IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for February 2010

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Right to receive gratuity cannot be denied by any contract.
2010 LLR 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to decide a suit challenging transfer by employee.
2010 LLR 192
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 For determination of a ''workman'', the dominant nature of duties is main criterion.
2010 LLR 200
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Acquittal of a bank employee in a criminal trial, will not invalidate departmental enquiry.
2010 LLR 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Exemption from Gratuity Act can be granted for employees getting more favourable gratuity.
2010 LLR 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 50% instead of full wages, on reinstatement, would be proper.
2010 LLR 115
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Contractor and not principal employer will pay the cess for construction workers.
2010 LLR 184
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Dismissal for dishonesty, fraud or misappropriation should not be interfered by courts.
2010 LLR 152
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of bus conductor should not have been set aside on proved misappropriation.
2010 LLR 116
DELHI HIGH COURT

 A probationer''s services can be terminated during or on the expiry of probation period.
2010 LLR 127
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Unless specifically waived, entitlement of gratuity cannot be denied.
2010 LLR 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Welfare statutes like Gratuity Act must receive a liberal construction.
2010 LLR 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Gratuity Act does not confer jurisdiction to Controlling Authority to deal with any issue under S.4 (5) of the Act.
2010 LLR 193
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Model Standing Orders can be modified for certification.
2010 LLR 175
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Majority of workers can ask the employer to be declared as a recognised trade Union.
2010 LLR 165
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Rejection of an appeal by the same disciplinary authority, by employee asking for reconsideration of his removal from service, will not be proper.
2010 LLR 123
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Principal employer will be liable to ensure deposit of ESI & PF contributions for employees engaged through contractor.
2010 LLR 120
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Withdrawal of option for VR is rightly denied if employee has accepted all retiral benefits.
2010 LLR 124
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement of workman will not be tenable when the Department is not an ''industry''.
2010 LLR 125
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 For ESI contributions, transferor and transferee will be jointly and severally liable.
2010 LLR 155
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Union , having a large membership, shall be recognised as the representative-Union.
2010 LLR 165
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Reference of a dispute is not sustainable when a settlement is in operation.
2010 LLR 158
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Industrial Disputes Act ensures harmonious relationship between employers and employees.
2010 LLR 158
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Coverage of an establishment under ESI Act, not employing 20 or more employees, is to be set aside.
2010 LLR 131
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Approval of dismissal for unauthorised absence is to be declined when employer lacked bona fides .
2010 LLR 138
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Commissioner under the Act is empowered to increase the amount of compensation.
2010 LLR 143
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 No compensation for an accident will be payable by ESIC when deceased was not an insured employee.
2010 LLR 145
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Personal Financial Officer of the Bank cannot be ''workman''.
2010 LLR 200
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Transfer of employee from Hyderabad to an upcoming establishment will not be illegal.
2010 LLR 175
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Liability for payment of cess not excluded when nature of construction activity undertaken to commission pertains to a refinery. 
2010 LLR 184
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 High Court will be reluctant to entertain petitions challenging transfer.
2010 LLR 175
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Recognising a particular union, by employer, will amount to interference.
2010 LLR 165
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Escaped amount of provident fund contributions cannot be recovered without evidence.
2010 LLR 151
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Labour Court should not interfere with removal of an employee for fraud and misappropriation.
2010 LLR 152
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Retrenchment compensation is to be calculated @ 15 days'' wages for every month comprising 30 days.
2010 LLR 159
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Definition of ''factory'' under EPF&MP Act is entirely different from ESI Act.
2010 LLR 131
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Death of a driver, while receiving injuries on duty will be employment accident for compensation.
2010 LLR 135
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Section 53 of ESI Act debars from receiving accident compensation other than the ESIC.
2010 LLR 145
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 A bus conductor receiving fare and not issuing tickets is not to be reinstated.
2010 LLR 116
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Transfer of an employee is purely incidental to employment itself.
2010 LLR 175
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Management is not expected to interfere with the right of workmen to organise into a Trade Union.
2010 LLR 165
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Prosecution of an employer for not maintaining canteen is unjustified when 250 workers were not employed.
2010 LLR 148
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Death of a driver after one month of the accident will be an employment accident for compensation.
2010 LLR 135
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 In the absence of substantial question of law, writ against Compensation Commissioner will not be entertained.
2010 LLR 143
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Setting aside termination of a probationer is erroneous when his performance is unsatisfactory.
2010 LLR 127
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Even when use of abusive language is proved, it is yet to be reconsidered.
2010 LLR 142
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Reduction of 100% earning capacity for compensation will be presumed when the worker''s leg was amputated.
2010 LLR 224
DELHI HIGH COURT

 No amount from gratuity can be adjusted.
2010 LLR 220
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Amount of gratuity cannot be withheld except for prescribed misconducts.
2010 LLR 220
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Enquiry will be vitiated when no evidence was led by the department despite opportunity.
2010 LLR 220
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Whenever an employee is charged by the employer for specific misconduct, the onus is on the employer to prove the charges.
2010 LLR 221
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Even when the delinquent does not cooperate in the enquiry, the opposite parties are not absolved from proving the charges.
2010 LLR 221
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Existence of mens-rea and actus reus to contravene a statutory provision must also be held to be a necessary ingredient for levy of damages.
2010 LLR 219
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 High Court will not interfere with arithmetical calculations of the amount of gratuity.
2010 LLR 219
BOMBAY HIGH COURT— AURANGABAD BENCH

 Unexplained delay of four years for filing writ will not be tenable.
2010 LLR 218
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Writ petition is liable to be dismissed for unexplained delay and well reasoned Award.
2010 LLR 217
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Paying salary of Rs.27/- p.m. to an employee is not only condemnable but also a clear violation of human rights.
2010 LLR 217
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 If any vacancy arises, the retrenched worker has the right for re-employment.
2010 LLR 221
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Last drawn wages during pendency of the proceedings will be not payable when employer-employee relationship not established.
2010 LLR 126
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT