Reinstatement of workmen, when their termination is held to be illegal, not to be automatic.
2009 LLR 226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A driver, engaged by a Bank executive who pays him salary after reimbursement, will not become employee of the bank
2009 LLR 321
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dismissal of a workman for unauthorised absence, after holding an enquiry, will be proper.
2009 LLR 225
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A senior employee cannot be paid salary less than his juniors.
2009 LLR 318
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Forfeiture of 50% back wages on reinstatement for unauthorized absence and for indiscipline is justified.
2009 LLR 230
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
While dismissing a bank employee, the disciplinary authority has to state the supporting reasons.
2009 LLR 252
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Relationship of employer and employee will be presumed when the engaged employees worked under the control of Company.
2009 LLR 226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Burden of proof of unemployment is on the workman; not on employer.
2009 LLR 230
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Reinstatement would be appropriate when a bank employee is dismissed without proper enquiry.
2009 LLR 252
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Back wages on reinstatement to a bus conductor concealing his antecedents for getting job not proper.
2009 LLR 239
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Back wages on reinstatement is not a rule; it can be full, partial or nil.
2009 LLR 226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Launching of prosecution against Directors for non-payment of provident fund contributions is illegal.
2009 LLR 259
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Representation of a workman in an enquiry through other person than co-employee is not an absolute right.
2009 LLR 246
DELHI HIGH COURT
Transfer of an employee from one place to another is an incident of service.
2009 LLR 261
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
ESI Scheme will be applicable to establishment preparing sweets with the aid of LPG
2009 LLR 282
KERALA HIGH COURT
Termination of workman having worked for over 18 years with notional breaks is to be set aside.
2009 LLR 275
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the punishment as imposed by the employer for proved charges of grave and serious nature.
2009 LLR 289
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
When maximum probationary period is stipulated in a settlement, employer can''t circumvent it by letter of extension.
2009 LLR 309
KERALA HIGH COURT
A principal employer under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act has to ensure that contractor''s workers are paid minimum wages.
2009 LLR 316
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Relationship of employer and employee is a question of fact which can be decided only by adjudication.
2009 LLR 226
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
High Court will not interfere with powers of Labour Court under section 11-A of the I.D. Act.
2009 LLR 301
MADRAS HIGH COURT
A charitable or religious trust of old Temples not to be covered by the Provident Funds Act
2009 LLR 295
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A mess in the Railway School for consumption of food by the trainees will be an ''industry''.
2009 LLR 249
DELHI HIGH COURT
Compensation Commissioner rightly concluded that the victim was totally cured of the injury hence death of the workman was not outcome of said injury.
2009 LLR 280
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Coverage of a college under Provident Funds Act will not be set aside when the Principal singed list of 33 employees.
2009 LLR 299
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
During pendency of proceedings in the High Court, the reinstated workman not paid less than minimum wages.
2009 LLR 251
DELHI HIGH COURT
Government can refer a dispute to the Labour Court at ''any time''.
2009 LLR 277
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
High Court will not interfere when both courts below upheld the punishment.
2009 LLR 313
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
In writ, the plea of gainful employment of workman not relevant; if not taken before the Tribunal.
2009 LLR 237
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Labour Court erred by interfering with the findings of enquiry when it was not challenged by the respondent-nurse.
2009 LLR 289
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Prosecution for non-payment of contributions will not be tenable when EI Court has granted stay.
2009 LLR 284
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reinstatement of an employee is justified when employer''s plea that she was a contractor is not proved.
2009 LLR 233
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Seeking reference of a dispute by an employee after his superannuation has been rightly rejected.
2009 LLR 262
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Termination for unauthorised absence of petitioner is set aside when no details of absence are given
2009 LLR 307
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
When an enquiry is vitiated, the Tribunal has to provide opportunity to the Management to lead evidence.
2009 LLR 243
DELHI HIGH COURT
When change in date of birth is sought within two years of joining, request can''t be rejected.
2009 LLR 263
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
When the original resignation was not produced by the employer the reference for adjudication is proper.
2009 LLR 266
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A uniform and transparent policy of transfer should have objective criteria in a Road Transport Corporation.
2009 LLR 261
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
An employer can''t escape liability for payment of compensation for the murder of autorickshaw driver.
2009 LLR 287
KERALA HIGH COURT
Back wages rightly denied when the workman failed to prove that she was not on gainful employment during interregnum.
2009 LLR 233
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Before directing ten times compensation for paying of less than minimum wages, employer needs an opportunity.
2009 LLR 286
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Denial of back-wages on reinstatement will not deprive workman for pensionary/retiral benefits.
2009 LLR 301
MADRAS HIGH COURT
For Head Office as covered under Shops Act, Industrial Employment (S.O.) Act not applicable.
2009 LLR 293
KERALA HIGH COURT
Industrial Tribunal has erred in holding a pilot to be a workman merely that in earlier disputes it has been so held.
2009 LLR 243
DELHI HIGH COURT
It is for the Authority under Payment of Wages Act to decide applicability of the Act
2009 LLR 265
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
No illegality when the workman is refused to be represented by the president of the union in enquiry.
2009 LLR 246
DELHI HIGH COURT
Processing for pasteurizing milk and its products is covered under the Minimum Wages Act.
2009 LLR 316
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reference of dispute for adjudication is the function of the Government.
2009 LLR 266
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Regional Director of ESI after recovering contributions has to give an opportunity to the employer to complete formalities for claiming benefits.
2009 LLR 314
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
The word ''otherwise'' will also include a university and school for coverage of educational institutes under ESI.
2009 LLR 265
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
When the insurance policy for accident did not restrict the liability for interest; the insurer can''t escape the liability.
2009 LLR 329
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A resignation is different from retrenchment or voluntary retirement since resignation is the volition of the employee.
2009 LLR 266
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deposit of 75% of amount due is a pre-condition under Provident Fund Act for maintaining appeal.
2009 LLR 298
KERALA HIGH COURT
It is not open to the Labour Court to reject workman''s dispute on ground of limitation.
2009 LLR 277
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Labour Court is right to reject the dispute of workmen alleging wrongful termination after working 7-8 years.
2009 LLR 270
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Res judicata is not applicable while reconsidering to refer a dispute rejected earlier
2009 LLR 266
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
The claim of the workman as based on existing right is rightly allowed under section 33-C(2) of the I.D. Act
2009 LLR 294
KERALA HIGH COURT
Mere acceptance of provident fund amount will not disentitle workmen to their claim before the Labour Court , as there is no estoppel .
2009 LLR 327
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dismissal for misconduct not being major will be shockingly disproportionate.
2009 LLR 328
DELHI HIGH COURT
Termination of the workmen in violation of section 25-N of the I.D. Act is to be set aside. (SN)
2009 LLR 327
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Workmen having not worked for seven years, are not entitled to get back wages on the principle of ''No work, No pay''.
2009 LLR 327
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Removal of an officer after successive four show cause notices but without holding enquiry will not be sustainable.
2009 LLR 332
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Seeking change in the date of birth at fag end of the career by an employee will not be permissible. (SN)
2009 LLR 330
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Disciplinary action under CC&A Rules not sustainable when Industrial Employment (SO) Act is applicable.(SN)
2009 LLR 332
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Legality of transfer can be challenged at the place where the employee has been working. (SN)
2009 LLR 331
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Wrong date of birth recorded because there were two persons with the same name needed correction.
2009 LLR 330
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Copies of the documents of the school being private required to be proved by direct evidence. (SN)
2009 LLR 333
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
