Determination of amount by EPF authority based on report of Enforcement Officer not sustainable.
2017 LLR 762 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Employer is responsible to recover the employees share of contribution.
2017 LLR 761 PATNA HIGH COURT
Amendment in any of the Schemes even with retrospective effect not illegal.
2017 LLR 760 PATNA HIGH COURT
Any retrospective amendment in the Schemes is not illegal.
2017 LLR 758 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Determined amount can be recovered from the employer even before expiry of stipulated period of filing appeal. and Provident Fund Act aims to promoting welfare of weaker section of the society
2017 LLR 751 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ against order of RPFC not tenable when the appropriate forum is filing appeal.
2017 LLR 749 KERALA HIGH COURT
Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant not liable to pay provident fund dues of the employees of the Malaria Workers Welfare Association.
2017 LLR 746 HYDERABAD HIGH COURT
Purchaser of part of establishment in auction not liable to pay PF dues by the transfer.
2017 LLR 744 HYDERABAD HIGH COURT
Damages to be reduced in the absence of actus reus and financial crises faced by employer.
2017 LLR 742 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The EPF Appellate Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay maximum of 120 days. and Limitation Act does not apply for filing appeal before EPF Tribunal. and Time spent in writ proceedings may be excluded for calculation of limitation period for filing appeal. and Appeal is to be filed within 60 days but Tribunal can extend it for another 60 days on reasons.
2017 LLR 738 PATNA HIGH COURT
Exemption by bank with branches in various States will be effective from the date of application. and No premium is to be refunded to employees who have left the services. and Refund of money by EPFO to the employer will be with interest. and EPFO is entitled to have administration charges in respect of transaction.and Anything accrued over and above the ‘face-value’ will go to beneficiaries.
2017 LLR 730 KERALA HIGH COURT
Absence of mens rea would justify reduction of rate of damages. and While reducing the rate of damages, concerned authority must give reasons in an order.
2017 LLR 729 DELHI HIGH COURT
Financial stringency alone can’t be a ground to reduce the damages for delayed deposits.and
2017 LLR 728 DELHI HIGH COURT
Contract labour will be sham when the work of contractors’ workers was of perennial nature. and Only appropriate government can decide for abolition of contract labour. and Contractors’ workers when controlled by Principal employer, can claim absorption by latter.
2017 LLR 716 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appropriate government for Gratuity Act will be Central if establishments are located in different States.
2017 LLR 714 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Illegal termination to be challenged within three years but after 45 days of conciliation proceedings.
2017 LLR 704 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Employer to pay compensation when injuries were caused during course of employment.
2017 LLR 703 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Labour Court not to interfere in dismissal when charges of serious nature have been proved. and No relief to a terminated bank employee guilty for the breach of trust.
2017 LLR 699 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Embezzlement, even temporary, is a serious misconduct. and Modification of punishment by the Court/Tribunal only when enquiry is not held or found to be defective. and Industrial adjudicator to interfere with punishment only when so requested by the workman.
2017 LLR 708 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Damages for delayed payment of ESI dues to be reduced because of financial crises.
2017 LLR 695 KERALA HIGH COURT
Repayment of misappropriated money would not absolve a person from punishment. and Courts not to interfere with punishment when employer has lost confidence in workman.
2017 LLR 691 GAUHATI HIGH COURT
No relief can be granted if terminated workman fails to prove to have worked for 240 days. and
2017 LLR 684 DELHI HIGH COURT
Transfer not to be stalled merely because the union election process would be affected. and
2017 LLR 682 DELHI HIGH COURT
Enquiry to be deemed as fair if not challenged by the workman. and Dismissal justified when charge of misappropriation is established.
2017 LLR 680 DELHI HIGH COURT
Past record is important for imposition of punishment. and Non-participation in enquiry by workman despite intimation would not be violative of natural justice.
2017 LLR 678 DELHI HIGH COURT
Reinstatement is not a rule even on illegal termination. and Medical certificate when not questioned by employer, will not be deemed false. and Non-production of attendance/wages register would establish that workman was in the employment.
2017 LLR 675 DELHI HIGH COURT
Reinstatement is not a rule even on illegal termination.