IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for December 2016

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Back-wages on reinstatement can be awarded only with supported reasons. and Grant of back-wages on reinstatement not a rule of thumb.
2016 LLR 1233
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Termination of a workman for solitary absence not justified. And Compensation instead of reinstatement is appropriate to a workman with seven years of unblemished service.
2016 LLR 1234
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Delay in deposit when neither willful nor intentional will justify waiver of damages and Willful default/negligence will invite levy of damages for delayed deposit of contributions and While levying damages the authority will consider circumstances resulting into delay
2016 LLR 1236
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Total disablement in an accident means workman is incapacitated for all types of work. and Cent percent accident compensation payable on total disablement. And Loss of vision of a driver in an accident would justify total disablement.
2016 LLR 1239
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Amount paid in excess under section 17-B of the I.D. Act can’t be refunded. And Excess amount paid towards last drawn wages can’t be adjusted against payable amount.
2016 LLR 1242
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Termination without retrenchment compensation and notice will be illegal. and Reinstatement with back-wages is normal rule when termination is illegal. And Reinstatement with back-wages when termination is held illegal. And Back-wages only when workman has pleaded and got proved in the Labour Court. and Quantum of back-wages is dependent on length of service, nature of misconduct and employer’s financial condition, etc. and Calculation of 240 days of service is to be from date of appointment. and No back-wages when the workman was gainfully employed during interregnum. And Unemployment during adjudication is to be proved by the workman.and Unemployment of workman if uncontroverted will entitle him back-wages.
2016 LLR 1244
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Construction workers are to be covered under EPF Scheme and Even casual labour on construction work will be covered under EPF Scheme
2016 LLR 1248
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Direct control by principal employer over contract worker makes him liable to cover the employee under EPF Act and Any worker paid wages directly or indirectly would be covered under EPF and All employees - regular or casual or temporary - are coverable under EPF Scheme and High Court in writ jurisdiction can examine about correctness of the findings of EPF Appellate Tribunal and Direct supervision of mess workers by principal employer would be covered by him
2016 LLR 1249
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Principal employer is liable to pay EPF dues if contractor fails to comply and Delay in initiating recovery proceeding of PF dues would not be a hurdle for claiming damages and interest and Writ Court not to interfere with the order of EPF authority when proper opportunity was given to the petitioner
2016 LLR 1253
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 One year continuous service means 240 days working. and Continuous service of 240 days to be established when not controverted. and Non-compliance of sections 25-B and/or 25-F of the I.D. Act would result into reinstatement of a terminated workman.
2016 LLR 1257
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Gaushala is not an industry under I.D. Act. and Labour Court not to entertain dispute when establishment is not an ‘industry’.
2016 LLR 1260
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Educational institutions are covered by the EPF Act and the Scheme and Exemption to an education institution only after fulfilling the conditions in Section 16(1)(b) of the EPF and MP Act
2016 LLR 1266
HYDERABAD HIGH COURT

 Employer is duty-bound to produce record asked by EPF authority and Appeal against order under section 7-A & 7-B of the EPF Act is maintainable and Unexplained delay for deposit of EPF dues would justify levy of damages and Writ petition not tenable to challenge order under sections 7-A or 7-B of EPF Act and EPF authority can draw adverse inference if employer fails to produce record
2016 LLR 1273
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 One cannot continue as member of pension scheme after attaining age of 58 years
2016 LLR 1275
Kerala High Court

 Non-consideration of evidence by the EPF Tribunal to be reconsidered
2016 LLR 1277
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Writ court can examine decision making process of Appellate authority
2016 LLR 1278
ORISSA HIGH COURT