Transfer of an employee can''t be faulted whennot actuated by mala fide.
2010 LLR 616
DELHI HIGH COURT
Award of back-wages will be improper when workman failed to file affidavit of unemployment.
2010 LLR 607
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Allowing back-wages and promotion on reinstatement is not proper.
2010 LLR 570
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Labour Court erred in awarding reinstatement when the employee remained absent for 90 days and abandoned his job.
2010 LLR 616
DELHI HIGH COURT
Appropriate Authority for dock workers is Central and not the State Government.
2010 LLR 581
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Transfer of a bank employee from one branch to another could not be faulted.
2010 LLR 616
DELHI HIGH COURT
For coverage under the Employees'' Provident Funds Act, the persons working on behalf of Chartered Accountant would not be counted.
2010 LLR 622
DELHI HIGH COURT
Approval for dismissal of a driver, causing a fatal accident for rash and negligent driving, is rightly declined by the Industrial Tribunal.
2010 LLR 624
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Even when an employee is under suspension, the bipartite agreement can be invoked.
2010 LLR 616
DELHI HIGH COURT
If performance of an Area Sales Manager is unsatisfactory during probation, reversion to original post will be appropriate
2010 LLR 586
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
An ex-parte Award will not be set aside on delay of 470 days.
2010 LLR 670
MADRAS HIGH COURT
In absence of determination of money, order passed by provident fund authority is to be quashed.
2010 LLR 612
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dismissal of a bus driver for unauthorised absence is right and justified.
2010 LLR 610
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
High Court will not grant relief to the workman proceeded ex-parte who did not justify his non-appearance.
2010 LLR 606
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Liability to pay provident fund contributions accrues only after it is determined by Authority.
2010 LLR 597
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
An aggrieved employer, by the orders of the Provident Fund Authority, can seek redressal by filing an appeal not writ petition.
2010 LLR 601
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Overtime payment for working on holidays would not be tenable without any supporting evidence.
2010 LLR 574
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Under section 11-A of the I.D. Act, Labour Court can modify the punishment only when it is shockingly disproportionate.
2010 LLR 600
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Labour Court erred in holding that the Junior Engineer was not a ''workman''.
2010 LLR 598
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Neither designation nor salary will be criterion for determination of ''workman''.
2010 LLR 672
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Levy of damages for delayed payment of provident fund contributions is not an absolute rule.
2010 LLR 670
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reinstatement of a daily-wager as awarded by Tribunal would not be interfered.
2010 LLR 669
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dismissal of a Bank Manager, who has acted beyond his authority, will not be interfered.
2010 LLR 667
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Employment injury of Chowkidar of cinema house will be presumed if dead body was found at workplace.
2010 LLR 667
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
An employer under Gratuity Act is one who has ultimate control over the affairs of mine.
2010 LLR 668
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Imposition of punishment depends upon the nature of work in which an employee is engaged.
2010 LLR 666
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
When an employer fails to pay gratuity within the prescribed period, the Magistrate can take cognizance.
2010 LLR 668
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
No employer-employee relationship will emerge in the absence of control & supervision.
2010 LLR 561
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Non-compliance of section 25-F of the I.D. Act will render the retrenchment nullity.
2010 LLR 627
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
No compensation will be payable without nexus between death and accident.
2010 LLR 633
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
50% instead of full back-wages will be appropriate on reinstatement of a workman.
2010 LLR 569
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
School''s Chairman cannot be prosecuted for default in payment of provident fund contributions.
2010 LLR 645
KERALA HIGH COURT
Setting aside Award of the Labour Court without even adverting to the facts is an error.
2010 LLR 627
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
50% back-wages would be appropriate when Cooperative Society is not financially sound.
2010 LLR 568
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
It is imaginary to presume that by absence of an employee, no loss is caused to employer.
2010 LLR 639
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Limitation for recovery of money will not be applicable when determined money is under section 45-A of ESI Act.
2010 LLR 636
DELHI HIGH COURT
High Court will not interfere in termination for habitual absence.
2010 LLR 648
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Area Sales Manager of a pharmaceutical company will not be a ''workman''.
2010 LLR 586
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dismissal of salesman, merely on confession without enquiry, would be invalid.
2010 LLR 663
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Absence, when habitual and continuous, would justify dismissal from service.
2010 LLR 656
DELHI HIGH COURT
Habitual absence for 127 and 196 days will justify dismissal from service.
2010 LLR 639
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Closure of an industrial establishment, without prior permission, will be invalid.
2010 LLR 641
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Setting aside dismissal of workmen after fair enquiry is wrong.
2010 LLR 603
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
An order, when not stigmatic, can''t be termed punishment.
2010 LLR 586
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Approval for dismissal of a workman during pendency of proceedings before the higher court will not be necessary.
2010 LLR 608
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Declining to grant approval for dismissal of a bus driver, that too after holding enquiry, would not be justified.
2010 LLR 652
DELHI HIGH COURT
A resignation can be withdrawn before its valid acceptance.
2010 LLR 659
DELHI HIGH COURT
Appropriate Government for cement industry will be Central and not the State.
2010 LLR 577
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
After filing writ, instead of paying last drawn wages, reinstated workman will get equal wages.
2010 LLR 571
DELHI HIGH COURT
An Assistant doing clerical job and checking the bills will be a ''workman''.
2010 LLR 614
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Retirement of workman, on attaining the age of superannuation, will not be termination.
2010 LLR 614
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Standard of proof required in criminal cases is not applicable in domestic enquiries.
2010 LLR 603
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Non-mentioning of date in the charge-sheet would not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings.
2010 LLR 603
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
