IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for February 2009

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 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

 An employer can''t escape liability of last drawn wages to a workman during pendency of the proceeding merely because the establishment is closed.
2009 LLR 155
GUJARAT 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