Criminal and disciplinary proceedings can continue simultaneously in separate forums.
2024 LLR 237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Transfer between two same company owned establishments would not mean break in service for claiming gratuity.
2024 LLR 242
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Trade unions cannot be recognized as a matter of right under the Trade Unions Act.
2024 LLR 291
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Personal driver of a bank manager is not an employee of the Bank.
2024 LLR 249
DELHI HIGH COURT
Workman cannot raise individual dispute for regularization.
2024 LLR 266
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Employer cannot impose any punishment other than the one recommended by the ICC.
2024 LLR 263
KERALA HIGH COURT
Issuing of chargesheet does not change the service conditions of an employee.
2024 LLR 276
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Issuing garnishee order by the ESI Authorities without affording opportunity to be heard is im-proper.
2024 LLR 284
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Selecting employee for a lower post than the one advertised is unjustified.
2024 LLR 248
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Development Manager is not a 'workman' under the ID Act.
2024 LLR 255
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Suspension order cannot be considered to be a punishment.
2024 LLR 276
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Judicial Magistrate cannot take cognizance of offence in absence of sanction from the appropri-ate Government.
2024 LLR 273
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Calculating accident compensation on minimum wages is appropriate when deceased was paid per trip.
2024 LLR 282
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Email-communication cannot be termed as a contract admitting better terms of gratuity.
2024 LLR 242
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Refusal to refer dispute after 20 years delay is proper.
2024 LLR 261
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
ESI Court, under section 75 of the ESI Act, has superior and original jurisdiction to decide all questions.
2024 LLR 282
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
No discharge from departmental proceedings on acquittal from criminal case
2024 LLR 237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
No reinstatement can be granted by the Civil Court under the Specific Relief Act.
2024 LLR 269
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
It is not mandatory to impose 100% penalty under section 14B of the EPF Act.
2024 LLR 301
KERALA HIGH COURT
Mere delay in allotment of code number would not lead to imposition of interest and damages.
2024 LLR 306
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Director not responsible for conduct of business cannot be summoned in criminal case.
2024 LLR 297
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Filing counter affidavit by the EPFO after 11 months of filing appeal before the Tribunal is un-warranted.
2024 LLR 303
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
EPF Authority can only reduce and not waive of damages altogether.
2024 LLR 294
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Persons who retired on attaining the age of superannuation, which is higher than 55 years, can-not be treated as ' 'excluded employees' '.
2024 LLR 317
KERALA HIGH COURT
EPF Authority, who passed the order in adjudication, cannot challenge the order of the Tribunal.
2024 LLR 333
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Setting aside of attachment order is proper during pendency of appeal.
2024 LLR 303
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Timely deposit of contribution but delay in uploading the same by the EPF Authority is improper.
2024 LLR 309
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Quashing criminal proceedings against employer pending since last 13 years for Rs.4,000 fine upon depositing Rs.11,000 with the Authorities is proper.
2024 LLR 321
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Principal employer should pay the PF dues to the contractual employees.
2024 LLR 323
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment of damages and interest cannot be made for pre-discovery period.
2024 LLR 306
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Section 14A of the EPF Act provides for vicarious liability.
2024 LLR 297
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Order that merely provides for mens rea but does not discuss reasons for delay in remit-tance and reduction of damages is liable to be set aside.
2024 LLR 343
KERALA HIGH COURT
Private employment contracts cannot be assailed under Writ jurisdiction.
2024 LLR WEB 93
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Maternity benefits are available to all women employees irrespective of whether they are permanent or contractual employees working in commercial establishments.
2024 LLR WEB 94
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Acceptance of Voluntary Retirement of employee is subject to compliance of proper procedure and cannot be accepted in haste.
2024 LLR WEB 96
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
After receiving all retiral benefits, regular pension cannot be claimed.
2024 LLR WEB 98
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
For an application under section 17B to succeed, there must be an affidavit by the workman, stating that he has not been employed in any establishment during such period.
2024 LLR WEB 100
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
When the charge is proved and misconduct is upheld by the Labour Court, exercise of discretionary power and modifying the order of dismissal is unsustainable in law.
2024 LLR WEB 104
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Appropriate Government must ensure that terms of reference reflect the stand of both parties.
2024 LLR WEB 105
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Right to reject the items brought from job contractors for wanting any quality of work as per job specification by the principal employer cannot be said to be an act of supervision by him.
2024 LLR WEB 106
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
After recording that the inquiry proceedings were held in a fair manner, Tribunal has no power to modify punishment.
2024 LLR WEB 111
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Workman has to prove that even if considerable period has lapsed in challenging the dismissal, such delay has not resulted in making the industrial dispute cease to exist.
