IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for February 2015

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 High Court can order change in labour laws.
2015 LLR 113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Embezzlement is a serious misconduct on the part of a Cashier.
2015 LLR 119
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 When a party produces a letter/document for the first time before Division Bench of the High Court purportedly written by that party itself to the opposite party demanding certain documents for his defence, alleging non-supply of the documents, whereas the opposite party denies receipt of the same, onus shifts upon the party who has produced the document to establish the fact i.e. to prove the very document.
2015 LLR 121
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Unless Criminal Court honourably acquits the employee, enquiry can proceed.
2015 LLR 121
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Setting aside of dismissal, on the ground that the delinquent is deprived of his livelihood, is erroneous.
2015 LLR 121
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Pension and Gratuity are not bounty to be distributed by the employer.
2015 LLR 126
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 A school, employing 20 or more employees, is covered under PF Act.
2015 LLR 128
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Provident Fund Act would continue to apply even if the number of employees becomes less than 20.
2015 LLR 130
DELHI HIGH COURT

 For coverage of an establishment under Provident Fund Act, the regular, temporary and casual employees are counted.
2015 LLR 130
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement is not justified when employer-employee relationship is not proved.
2015 LLR 137
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Major ingredients to establish relationship of employer-employee are appointment letter, etc.
2015 LLR 137
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Different branches in different places would be treated as one for coverage under the Provident Fund Act.
2015 LLR 139
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Financial, managerial and functional integrality between the different units, shall be treated as one single unit.
2015 LLR 139
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Regulations framed by the employer cannot supercede the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
2015 LLR 142
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Payment of gratuity and pension are in the nature of ''property''.
2015 LLR 142
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Workers of a licensed contractor of employer registered under CLRA Act not to be employees of principal employer.
2015 LLR 145
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 240 days working in preceding year is must for challenging termination.
2015 LLR 149
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Murder of a watch-man, while on duty, by miscreants would justify claim for accident compensation.
2015 LLR 155
TRIPURA HIGH COURT

 Daily-rated employee is ''workman'' under Employees'' Compensation Act.
2015 LLR 155
TRIPURA HIGH COURT

 An employee, after acceptance of resignation and his payment, can''t challenge it.
2015 LLR 156
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement with back wages justified when retrenchment compensation not paid.
2015 LLR 158
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Non-compliance of section 25F of the ID Act would render the termination illegal.
2015 LLR 158
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable in industrial disputes.
2015 LLR 160
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Non-payment of retrenchment compensation does not necessarily attract reinstatement of a workman.
2015 LLR 160
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Reinstatement is not feasible if employer has wound up business.
2015 LLR 160
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Lump sum compensation, instead of reinstatement after long span of litigation, is appropriate.
2015 LLR 160
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 EPF Authority cannot challenge when its order is quashed by EPF Appellate Tribunal.
2015 LLR 164
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 An ex-parte award to be set aside if notice was not served.
2015 LLR 166
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Pre-deposit of damages not required for filing appeal in EPF Tribunal.
2015 LLR 167
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Non-reporting for duty at the place of transfer would be treated as abandonment of service.
2015 LLR 169
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement not justified when workman did not join on transfer.
2015 LLR 169
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Inordinate delay in raising an industrial dispute can be fatal.
2015 LLR 171
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Interference in an Award only when it is arbitrary or perverse.
2015 LLR 171
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Protection of Industrial Disputes Act not available to the workman failing to prove 240 days of working.
2015 LLR 174
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Recovery of PF dues is not justified before the prescribed period of filing appeal in EPF Tribunal.
2015 LLR 175
KERALA HIGH COURT

 No sympathy should be shown in matters of misappropriation.
2015 LLR 179
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Tampering of documents, causing financial loss to the employer by an employee, is a serious misconduct.
2015 LLR 179
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 The amount may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.
2015 LLR 179
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Quantum of punishment is exclusively within the jurisdiction of employer.
2015 LLR 179
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Failing to avail relief in civil court would not entitle a workman to avail remedy under ID Act.
2015 LLR 185
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 On infringement of Standing Orders or Industrial Disputes Act, the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred.
2015 LLR 185
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 A document not proved before the Labour Court cannot be made a valid evidence before the Writ Court.
2015 LLR 188
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement not justified when theft is proved in a valid enquiry.
2015 LLR 191
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

 No automatic confirmation on expiry of a probationer in absence of deeming clause.
2015 LLR 193
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Termination of services of a probationer is not illegal.
2015 LLR 193
GUJARAT HIGH COURT