IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for April 2010

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Even though workmen have not worked for 240 days but a compromise, between workmen and Management, cannot be overlooked.
2010 LLR 337
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 For change in date of birth, authenticity of Municipality will prevail.
2010 LLR 338
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Last drawn wages during pendency of proceedings in the higher court are available to the workman only when he is not reinstated.
2010 LLR 341
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Compensation instead of reinstatement would be appropriate when worker has worked for short period.
2010 LLR 342
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Bonus was rightly granted when the employer failed to produce the record.
2010 LLR 344
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 50% back-wages would be appropriate when retrenchment compensation was not paid to the workman at the time of his termination.
2010 LLR 346
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Non furnishing of enquiry report will not vitiate punishment when delinquent employee failed to state any prejudice.
2010 LLR 348
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 It is imperative on the employee to show prejudice in enquiry to prove violation of natural justice.
2010 LLR 348
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Setting aside the punishment, presuming that prejudice would have been caused to the delinquent, is erroneous.
2010 LLR 348
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Absence of exit interview of an employee opting for voluntary retirement will not render the acceptance illegal.
2010 LLR 357
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 A complaint would be quashed when offence was not committed within territorial jurisdiction.
2010 LLR 359
PATNA HIGH COURT

 A bus conductor holds a fiduciary post hence misappropriation would be treated seriously.
2010 LLR 362
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Removal of bus conductor is proper for non entering way-bill and allowing ticket-less passengers.
2010 LLR 362
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Failure to deposit provident fund contributions deducted from employees amounts to misappropriation.
2010 LLR 365
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Casual workers, not appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, would not be regularised.
2010 LLR 366
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Employees engaged in loading/unloading even outside factory premises will be covered under ESI Act.
2010 LLR 369
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 No illegality in the demand by ESI when no documentary evidence has been led by the employer.
2010 LLR 369
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 A workman not reinstated but only regularised; would not be entitled to last drawn wages.
2010 LLR 370
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 An offence committed under section 630 of the Companies Act for unauthorised retention of company''s property is a continuing one.
2010 LLR 373
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Under section 23 of Payment of Wages Act, a settlement of dispute between parties is not prohibited.
2010 LLR 374
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be appropriate when the appointment was not against prescribed procedure.
2010 LLR 375
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 A doctor engaged in diagnosis and treatment of patients will not be a ''workman''.
2010 LLR 376
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Interference by civil courts in transfer matters of private employment will amount to enforcement of personal contracts.
2010 LLR 378
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Demanding provident fund contributions, without giving opportunity to employer, will not be proper.
2010 LLR 380
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Special allowance and ex-gratia paid under settlement will not be part of ''wages'' for PF contributions.
2010 LLR 382
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 A firm of Chartered Accountants with16 employees and 12 articled clerks will be covered under provident fund.
2010 LLR 385
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Waiver of 75% assessed amount by EPF Tribunal, without giving any reason, is not proper.
2010 LLR 387
KERALA HIGH COURT

 When a driver has suffered 45% disability, it will be treated as total disablement for compensation.
2010 LLR 388
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement with 50% back-wages to a daily wager is justified.
2010 LLR 390
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Setting aside reinstatement of a workman when the employer did not challenge for other workers will be erroneous.
2010 LLR 390
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 No compensation pay when accident has taken place beyond one kilometre of the establishment.
2010 LLR 393
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement rightly awarded to a bus driver whose guilt of assaulting Assistant Engineer was not proved.
2010 LLR 394
DELHI HIGH COURT

 25% back-wages would be appropriate since it is hardly believable that a driver will remain idle for long period.
2010 LLR 394
DELHI HIGH COURT

 No clubbing of establishments for coverage under the EPF Act proper when no functional integrality existed.
2010 LLR 397
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Even after settlement, a workman, not reinstated, can raise dispute for implementation.
2010 LLR 402
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Failure of trade union to produce record for 10 years clearly shows it is not competent to represent workmen.
2010 LLR 403
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Appointment obtained by misrepresentation will be void ab initio.
2010 LLR 405
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Diocese of the Church of North India will not be an ''industry''.
2010 LLR 407
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Evangelist, whose activities are dedicated not by contract but by conscience, will not be a ''workman''.
2010 LLR 407
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Industrial Tribunal is empowered to entertain a dispute about transfer of an employee.
2010 LLR 411
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 For claiming compensation for injury, an insured employee has only one forum under ESI Act.
2010 LLR 412
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Casual workers are rightly held to be entitled for gratuity.
2010 LLR 414
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Disobedience of transfer order will amount to misconduct to justify dismissal.
2010 LLR 418
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Transfer of an employee from one place to another is an incident of service.
2010 LLR 418
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 A junior officer who has mainly been discharging clerical duties will be a ''workman''
2010 LLR 418
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Transfer of an employee from one place to another will not be violative of section 9-A of ID Act.
2010 LLR 418
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Termination of workman for disobeying the transfer order will be justified.
2010 LLR 418
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of a workman will not be interfered when remedy is available under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2010 LLR 426
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Fairness of enquiry is to be decided by Labour Court.
2010 LLR 426
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 An office-bearer of Union has no immunity from transfer particularly when there is no mala fide.
2010 LLR 430
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 An office-bearer of the Trade Union has to play a major constructive role in smooth functioning of the organisation.
2010 LLR 430
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 An order of transfer of an employee from one place to another is not to be interfered by High Court.
2010 LLR 430
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Non compliance of transfer to a distance of 1.5 km. reflects arrogance of bank employee.
2010 LLR 430
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 A daily-wager, on reinstatement by an Award, will not be entitled to back-wages.
2010 LLR 434
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Reduction of earned leave from 32 to 18 is not valid in the absence of ''notice of change''.
2010 LLR 435
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 While seeking any change as stipulated in the Fourth Schedule, statutory provisions for a notice are to be complied with.
2010 LLR 435
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Ex-gratia payment made to the dependents of deceased would not be treated accident compensation.
2010 LLR 440
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Reviewing of its decision is not open to the Labour Court when litigation is between the same parties.
2010 LLR 448
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT