IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for August 2008

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 100% disability compensation to a driver suffering injuries upto knee level in an accident is rightly awarded.
2008 LLR 785
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Reinstatement cannot be granted to an employee in a suit against termination.
2008 LLR 786
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Under Specific Relief Act, the jurisdiction of civil court in contractual employer-employee relation is debarred.
2008 LLR 786
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 A terminated employee can either file a writ or raise an industrial dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act.
2008 LLR 786
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Civil courts have no jurisdiction to quash the termination of an employee.
2008 LLR 790
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Dismissal of bank employee for temporarily misappropriating funds wrongly set aside
2008 LLR 790
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Any misappropriation of money by bank employee should be dealt with sternly to maintain the trust of public.
2008 LLR 790
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Relationship of master and servant, if contractual, is not enforceable.
2008 LLR 790
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Regularisation of workers engaged through contractor rightly directed when there existed direct relationship of master and servant.
2008 LLR 801
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Representation by an Advocate before Labour Court without the consent of other party is to be rejected.
2008 LLR 807
DELHI HIGH COURT

 A little difference in facts can make a lot of difference in the value of judgment.
2008 LLR 807
DELHI HIGH COURT

 A workman who had joined as a fresh employee cannot demand reinstatement.
2008 LLR 810
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Coverage prior to 1984 will not be justified when ESIC did not prove that the establishment was employing more than ten employees.
2008 LLR 812
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 No appeal will lie when Compensation Commissioner has the denial of employer about employer-employee relationship.
2008 LLR 815
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 After admitting all charges, a bank employee can''t ask the Court in precluding employer from imposing punishment.
2008 LLR 817
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 High Court will not interfere in transfer of an employee of the Nagar Palika.
2008 LLR 821
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Suspension of an employee is no punishment, it will not ordinarily be interfered.
2008 LLR 821
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 If the charges are not framed for issuing of charge-sheet, it would be irregularity and not illegality.
2008 LLR 821
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of an employee for not keeping dead stock registers properly is liable to be set aside
2008 LLR 823
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 An enquiry will be violative of principles of natural justice when no time, date or the place is fixed.
2008 LLR 825
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Enquiry when quashed, the delinquent will be treated as if he is under suspension.
2008 LLR 825
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 UP Coop. Spg. Mills Federation is a ''State'' hence amenable to writ petition.
2008 LLR 825
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 A Bank employee being charged with defalcation of fund must be dealt with sternly as it would otherwise shake the trust of public.
2008 LLR 826
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Courts should not interfere with the punishment as imposed by the management.
2008 LLR 826
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Provident Fund dues can also be recovered from the Director in his personal capacity.
2008 LLR 829
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 A technical teacher, doing skilled and technical work, will be eligible for gratuity
2008 LLR 832
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Continuous service for gratuity will be presumed in the absence of order for any break.
2008 LLR 839
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Trainees/apprentices not appointed under the Apprentices Act will be entitled to gratuity.
2008 LLR 839
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Labour Court can allow the employee to lead evidence even at belated stage.
2008 LLR 845
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Labour Court can give opportunity to the employer to prove its case, if the request is made before closure of proceedings.
2008 LLR 845
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Withholding of gratuity without hearing the employee is not legal
2008 LLR 849
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Full back-wages on reinstatement would not necessarily follow.
2008 LLR 850
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Termination is rightly set aside when workmen are not paid retrenchment compensation.
2008 LLR 850
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Settlements made individually with 132 workers by the employer by making payment of dues towards their separation will not be valid.
2008 LLR 853
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Even when the workmen have received their legal dues, it will not debar them from challenging the validity of settlement.
2008 LLR 853
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

 An employer, by settlement, cannot circumvent the obligation to obtain prior permission for retrenchment or closure of an establishment.
2008 LLR 853
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

 High Court can entertain the writ petition if the Labour Authorities fail to enforce the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act.
2008 LLR 853
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

 If a settlement deprives the workmen of their certain rights, it will be against public policy.
2008 LLR 853
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Debarring entry of union leader preaching violence against migrant workers is to be upheld.
2008 LLR 860
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Non-payment of retrenchment compensation at the time of termination even to daily-wager will be unfair
2008 LLR 862
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Writ jurisdiction of the High Court will not be debarred by section 17(2) of I.D. Act for challenging an award.
2008 LLR 867
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Penalty for delayed payment of accident compensation without showcause to the employer is not legal.
2008 LLR 869
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 When the accident resulted into disability to the workman, compensation will be equivalent to 60% and not 50% of monthly wages.
2008 LLR 869
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement, merely on ground of delay in enquiry against a workman who obtained employment fraudulently, is to be set aside.
2008 LLR 871
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Rejection of an appeal of employer filed against Compensation Commissioner by depositing the amount of compensation not proper.
2008 LLR 872
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Appellate Authority under Gratuity Act cannot waive the condition precedent for depositing the determined amount.
2008 LLR 876
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 A punitive transfer of a Bank employee liable to be set aside.
2008 LLR 878
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Transfer of an employee, on the ground that she was disturbing the conducive atmosphere, will not be unsustainable.
2008 LLR 878
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Employees'' Insurance Court can set aside clubbing of two establishments even located in the same premises.
2008 LLR 881
DELHI HIGH COURT

 When father allows his son to use the premises for different type of business, their establishments cannot be clubbed for coverage under ESI Act.
2008 LLR 881
DELHI HIGH COURT

 For clubbing of more than one establishment, unity of ownership, functional integration and interchangeability of employees have to be viewed cumulatively and not in isolation.
2008 LLR 881
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Back wages on reinstatement cannot be denied merely that the workman did not specifically plead and prove.
2008 LLR 883
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Provident Funds Authorities have to decide preliminary objections at first instance in proceedings under section 7A of the Act.
2008 LLR 886
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Management can be represented by a legal practitioner, who is an office bearer of an association or of a federation of employers.
2008 LLR 890
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 A Notification under Provident Funds Act extending coverage to all Banks other than Nationalised Banks is to be quashed. (SN)
2008 LLR 891
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 A claim for leave pay and bonus is beyond the scope of Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act. (SN)
2008 LLR 891
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 When no intimation was sent to petitioner for holding the enquiry, his removal is to be quashed. (SN)
2008 LLR 892
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement of workman was appropriate when he was victimized for his role in forming the Union .
2008 LLR 892
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Fresh application for closure will not be barred when earlier application was withdrawn. (SN)
2008 LLR 893
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 In the absence of an order for regularsing the absence of employee, the deduction from wages was proper. (SN)
2008 LLR 893
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Insisting for undertaking for releasing benefits of the settlement is not valid. (SN)
2008 LLR 894
BOMBAY HIGH COURT