2024 LLR WEB 112
KARNATAK HIGH COURT
Special jurisdiction of the High Court can be invoked in matters of oral termination even if alternative efficacious remedy is available.
2024 LLR WEB 113
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Application for seeking declaration of 'Protected Workman' cannot be accepted beyond prescribed date.
2024 LLR WEB 114
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Payment of salary and control over work done are important factors for determining 'employer-employee' relationship.
2024 LLR WEB 116
DELHI HIGH COURT
Award of reinstatement with continuity of service by itself does not entitle the employee for notional increments for the period during which he was out of service.
2024 LLR WEB 117
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Labour Court cannot go into the issue of whether the workman was entitled to wages of regular employee in an application under section 33C(2).
2024 LLR WEB 118
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
No workman is entitled to claim any subsistence amount from employer post acceptance of his VR Application.
2024 LLR WEB 119
DELHI HIGH COURT
Cause of action to raise the industrial dispute before the Labour Court arises on the date of dismissal.
2024 LLR WEB 102
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Termination of a person for 'continued ill health', who suffered disability to the extent of 75%, would not amount to retrenchment.
2024 LLR WEB 103
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Withholding and forfeiture of Bank Officer's gratuity for recklessly financing loans is proper.
2024 LLR WEB 109
PATNA HIGH COURT
Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general rule and cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
2024 LLR WEB 110
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Remuneration of a piece rated worker falls under the definition of 'wages' under the ID Act.
2024 LLR WEB 120
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Management has the right to adduce fresh evidence to substantiate charges of misconduct by making a specific plea to the effect in the written statement.
2024 LLR WEB 121
DELHI HIGH COURT
When resting period was not fixed, but was spread over a period of 12 hours in a shift, the worker cannot claim overtime by saying that he worked over and above 8/9 hours.
2024 LLR WEB 122
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Period of notice for claiming wages is to be excluded when computing the period of limitation.
2024 LLR WEB 123
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prolonged employment of casual labour is not a ground sufficient enough to sustain a claim for regularization.
2024 LLR WEB 124
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
For attracting the provisions under Section 14-B of the Act, there must be default coupled with the arrears.
2024 LLR WEB 125
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
If the Tribunal determines that there is no espousal of the dispute, it loses jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, as it can only arbitrate industrial disputes.
2024 LLR WEB 126
DELHI HIGH COURT
Nothing contained in the Standing Orders can operate in derogation or to the prejudice of the provisions as provided in the contract of service.
2024 LLR WEB 127
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Employer cannot withhold employee's gratuity on mere assumption that he may be found guilty in any ongoing proceedings being initiated against him.
2024 LLR WEB 129
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Writ of Mandamus would lie against an order passed under section 12(5) if reference was refused without according any reasons.
2024 LLR WEB 130
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Employer-employee relationship cannot be established merely by relying on ESI card.
2024 LLR WEB 131
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Section 36 of the ID Act does not contain any stipulation that the representative of the workman must also be a workman from the same establishment.
2024 LLR WEB 132
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Union cannot file complaints before Industrial Court in respect of individual grievance of isolated employee posted in different parts of country.
2024 LLR WEB 133
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The contractor and not the principal employer will be liable to pay retrenchment compensation if the terms of agreement provide so.
2024 LLR WEB 134
DELHI HIGH COURT
Coercive action to be stayed when CGIT has no Presiding Officer and the Link Officer is not able to hold regular sitting.
2024 LLR 346
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Provisions of Limitation Act are not applicable over the EPF Act.
2024 LLR 305
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Increasing superannuation age from 58 to 60 mandates providing a prior notice under section 9A.
2024 LLR WEB 95
MADRAS HIGH COURT
An illegal closing down can amount to retrenchment/layoff.
2024 LLR WEB 97
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Section 12(3) of Act cannot be used as source of power to recover money from Workman.
2024 LLR WEB 99
MADRAS HIGH COURT
When a workman is reinstated into service by award of a Labour Court, he is entitled for the wages under Section 33C of the ID Act.
2024 LLR WEB 101
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maximum penalty cannot be imposed on the employer when the workman has himself moved the claim after a delay of 8 years.
2024 LLR WEB 107
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
If the demands of workmen are perverse or frivolous and do not merit reference, the appropriate Government may refuse to refer the same.
2024 LLR WEB 108
DELHI HIGH COURT
Termination letter must record reasons as to why the services of the employee were terminated.
2024 LLR WEB 115
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Merely because the contractual employee worked under the directions and supervision of the principal employer would not make the contract sham and bogus.
2024 LLR WEB 128
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
