Gratuity of an employee cannot be forfeited without an opportunity of hearing.
2009 LLR 198
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
On declaration of protected workmen as office bearers of the union, the employer cannot ask about the election of trade union.
2009 LLR 187
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice should not be stretched too far and the same cannot be set to be in strait jacket formula.
2009 LLR 162
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reinstatement of a workman, obtaining employment on the basis of false information, will not be proper.
2009 LLR 162
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Standard of proof required in criminal trial and departmental enquiry is different
2009 LLR 177
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Submission for reimbursement of misappropriated amount by workman will not absolve him from dismissal.
2009 LLR 168
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Right to retain accommodation ceases with retirement/death of the employee.
2009 LLR 122
DELHI HIGH COURT
A bank employee holding fiduciary position, will lose the same when he indulges in misappropriation.
2009 LLR 168
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In departmental enquiry, the finding can be recorded even on the basis of the probabilities.
2009 LLR 177
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
An employee must return accommodation to the employer on his retirement.
2009 LLR 122
DELHI HIGH COURT
Dismissal of a workman is rightly upheld since the charge of embezzlement was proved in the enquiry.
2009 LLR 177
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
During suspension of employee the employer and employee relationship does not come to an end.
2009 LLR 187
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Forfeiture of gratuity can be to the extent of amount as misappropriated.
2009 LLR 198
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
In terms of section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, facts admitted need not be proved
2009 LLR 162
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Termination of a casual workman whose name was not sponsored through employment exchange will not be illegal.
2009 LLR 179
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Acquittal of the workman in criminal trial will not vitiate his dismissal.
2009 LLR 177
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Liability of the insurance company for reimbursement of compensation arises on the date it accepted the premium. (SN)
2009 LLR 224
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reinstatement with 25% back wages will be appropriate relief for a bus conductor, dismissed for not issuing tickets. (SN)
2009 LLR 222
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Where a translated copy of the charge-sheet is given and enquiry proceedings explained in Marathi no prejudice can be inferred. (SN)
2009 LLR 219
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The objective section 25-O of I.D. Act is to provide for a procedure regulating the closure of industrial establishments. (SN)
2009 LLR 220
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The restrictions are meant to deter reckless, unfair, unjust and mala fide.
2009 LLR 220
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
After permission to close the establishment is granted, the employer must wait at least for a period of 30 days for closing. (SN)
2009 LLR 220
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Termination of Sanitary Inspector on account of de-recognition of institute will be illegal when he has worked for more than 240 days. (SN)
2009 LLR 223
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
De-novo enquiry will not be directed against a bank employee if he is exonerated of the charge of sexual harassment. (SN)
2009 LLR 223
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
50% back wages on reinstatement, after a long period of over 23 years, would be appropriate.
2009 LLR 201
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
After passing ex-parte Award, the Labour Court does not become functus officio when request for setting aside is made immediately.
2009 LLR 133
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Burden of proof of unemployment lies on the workman claiming back wages for interregnum.
2009 LLR 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
For grant of back wages on reinstatement, conduct of the workman is vital among other factors.
2009 LLR 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Last pay drawn during pendency of proceeding means the pay drawn by the workman immediately before removal from service.
2009 LLR 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Not joining at transferred place by workman is misconduct warranting disciplinary proceeding.
2009 LLR 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages appropriate when workman did not make any effort to find a job.
2009 LLR 205
DELHI HIGH COURT
Dismissal of a bank employee for misappropriation not to be interfered.
2009 LLR 168
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dismissal of a security guard for misbehaviour with the customer, as proved, is justified.
2009 LLR 211
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dismissal of a shop incharge cannot be faulted when there is ample evidence of embezzlement.
2009 LLR 182
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dismissal of workmen, for striking work and threatening other workers to resort to strike, not to be set aside.
2009 LLR 173
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
During pendency of criminal proceedings, an enquiry will not be stayed.
2009 LLR 185
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Forfeiture of gratuity of an employee for moral turpitude only if he is convicted for the offence.
2009 LLR 138
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Provident Fund Act would be applicable to a welfare society also.
2009 LLR 196
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Approval of dismissal by Tribunal not to be interfered when the workman slowed work and instigated others also.
2009 LLR 146
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Award upholding termination of the petitioner on closure of the Scheme is not to be interfered.
2009 LLR 181
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Labour Court cannot direct parity of wages to workers engaged through the canteen contractor.
2009 LLR 143
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Legal heirs have no right to employer''s accommodation provided to deceased employee.
2009 LLR 122
DELHI HIGH COURT
On transfer of the establishment, both the transferor and the transferee are jointly liable for provident fund contributions.
2009 LLR 194
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Prosecution of an employer for non-payment of gratuity can be launched by any Government authorised person.
2009 LLR 159
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Reinstatement of a workman not paid retrenchment compensation on termination will not be interfered.
2009 LLR 153
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Termination of bus driver, though given contractual appointment, is not tenable .
2009 LLR 152
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tribunal erred in setting aside termination of a workman who obtained employment by furnishing false information.
2009 LLR 162
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Workman entitled to closure compensation cannot question employer''s motive for closing the establishment.
2009 LLR 141
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A strike in hospital is entirely different than in a factory hence must be condemned
2009 LLR 173
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Back wages on reinstatement not justified when the workman did not state that he was unemployed.
2009 LLR 202
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Contractor''s labour not to become employees of the principal employer merely on the basis of directions by the Asstt. Registrar of Trade Unions.
2009 LLR 125
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemplary costs and damages must be imposed when accommodation of employer is not returned after retirement.
2009 LLR 125
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Forfeiture of gratuity is not absolute but only when the employee has been dismissed for misconduct as specified in the Act.
2009 LLR 198
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Wages on reinstatement to be restricted since the workman failed to resume duties despite repeated reminders.
2009 LLR 213
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Object of declaring protected workmen is to protect the office bearers of the union against victimisation.
2009 LLR 187
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Once termination is held to be wrong, denial of back wages on reinstatement sans supporting reasons is not justified.
2009 LLR 191
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Resignation has been rightly presumed by Court when the workman, by absenting, has started setting up his own industry.
2009 LLR 208
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
When a workman is served with a chargesheet, holding of enquiry will be imperative even if he does not reply.
2009 LLR 146
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Closing down establishment after paying minimum wages on complaint is no illegality by the employer.
2009 LLR 141
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Courts can strike down defence of a party for non appearance in a case.
2009 LLR 140
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Criminal proceedings and domestic enquiry have different consequences.
2009 LLR 185
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Gratuity Act never intended that only Controlling Authority be approached for non-payment of gratuity.
2009 LLR 159
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
