IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for April 2012

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Review of provident fund order need not be in formal application.
2012 LLR 337
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Employer must be heard by EPF Authority hence ex-parte order will be set aside.
2012 LLR 337
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Leave application is either to be rejected or accepted.
2012 LLR 339
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Courts not to interfere with transfer.
2012 LLR 341
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Transfer once accepted can''t be challenged later. 
2012 LLR 341
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Disciplinary Authority is to give reason on disagreement with Enquiry Officer.
2012 LLR 343
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Delinquent employee is to be notified if Disciplinary Authority disagrees with Enquiry Officer.
2012 LLR 343
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Disciplinary Authority must notify the delinquent its disagreement with Enquiry Officer.
2012 LLR 343
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Compensation as awarded by Commissioner can''t be stalled on the ground that the deceased was not working as conductor.
2012 LLR 345
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Provident fund contributions are to be remitted within 15 days from the close of the month.
2012 LLR 347
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Employees'' Insurance Court is not empowered for deciding exemption of establishment.
2012 LLR 351
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Enquiry, if not held in the language known to delinquent, is to be vitiated.
2012 LLR 353
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Admissions during the proceedings before the court stand on a higher footing.
2012 LLR 353
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Reduction of damages for delayed deposit of EPF contributions only when delay is explained.
2012 LLR 357
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Overtime payment includes basic wages and allowances.
2012 LLR 358
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Acquittal is not a bar for holding enquiry.
2012 LLR 362
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Domestic Enquiry differs with criminal trial.
2012 LLR 362
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Dismissal for jeopardizing functioning of Public Transport is not to be interfered.
2012 LLR 368
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Absence of 20 months, without supporting proof of medical treatment, is unbelievable.
2012 LLR 368
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Withdrawal of resignation before communication of its acceptance is justified.
2012 LLR 370
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Compulsory retirement instead of dismissal is appropriate keeping in view the long service.
2012 LLR 374
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Abandonment cannot be presumed if an employee tenders resignation by giving 30 days'' notice.
2012 LLR 374
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Action on unproved documents is not legal.
2012 LLR 378
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 EPF Appellate Tribunal has definite duty to perform.
2012 LLR 379
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Compensation payable when the truck driver was found brutally murdered in the cabin of truck.
2012 LLR 381
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Accident compensation received from ESIC can''t be claimed further under Motor Vehicle Act.
2012 LLR 383
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Compensation is not proper when cleaner died in cross fire clash between nexalites and police.
2012 LLR 384
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Woman, sacked for stealing 11 chocolates, is to be reinstated.
2012 LLR 385
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement is proper when charge of theft not proved.
2012 LLR 385
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Employer cannot arbitrarily reject leave application.
2012 LLR 389
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Rejection of leave application is required to be informed to the workman.
2012 LLR 389
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Entitlement of leave is a valuable right of the employees.
2012 LLR 389
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Non submission of leave records would go against the Management.
2012 LLR 389
DELHI HIGH COURT

 An order, not passed by the Appropriate Authority, is unsustainable.
2012 LLR 392
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 EPF Act is not applicable to establishment under Cooperative Societies Act employing less than fifty persons.
2012 LLR 394
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Regional Provident Commissioner not empowered to exclude any establishment from the benefit of the Scheme under the Act.
2012 LLR 394
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Power to exclude any establishment from coverage under the Provident Fund Scheme is available to the Central Government only.
2012 LLR 394
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Ex-parte Award passed by the Labour Court to be set aside when appointing authority of the employee is not impleaded.
2012 LLR 397
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Contractor''s employees performing work of regular employees will be entitled to same rates of wages and holidays etc.
2012 LLR 399
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Similarities in nature of work are to be determined by Government.
2012 LLR 399
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Denial about employment by an employee is untenable when his name appears in attendance register. 
2012 LLR 404
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Para 26B of the EPF Scheme is applicable only when the dispute is between the employer and employee.
2012 LLR 404
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Recording of evidence in a particular matter is to be decided by the Labour Court .
2012 LLR 405
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Death of security guard by shifting motor cycle from school ground will justify accident compensation.
2012 LLR 412
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 On missing of link between the employment and accidental death, claim for compensation is not tenable.
2012 LLR 415
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Casual or temporary labour, if not connected with the normal work will not be counted for coverage of establishment under Provident Fund Act.
2012 LLR 416
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 A teacher is entitled to gratuity with retrospective effect.
2012 LLR 417
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Casual workers also entitled to maternity leave.
2012 LLR 420
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement of workman guilty of sexual harassment is to be set aside.
2012 LLR 422
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Provident Fund Authority can''t challenge the judgment of EPF Appellate Tribunal setting aside its order.
2012 LLR 427
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Benefits of full wages under section 17-B of the I.D. Act will be available if non approval of dismissal is challenged by employer.
2012 LLR 433
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 On rejection of approval of application, the dismissed workman would stand reinstated.
2012 LLR 433
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Approval for dismissal under section 33(2)(b) of I D Act amounts to determination of industrial dispute.
2012 LLR 433
GUJARAT HIGH COURT