IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for May 2009

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Tribunal should rarely interfere with the punishment imposed by the Management.
2009 LLR 449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Industrial Court , under section 11A of the I.D. Act, is empowered to modify dismissal of a workman.
2009 LLR 449
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Temporary employees as dismissed for committing theft not entitled to any relief.
2009 LLR 452
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Equity in the hands of a judge is not an unguided instrument.
2009 LLR 452
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Maintaining integrity and honesty must rank a foremost concern in today''s troubled times.
2009 LLR 452
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Situs for challenging transfer is at a place wherefrom it was made
2009 LLR 456
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Unilaterally increasing working hours from 6 to 8 hours without compliance of section 9-A of the I.D. Act is not legal.
2009 LLR 461
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Compensation would be appropriate relief to a chowkidar who has lost confidence
2009 LLR 463
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement is not appropriate relief even on illegal termination of a chowkidar .
2009 LLR 463
DELHI HIGH COURT

 It is highly improbable that a chowkidar would not get alternative job for 14 years.
2009 LLR 463
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Whether a Staff Officer of the Bank is a ''workman'' or not is to be decided within two months.
2009 LLR 467
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Monthly relief @ Rs.30,000 will continue to be given even though she has been paid over Rs.9 lakhs.
2009 LLR 467
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Reinstatement, without deciding whether employee has worked for 240 days in the preceding 12 months, is not proper.
2009 LLR 469
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 25% back wages will be appropriate in the absence of proof of gainful employment of workman.
2009 LLR 471
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 A judgment, selectively quoting some portions of the evidence, is liable to be quashed.
2009 LLR 472
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement need not invariably be the relief hence compensation of Rs.1.5 lakh will be appropriate.
2009 LLR 472
DELHI HIGH COURT

 A judgment should be based on the entire and not the part evidence.
2009 LLR 472
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Challenging transfer from Delhi to Bhiwadi, the jurisdiction will be in Delhi .
2009 LLR 475
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Industrial Tribunal has rightly set aside transfer of employees actuated with mala fide
2009 LLR 475
DELHI HIGH COURT

 High Court will not be picking holes here and there in the Award on trivial points.
2009 LLR 475
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Striking off names by the employer, without issuing charge-sheets or holding of enquiry, will be illegal and hence liable to be set aside.
2009 LLR 475
DELHI HIGH COURT

 In the absence of specific contract of service, an employer has no inherent right to transfer the employees from one place to another.
2009 LLR 475
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Transfer of employees even on shifting is to be based on the conditions of service.
2009 LLR 475
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Nonpayment of retrenchment compensation at the time of termination will render it illegal.
2009 LLR 485
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Entitlement for back-wages on reinstatement can be only after demand notice.
2009 LLR 485
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Employment of a daily wager commences in morning and comes to an end in evening hence; equality can''t be claimed.
2009 LLR 485
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Awarding reinstatement of workman is not proper when the appointment was not approved.
2009 LLR 486
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of a bus driver for abusing the conductor rightly set aside in the absence of proper evidence.
2009 LLR 488
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 When an employee, despite notices of enquiry, fails to participate can''t allege that Management did not observe the formalities.
2009 LLR 491
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Final show-cause notice is not obligation before imposition of punishment.
2009 LLR 491
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Habitual absence amounts to serious misconduct and dismissal is justified.
2009 LLR 491
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement rightly denied by the Labour Court when the employee did not participate in the enquiry.
2009 LLR 491
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 An employee, placed under suspension, will be entitled to full salary for the suspension period after his acquittal.
2009 LLR 494
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 When termination is held illegal, back wages on reinstatement will not be automatic
2009 LLR 497
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Forfeiture of gratuity of an officer, failing to supervise control resulting in a loss of about Rs.1 crore to the employer, is justified.
2009 LLR 499
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement rightly denied despite termination for non compliance of section 25F of the I.D. Act
2009 LLR 501
DELHI HIGH COURT

 High Court will not interfere with the order of Labour Court in vitiating the enquiry.
2009 LLR 506
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 On filing appeal, the wages as by Controlling Authority directed are to be deposited.
2009 LLR 507
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Imposition of 5 times penalty on delayed payment of wages can''t be imposed when it is not a deduction.
2009 LLR 507
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Assistant Purchase Officer, engaged in supervisory capacity, is not a ''workman''.
2009 LLR 509
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Labour Court should not have vitiated an enquiry merely that the passengers, for whom the used ticket was used, were not examined.
2009 LLR 511
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 An employee, though working in a school, will be treated as employee of the Samiti when appointed by the latter.
2009 LLR 512
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 High Court erred in holding that employee as appointed by the Samiti was that of the school since under suspension was school employee
2009 LLR 512
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Labour Court rightly rejected industrial dispute when workman could not prove 240 days'' working.
2009 LLR 512
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Compensation Commissioner has rightly rejected the claim for compensation raised after 12 years of unexplained delay.
2009 LLR 517
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Prosecution of petitioners for non-deposit of PF contributions to be quashed since the contractor paid the wages.
2009 LLR 517
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Retrenchment of 15 workers on mere allegation of reduction of work is rightly set aside.
2009 LLR 519
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Once Compensation Commissioner stays recovery, interim order automatically lapses.
2009 LLR 523
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 An interim order would operate till the next date of hearing when the Court was not available.
2009 LLR 523
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 An existing benefit can be claimed under section 33-C (2) of the I.D. Act.
2009 LLR 524
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Undisputed back-wages, awarded on reinstatement, can be allowed by the Labour Court under section 33-C (2) of I.D. Act.
2009 LLR 525
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Government rightly rejected a dispute when the workman asking for regularisation did not give explanation for the delay.
2009 LLR 526
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 High Court is not to interfere with Award of Labour Court in setting aside dismissal.
2009 LLR 526
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of an employee for unauthorized absence from work, even after holding of enquiry, will not be tenable.
2009 LLR 529
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Deviation from Regulations of Board will vitiate enquiry and consequent dismissal.
2009 LLR 529
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of canteen clerk for not maintaining the account is not proper; when it was the responsibility of the Manager.
2009 LLR 532
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Payment of Gratuity Act is to be interpreted liberally consistent with the principles of equity and fair play.
2009 LLR 534
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 On failure of proof of employment, workman is entitled to relief u/s 17-B of I.D. Act.
2009 LLR 537
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 ''Res judicata '' is not applicable, when a dispute has been dismissed for default and not on merit.
2009 LLR 539
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 When an enquiry officer took the assistance of law officer as prosecution witness, the enquiry will be vitiated.
2009 LLR 540
PATNA HIGH COURT

 Death of a workman due to attack by wild elephant was an accident arising in course of employment.
2009 LLR 541
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 An employee has no right to claim benefits of VRS when his option is not accepted. (SN)
2009 LLR 545
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Labour Court should not decline to entertain claim for overtime u/s 33C (2) of I.D. Act. (SN)
2009 LLR 546
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Gratuity amount, if paid in excess than the entitlement, has to be refunded.(SN)
2009 LLR 547
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 No deduction can be made from gratuity even if employee was occupying quarter. (SN)
2009 LLR 547
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Dismissal for absence of more than 4 years will be justified. (SN)
2009 LLR 547
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Sanction of leave can''t be presumed merely on sending application.
2009 LLR 547
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Onus lies upon the employee to prove that he has actually sent an application for leave.(SN)
2009 LLR 547
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Absconding and not reporting without prior sanction of leave can''t be presumed that the employee was not permitted to join.
2009 LLR 547
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Industry survives on discipline and ought not to perish by undisciplined workers.
2009 LLR 552
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA