IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for November 2010

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Furnishing of enquiry report to delinquent is obligatory.
2010 LLR 1138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Termination of a workman appointed for a fixed period will not be retrenchment.
2010 LLR 1167
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Functional disability sustained during accident is to be considered for quantum of compensation.
2010 LLR 1146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Merely putting in long service may not be a ground to regularise services.
2010 LLR 1229
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Insurance policy will not cover liability in respect of death otherwise than with the vehicle.
2010 LLR 1200
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Second show-cause notice before imposing punishment is must in nationalised bank.
2010 LLR 1138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Compensation for unspecified injury is to be given on the recommendation of medical practitioner.
2010 LLR 1146
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Appeal against order of EPF authority within 120 days is wrongly rejected.
2010 LLR 1151
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Territorial jurisdiction under Compensation Act is where the accident took place or where the claimants reside.
2010 LLR 1181
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Drawing presumption without affording opportunity to absenting workman will not be valid.
2010 LLR 1175
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Once termination of workman is held illegal, reinstatement with back-wages will be generally available.
2010 LLR 1156
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Non-payment of retrenchment compensation at the time of retrenchment will render it as illegal.
2010 LLR 1159
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Adjudicator, not government, is to decide whether the employee is a ''workman''.
2010 LLR 1178
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 Back-wages to daily wagers, on reinstatement, is not a rule.
2010 LLR 1190
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Removal of an employee from service is a serious matter.
2010 LLR 1138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Reinstatement not proper; when the employee worked in different branches but not for 240 days in one branch.
2010 LLR 1195
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Death of driver in show room, demonstrating tractor, will justify compensation.
2010 LLR 1187
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 ''Workman'' status is to be determined with reference to nature of duties and functions.
2010 LLR 1198
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 When Labour Court has given cogent reasons in support of Award, it is not to be interfered.
2010 LLR 1205
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Back-wages are not to be granted merely on the basis of workman''s statement.
2010 LLR 1242
PATNA HIGH COURT

 Relief of reinstatement to an apprentice is unjustified.
2010 LLR 1232
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 No interference is called for when cogent supporting reasons are given about fairness of enquiry.
2010 LLR 1221
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Industrial Tribunal can interfere in punishments of only dismissal or discharge of a workman.
2010 LLR 1219
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Delay in filing the claim for accident cannot be condoned.
2010 LLR 1227
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Transfer of class IV employees outside the State should be exceptional.
2010 LLR 1172
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Mere publication of notice in the newspaper will not substitute enquiry for unauthorised absence.
2010 LLR 1175
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 When Regulations are followed, interference with removal is rightly declined.
2010 LLR 1138
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Onus to prove validity of an enquiry lies upon the delinquent workman.
2010 LLR 1162
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Abusive language towards another employee will be a serious misconduct.
2010 LLR 1153
DELHI HIGH COURT

 For increasing working hours, notice u/s 9A of Industrial Disputes Act will be imperative.
2010 LLR 1183
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Gratuity cannot be forfeited without determining the quantum of damages.
2010 LLR 1170
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Principal employer, not the Society, will be the employer of canteen employee when managed by the former.
2010 LLR 1225
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 No back-wages to reinstated workman in absence of proper pleadings of unemployment.
2010 LLR 1238
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Transfer of an employee is the prerogative of employer.
2010 LLR 1172
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Increase in working hours from 37 to 44 in a week, by a notice under the Factories Act, not valid.
2010 LLR 1183
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Employees'' Provident Funds Act is not to apply on Multi-state co-operative bank.
2010 LLR 1152
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 When the contractor did not possess licence under CLRA Act his employees will be treated the employees of principal employer.
2010 LLR 1165
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 No relief is to be granted without finding that workman has worked for 240 days.
2010 LLR 1194
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement connotes continuity of service.
2010 LLR 1244
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement with 50%, instead of 100% back-wages to a cook in the canteen, will be appropriate.
2010 LLR 1225
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Employees'' Compensation Act is a welfare legislation for providing compensation for injuries or death on an accident.
2010 LLR 1235
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Handwriting expert not required to prove guilt of a bank employee when the delinquent has made entries.
2010 LLR 1241
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Transfer from service is an essential condition of service.
2010 LLR 1172
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Retiral benefits of an employee not to be withheld.
2010 LLR 1169
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Driving licence can be presumed to have been lost when the truck driver met with a train accident.
2010 LLR 1181
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Appeal, not writ petition, is the proper forum for an employer aggrieved by findings of ESI Authority.
2010 LLR 1174
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Compensation rightly awarded when the workman absented for long period without leave.
2010 LLR 1150
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Employer can create or abolish posts depending upon requirement.
2010 LLR 1163
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Referring a dispute for adjudication, by the Government, is purely administrative function.
2010 LLR 1178
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 Even when a daily-wager completes 240 days, his termination may not amount to retrenchment.
2010 LLR 1190
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Back-wages on reinstatement is rightly denied for delayed reference.
2010 LLR 1244
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Superannuation of an employee not valid; when Medical Board certified his age only 38 years.
2010 LLR 1213
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Telephone Department is rightly held to be as an ''industry''.
2010 LLR 1205
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Claim for employment of workman who was working for other employers also was rightly rejected.
2010 LLR 1208
DELHI HIGH COURT

 In the course of employment" means doing work for which workman is employed and is incidental to it.
2010 LLR 1235
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Managing Director of a company will not be prosecuted for non implementation of an Award.
2010 LLR 1247
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Object of nomination under the EPF Act implies only that the person(s) so nominated will receive the provident fund amount as legal heir(s).
2010 LLR 1247
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Nomination under the EPF Act can be only in favour of legal heir(s).
2010 LLR 1247
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Issuing of charge-sheet after delay of five years of the misconduct and non production of original documents will vitiate enquiry.
2010 LLR 1248
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Non-implementation of an Award under the I.D. Act is a continuing offence.
2010 LLR 1247
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT