IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for May 2008

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 No violation of principles of natural justice can be alleged by the one who fails to participate in enquiry.
2008 LLR 449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Termination is not to be set aside when the employee failed to appear in the enquiry.
2008 LLR 449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Employment is to be restored since employee has been working for 13 years with notional breaks.
2008 LLR 450
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Non-disclosure of reason(s) for termination by oral order is highly arbitrary.
2008 LLR 450
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 When deceased workman died more than one km. away from the work-place, no compensation will be payable.
2008 LLR 451
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 When a workman files affidavit of unemployment, the employer has to prove to the contrary.
2008 LLR 455
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Ã¨ An enquiry under section 17-B of the I.D. Act is limited only to the extent of gainful employment of workman.
2008 LLR 455
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Acceptance of employee's resignation, after its withdrawal, will not be legal.
2008 LLR 456
PATNA HIGH COURT

 Hearing of an employee is imperative before making deduction from his gratuity.
2008 LLR 458
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Gratuity of an employee can be forfeited only under prescribed conditions.
2008 LLR 458
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Coverage under ESI by adding two persons, neither working directly nor through the contractor, is to be set aside.
2008 LLR 462
KERALA HIGH COURT

 On denial by employer, employing 10 or more persons, burden will be upon the ESIC.
2008 LLR 462
KERALA HIGH COURT

 No interference on reinstatement of conductor when his explanation for not filling up the way bill was accepted by Labour Court.
2008 LLR 467
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Bonus, Provident Fund and unpaid increments would not form part of minimum wages.
2008 LLR 468
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Onus is on employee to prove his claim for being paid lesser than fixed minimum wages.
2008 LLR 468
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 A printing press, employing nine employees, cannot be covered under the ESI Act.
2008 LLR 469
GAUHATI HIGH COURT

 No provident funds contribution on the back-wages if employee was not on duty.
2008 LLR 472
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 An enquiry will be valid even when no charge-sheet was issued.
2008 LLR 475
KERALA HIGH COURT

 An enquiry will not be vitiated even when employer has not appointed a presenting officer.
2008 LLR 475
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Compensation for accident was not proper when police report stated that the injuries were caused by falling from motor cycle.
2008 LLR 478
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 A complaint under Factories Act, after 90 days, is to be quashed
2008 LLR 480
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Condition for delay in filing complaint under Factories Act not permitted when no permission from Govt. is required.
2008 LLR 480
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of a workman, guilty of theft, is rightly upheld.
2008 LLR 483
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Levy of damages for delayed payment of P.F. contributions at uniform rate of 25% will not be legal.
2008 LLR 485
DELHI HIGH COURT

 A negligent driver cannot be thrusted by Court on the employer
2008 LLR 487
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 When the charge-sheet has been issued by authorised signatory, no irregularity can be inferred
2008 LLR 487
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 An enquiry cannot be branded as '˜perverse' without stating any reason thereof.
2008 LLR 487
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 An adjudicator cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence like Appellate Court.
2008 LLR 487
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Petroleum Corporation is not to pay ESI contributions for loaders & un-loaders by transporters.
2008 LLR 490
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Government must refer the dispute to decide validity of establishment's closure.
2008 LLR 495
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement has been rightly denied to Store Keeper-cum- Purchaser, guilty of misappropriation etc
2008 LLR 497
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Employees in clerical or ministerial services are not '˜workmen' under Workmen's Compensation Act.
2008 LLR 500
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Increment cannot be allowed in the absence of specific direction by the Labour Court.
2008 LLR 502
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Reason is heartbeat of every conclusion and without same, it becomes lifeless.
2008 LLR 503
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Unless a person is not heard for 7 years, no presumption about his death can be drawn.
2008 LLR 506
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Legal heirs of driver, absconding with vehicle, will not be entitled to compensation.
2008 LLR 506
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Canteen workers through contractor will have the status of regular employees.
2008 LLR 509
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Existence of control and supervision by principal employer over canteen workers through contractor, entitles them for regular status.
2008 LLR 509
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Even beyond 100 metres of the boundary of Company, the union and its members cannot picket or obstruct the vehicles.
2008 LLR 519
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Last drawn but not less than the minimum wages, will be payable during pendency of proceeding in higher Courts when employer not allows reinstatement to the workman.
2008 LLR 520
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 A Manager, discharging supervisory functions will not be a '˜workman'.
2008 LLR 521
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Complaint by workmen, after 13 months of receiving the benefits of VRS, is rightly rejected.
2008 LLR 523
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Setting aside of dismissal of bus conductor not proper, when un-punched tickets were recovered.
2008 LLR 525
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Adjudicator has to set out reasons for awarding relief to a dismissed workman.
2008 LLR 528
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Setting aside dismissal of a workman, when the charges proved and his past record of service was unsatisfactory, was erroneous.
2008 LLR 528
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Compensation to the dependents of the deceased scavengers, dying inside the sewer line due to toxic gases, is justified.
2008 LLR 532
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Employer's plea that deceased were drunk when died in sewer line was untenable.
2008 LLR 532
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Government cannot refuse to refer a dispute by a workman even after approval for his dismissal has been granted.
2008 LLR 536
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 It is the prerogative of employer to suspend the employee for disciplinary proceedings.
2008 LLR 539
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Amending certified standing orders by restricting suspension of a workman upto four days will curtail freedom of the Management.
2008 LLR 539
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Treatment of workman's suspension will depend on outcome of disciplinary proceedings.
2008 LLR 539
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Sales representatives, under Sales Promotion Employees (CoS) Act, will not be entitled to gratuity.
2008 LLR 541
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Continuation of prosecution of employer under Factories Act for death of worker is to be quashed for want of complaint.
2008 LLR 545
PATNA HIGH COURT

 There is no bar in holding simultaneous departmental proceedings with criminal case.
2008 LLR 547
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 A Godown keeper deserved punishment of dismissal when huge stock was missing.
2008 LLR 547
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 In criminal case, an accused is tried for alleged violation of law, against the society.
2008 LLR 547
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 On affidavit of the reinstated workman about unemployment, the employer will pay wages during pendency of the proceedings in higher Court.
2008 LLR 547
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 It is for workman to prove to have worked for 240 days in a year.
2008 LLR 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Compensation not reinstatement will be appropriate when no jobs could be provided.
2008 LLR 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 240 days working in preceding year is not imperative in UP Industrial Disputes Act.
2008 LLR 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Length of service and the availability of jobs etc. are the relevant factors for computing compensation in lieu of reinstatement.
2008 LLR 549
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Compulsory retirement will be appropriate punishment for shortage of wheat bags in the Storage Depot.
2008 LLR 553
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Termination will be illegal when neither retrenchment compensation was paid nor notice was given.
2008 LLR 555
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Compensation in lieu of reinstatement will be proper when the workman has rendered service for short period as daily wages.
2008 LLR 555
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA