IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for September 2009

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Order of Industrial Tribunal, approving dismissal of the workman, will not be interfered.
2009 LLR 1001
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Gratuity paid to an employee can''t be recovered when not dismissed for any misconduct as stipulated in the Act.
2009 LLR 1004
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Salaried Managing Director and the Directors are to be treated as employees for coverage under Provident Fund Act.
2009 LLR 1007
GAUHATI HIGH COURT

 Establishment of the petitioner rightly covered under the Provident Fund Act when the petitioner has failed to produce the attendance register
2009 LLR 1007
GAUHATI HIGH COURT

 No direct relationship of employer and employee when the work of contract workers is not supervised by the principal employer.
2009 LLR 1010
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Contract workers could not claim ''equal pay for equal work''.
2009 LLR 1010
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Non-obtaining of licence by the contractor will not follow regularisation of workers.
2009 LLR 1010
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Less than 240 days of continuous service in the preceding year will not entitle protection to workmen.
2009 LLR 1014
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 When a casual workman is employed in different establishments of a Corporation, the concept of ''continuous service'' can''t be applied.
2009 LLR 1014
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Common Managing Director for two separate establishments will not make them as one entity.
2009 LLR 1014
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 An employee is appointed on wages whereas an apprentice is engaged against stipend.
2009 LLR 1017
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 An appeal against the Insurance Court lies only when a substantial question of law is involved.
2009 LLR 1017
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Stipend to the apprentice under the Apprentices Act are not wages to attract ESI contributions.
2009 LLR 1017
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Apprentices under the Apprentices Act or the I.E. (Standing Orders) Act are excluded from ESI Act.
2009 LLR 1017
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Failure to prove 240 days'' working in a year will not render the termination as illegal.
2009 LLR 1024
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 An employee who has ceased to be a member of the ESI will not be entitled to disablement benefit.
2009 LLR 1026
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement of a driver is justified when accident did not occur because of his negligence
2009 LLR 1029
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 In the absence of bonafide intention, the application filed by the employer for condonation of 336 days delay is rightly rejected with cost.
2009 LLR 1030
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Inordinate delay of 336 days for filing appeal under W.C. Act will not be condoned.
2009 LLR 1030
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Review before Compensation Commissioner lies only when one has no right to prefer an appeal or one who has not preferred an appeal.
2009 LLR 1030
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of a Maali for Dharna and abusing Principal, after enquiry, is legal.
2009 LLR 1031
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Allegation of forcible resignation by an employee, without supporting evidence, will not entitle him to any relief.
2009 LLR 1034
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, has been rightly awarded because of long history of litigation and acrimony of breach of trust between the parties.
2009 LLR 1035
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Merely working for 4 months will not give any right to claim benefit.
2009 LLR 1036
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Non-issuing of tickets, after receiving the fare, will justify the conductor''s dismissal.
2009 LLR 1037
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Labour Court can modify dismissal and discharge of a workman when it is disproportionate to the misconduct.
2009 LLR 1039
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Shouting at superiors, using abusive and derogatory language, will amount to a serious misconduct justifying dismissal.
2009 LLR 1039
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 No prejudice will be caused when charge sheet is issued by superior officer and termination by the General Manager.
2009 LLR 1039
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Labour Court rightly held that a senior officer in supervisory category is not a ''workman''.
2009 LLR 1042
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of office bearers of Union , during pendency of the general demands dispute, will be prima facie void.
2009 LLR 1046
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 An ex-parte Award, without consideration of the material on record, will be liable for reconsideration.
2009 LLR 1051
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Assessment of compensation for the injury, by the Commissioner, instead of the doctor, will not be tenable.
2009 LLR 1052
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 When no dispute is pending at the time of termination/discharge of a workman, complaint under section 33A of the I.D. Act will not be tenable.
2009 LLR 1052
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Permission for prosecution of the employer by the Asstt. Labour Commissioner improper.
2009 LLR 1053
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Water treatment plant can''t be ''manufacturing process'' under the Factories Act.
2009 LLR 1053
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of a probationer/daily wager, for unsatisfactory work, will not be interfered.
2009 LLR 945
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Labour Court/Tribunal, in terms of section 11-A of the I.D. Act, should modify the punishment judiciously.
2009 LLR 945
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Compensation is appropriate relief to a retrenched workman alleging refusal of duties
2009 LLR 949
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 High Court will not interfere with reasoned conclusion by Insurance Court .
2009 LLR 950
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 ''Manufacturing process'' with the aid of power, as defined in section 2(12) of ESI Act, does not mean use of power.
2009 LLR 950
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Mere use of refrigerator and grinder in a hotel will not mean use of power for applicability of ESI Act.
2009 LLR 950
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Managing Director of a Company can''t be personally liable for default of provident fund contributions.
2009 LLR 953
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 A Physical Education Teacher, in an educational institution, will not be a workman.
2009 LLR 957
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Definition of one Act cannot be applied for another Act.
2009 LLR 959
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Declining representation by Union office-bearer is not proper when the Management is represented by a legally trained person.
2009 LLR 961
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Approval for dismissal of a workman, not given proper opportunity to defend in enquiry, is not justified.
2009 LLR 961
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement will not always be granted to a workman whose termination is violative of section 25-F of the I.D. Act.
2009 LLR 966
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Determination of compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, will be on the basis of factors like method of recruitment, nature of employment and length of service, etc.
2009 LLR 966
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 It is incumbent on Appellate Authority to give reason and apply its mind in appeal.
2009 LLR 970
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Coverage of a franchisee establishment under the Provident Fund Act is to be cancelled.
2009 LLR 972
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 A franchisee distribution of bottled soft drinks will be a distinct establishment.
2009 LLR 972
MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Forfeiture of gratuity, for moral turpitude, can be done when an employee is convicted.
2009 LLR 978
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of a bank employee for drunkenness and hurling abuses at General Manager will not be interfered.
2009 LLR 980
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Ex-parte Award can be set aside against heavy cost when there is sufficient cause.
2009 LLR 982
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Unexplained delay in writ appeal is liable to be rejected.
2009 LLR 984
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Industrial peace is a necessity but it cannot be at the expense of Management''s right.
2009 LLR 985
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Trade unions have no right to hoist flags in the property of the Management.
2009 LLR 985
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Appeal against the Compensation Commissioner will not lie in the absence of substantial question of law.
2009 LLR 986
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Death of an electrician, employed through contractor but supervised by the principal employer, will make the latter responsible for compensation.
2009 LLR 986
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Two establishments, functioning together and employing 20 employees, will be covered under the Provident Fund Act.
2009 LLR 990
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 In the absence of supervision, the contractor''s employees will not become employees of principal employer.
2009 LLR 992
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 A review petition by PF Authority should not have been brushed aside without stating reasons.
2009 LLR 994
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Labour Court rightly not interfered in the dismissal due to serious misconduct.
2009 LLR 996
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 In case of dismissal of a workman for misconduct, the compliance of section 25 F of the I.D. Act will not be imperative.
2009 LLR 996
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 While modifying punishment, Labour Court is bound to give the supporting reasons.
2009 LLR 998
KERALA HIGH COURT