation would be involuntary when employer created an atmosphere of terror.
2025 LLR 1096
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Recovery order issued to bank authorities without issuing notice to the establishment by ESIC is illegal.
2025 LLR 1094
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Enquiry cannot be challenged when there were no violations of the principles of natural justice.
2025 LLR 1063
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
240 days of continuous service not required when workman was injured during employment.
2025 LLR 1128
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Maintenance of separate accounts and financial statements not enough to avoid clubbing of units.
2025 LLR 1132
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EPF authority cannot impose liability w.r.t. excluded employees.
2025 LLR 1161
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
EPF Authorities cannot recover any amount beyond the pre-deposit amount as directed by the Tribunal.
2025 LLR 1174
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Employer can't deny relationship with establishment when his signatures were present on the EPF returns.
2025 LLR 1150
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Liability u/s 7Q would depend upon the outcome of the appeal filed against the order u/s 14B when both the orders were passed together.
2025 LLR 1179
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Matter will not be remanded back to the EPF authority when the imposition of penalty was it-self illegal.
2025 LLR 1170
KERALA HIGH COURT
PF benefits cannot be denied merely because the employees were engaged for a short period.
2025 LLR 1158
MADRAS HIGH COURT
No liability in case of transfer of establishment when it was by operation of law and not volun-tary.
2025 LLR 1154
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Plea of no opportunity before recovery is not legal when proceedings u/s 7Q/14B were unat-tended.
2025 LLR 1150
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Tribunal cannot prohibit PF authority from levying interest after order imposing damages was upheld.
2025 LLR 1169
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
No order u/s 7A or 7Q can be passed by the EPFO when the resolution plan under IBC was ap-proved.
2025 LLR 1165
MADRAS HIGH COURT
When order of damages and interest is passed together, the interest part cannot be read in isolation.
2025 LLR 1148
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Review u/s 7B of the EPF Act can't be rejected without examining legal position and rel-evant documents.
2025 LLR 1161
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Change in criteria of selection or promotion cannot be considered as change in conditions of service.
2025 LLR WEB 525
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Contract would be sham when the attendance of contract workers was marked along with regular workers and no valid contract labour registrations/licences were obtained.
2025 LLR WEB 526
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Being a member/office bearer of a Trade Union does not entitle a workman to abuse and threaten his Manager on three separate occasions.
2025 LLR WEB 527
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Complainant cannot be punished for filing false PoSH complaint when an admission was made that she wants a disciplinary enquiry for misbehaviour and not for sexual harassment.
2025 LLR WEB 528
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Workman would not be entitled to reinstatement when he remained absent from the alternate job provided to him desperately repeated reminders.
2025 LLR WEB 529
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Converting statutory monthly ceilings into daily wage equivalents does not alter the substantive statutory obligation.
2025 LLR WEB 530
PATNA HIGH COURT
Substance of engagement and actual manner of working and not the formal contract must determine the existence of a master-servant relationship.
2025 LLR WEB 531
UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT
Rejection of application for compassionate appointment by the management on the ground of delay is unjustified when the delay was attributable to the management itself.
2025 LLR WEB 532
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bank attachment order passed by ESIC can be relaxed so as to allow the establishment to pay salaries to its employees.
2025 LLR WEB 533
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Years of continuous service put in by a daily wage worker before regularisation will be taken into consideration for calculating gratuity.
2025 LLR WEB 534
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cessation of employment on expiry of period of contract cannot be treated as illegal retrenchment or termination.
2025 LLR WEB 535
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Labour Court, while exercising jurisdiction under section 33C(2) of the ID Act, can direct the management to pay interest.
2025 LLR WEB 536
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Workers cannot be exploited as badli, casual or temporary workers for years together and that would amount to depriving them of status and privilege of permanent employee.
2025 LLR WEB 537
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Mobile and medical allowances, not paid across the board, are not 'basic wages' un-der the EPF Act.
2025 LLR 1153
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appropriate government for the purposes of conducting elections of trade unions confined to one State is the State Government, not the Central Government.
2025 LLR WEB 538
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Backwages will be awarded when the employer could not provide oral and documentary evidence of the institution where the workman was gainfully employed.
2025 LLR WEB 539
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Contractual employee has to complete the remaining period of service after availing maternity leave.
2025 LLR WEB 540
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Keeping workman on casual workers for years and giving artificial breaks is an unfair labour practice.
2025 LLR WEB 541
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
The appellate Tribunal can reduce, modify or set aside the order of the EPF Authority.
2025 LLR 1144
MADRAS HIGH COURT
No retrospective liability when certain allowances were merged into basic pay pursuant to a settlement.
2025 LLR 1170
KERALA HIGH COURT
The test of functional integrality is not the only test for clubbing of units.
2025 LLR 1132
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
In the absence of mens rea, liability under the EPF Act is proper instead of initiating criminal proceedings.
2025 LLR 1176
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
