Forfeiture of gratuity is proper when the employee showed lack of care, caution and reasonable judgment.
2025 LLR 1317
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
No liability of occupier/manager when the accident was due to the negligence of the deceased worker.
2025 LLR 1325
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Assaulting teachers and other security staff by the workmen in front of students justifies dismissal.
2025 LLR 1315
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
It is mandatory for Police and labour authorities to take action when the establishment had to close down because of illegal strike.
2025 LLR 1332
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Gratuity of an employee cannot be forfeited on retirement even if he failed to pay loan amount.
2025 LLR 1323
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Labour Court's order referring to union's arguments and not that of management is liable to be set aside.
2025 LLR 1300
DELHI HIGH COURT
No accident compensation in absence of subsistence of work and employer-employee relationship.
2025 LLR 1334
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Misappropriation of subsidy by a bank employee is a grave misconduct justifying dismissal.
2025 LLR 1309
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Any demand raised by ESI Authorities after five years is not sustainable.
2025 LLR 1329
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Widowed sister is not a dependent and cannot seek any accident compensation.
2025 LLR 1299
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Only an establishment actually employing building workers is covered under the BOCW Cess Act.
2025 LLR 1313
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
No forfeiture of gratuity before quantifying the loss suffered by the employer.
2025 LLR 1317
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Enquiry before termination is mandatory even if criminal prosecution was pending against the workman.
2025 LLR 1305
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Defence that no loss was caused to the employer owing to employee's misconduct is unacceptable.
2025 LLR 1309
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
EPF authorities cannot take any coercive action till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal.
2025 LLR 1350
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
If appeal against levy of damages is allowed, order passed w.r.t. payment of interest will go.
2025 LLR 1360
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
High Court can restore appeal before CGIT subject to deposit of costs and other conditions.
2025 LLR 1338
DELHI HIGH COURT
Levy of damages and interest for default not justified when employer suffered continuous losses.
2025 LLR 1344
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Establishment's defence of not having old record is valid when belated challenge was initiated by EPFO.
2025 LLR 1361
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Complaint for non-submission of return cannot be made after an expiry of more than 3 years.
2025 LLR 1354
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Employer not liable to produce records without knowing the identity of complainant employees.
2025 LLR 1351
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Merely giving approvals does not make the Director personally liable for non-deposit of PF dues.
2025 LLR 1346
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
An establishment cannot be covered under the EPF Act without reasonable opportunity of hearing.
2025 LLR 1339
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Actual proof of financial difficulties will have to be produced for reduction of damages.
2025 LLR 1348
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Non-payment of the employer's contribution to EPFO before due date is a continuing offence.
2025 LLR 1354
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Even if damages and interest were levied ex-parte, the order can still be challenged before CGIT.
2025 LLR 1344
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Establishment not falling u/s.1(3)(a) of the EPF Act can't be covered merely on basis of available record.
2025 LLR 1339
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Commission paid to employees can be 'basic wages' depending upon facts and circumstances.
2025 LLR 1351
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Two entities, even if treated as separate for assessment, can be clubbed during recovery.
2025 LLR 1341
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Mere procedural lapses by the establishment does not automatically create criminal liability without specific evidence.
2025 LLR 1346
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Damages will be reduced to 25% when the quantum of the same was more than the liability u/s.7A.
2025 LLR 1353
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery certificate issued during the pendency of appeal is against the principles of natural justice.
2025 LLR 1350
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
No protection against illegal termination unless employer-employee relationship is established.
2025 LLR WEB 563
PATNA HIGH COURT
Evidence of genuine managerial powers such as the ability to sanction leave or impose discipline to prove that an employee is not "workman".
2025 LLR WEB 564
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pending and future industrial disputes cannot be proceeded with or initiated in the absence of the industrial tribunals under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
2025 LLR WEB 565
DELHI HIGH COURT
A non-banking financial company engaged in hire-purchase and financing activities is a "shop".
2025 LLR WEB 566
DELHI HIGH COURT
Abandonment from duty will be inferred only when the employer issues directions to report to work.
2025 LLR WEB 567
UTTRAKHAND HIGH COURT
ID Card and salary slip, not bearing the stamp and signature of the management, cannot be used to prove employer-employee relationship.
2025 LLR WEB 568
DELHI HIGH COURT
Determination of 'workman' status depends upon the actual nature of duties performed, the degree of supervisory or managerial control, and the extent of discretion exercised.
2025 LLR WEB 569
MADRAS HIGH COURT
It cannot be assumed that a workman was terminated when there was no termination letter and the management asked him to report back to duties during conciliation.
2025 LLR WEB 570
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Provisions pertaining to compensation in case of transfer of undertakings will not be applicable for benami or fictitious transactions.
2025 LLR WEB 571
MADRAS HIGH COURT
No back wages can be granted on the assumption that a worker remained unemployed for 16 years.
2025 LLR WEB 572
DELHI HIGH COURT
A ground not taken before the ESI Court cannot be taken before the High Court for the first time.
2025 LLR WEB 573
DELHI HIGH COURT
Worker would be entitled to last drawn wages during pendency of matter before the High Court even if he was earning agricultural income.
2025 LLR WEB 574
DELHI HIGH COURT
Matters of coverage under ESI Act to be withdrawn and be dealt with under the Amnesty Scheme, 2025.
2025 LLR 1336
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
It is the right of the employer to reduce the age of superannuation of an employee from 60 to 58 years.
2025 LLR 1320
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Only the contractor employing building workers and not the principal employer will be liable to pay cess.
2025 LLR 1313
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Union's espousal, in the larger interest of workmen, is legal even if the workman was not a member.
2025 LLR 1305
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
