IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS for September 2015

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Dismissal for slapping a colleague is shockingly disproportionate punishment.
2015 LLR 897
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Compensation instead of reinstatement would be appropriate when past record of delinquent employee was unblemished.
2015 LLR 897
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Appeal against levy of interest on delayed payment will not be tenable before EPF Tribunal.
2015 LLR 900
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Belated demand of provident fund dues would not be vitiated.
2015 LLR 900
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Departmental circular cannot overrule the provisions of a statute.
2015 LLR 900
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Levying damages for delayed payment is meant to act as deterrent. 
2015 LLR 900
DELHI HIGH COURT

 Declining to adjourn enquiry proper when no prejudice is caused to the employee.
2015 LLR 918
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Dismissal of security person is not disproportionate when guilty of shouting and spoiling the discipline. 
2015 LLR 918
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Interference by the Labour Court in punishment is called only when it is shocking and disproportionate.
2015 LLR 918
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Unless there is perversity, the court should not interfere in the punishment.
2015 LLR 920
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Dismissal justified when the workman was unruly as proved.
2015 LLR 920
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 An ''employer'' under provident fund does not include managing director or manager.
2015 LLR 927
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 One who has ultimate control over the affairs of a factory is employer under Factories Act.
2015 LLR 927
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Last drawn wages during pendency of proceedings in higher court untenable when workman is gainfully employed.
2015 LLR 933
GUJARAT HIGH COURT

 Termination sans retrenchment compensation would be illegal.
2015 LLR 936
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Absence of employer-employee relation would not justify regularisation of employees. 
2015 LLR 939
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Canteen employees will be of principal employer only under section 46 of the Factories Act.
2015 LLR 939
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Apprentices under Apprentices Act not to be covered under ESI.
2015 LLR 943
KERALA HIGH COURT

 Denial of documents to the delinquent would vitiate enquiry.
2015 LLR 946
ORISSA HIGH COURT

 A married sister is not dependent to the claim accident compensation.
2015 LLR 951
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Compensation would be appropriate when employer has lost confidence in employee.
2015 LLR 952
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement with wages not proper even when termination is held illegal.
2015 LLR 952
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Termination of a daily-wager for stealing employers'' property is justified.
2015 LLR 952
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Worker engaged merely for two three days not coverable under ESI.
2015 LLR 954
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 A plea when not taken in ''Statement of Claim'' can''t be improved.
2015 LLR 956
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Notice of change not required on termination/retrenchment.
2015 LLR 956
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Simultaneous payment of one month notice and retrenchment compensation would comply with conditions for retrenchment.
2015 LLR 956
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 Reference of an industrial dispute to be set aside, if not made by appropriate Government.
2015 LLR 961
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

 An employer cannot unilaterally demote an employee without reasons. 
2015 LLR 963
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 Absence of positive evidence will vitiate the enquiry.
2015 LLR 966
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Misappropriation is a grave misconduct justifying dismissal.
2015 LLR 969
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Clubbing of two independent establishments for coverage under provident fund is not proper.
2015 LLR 971
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Functional integrality depends whether one unit can survive in the absence of other.
2015 LLR 971
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Canteen workers through contractor(s) when controlled and supervised by principal employer will be regularised.
2015 LLR 974
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Employees of a statutory canteen run by contractor would be treated as employees of the principal employer.
2015 LLR 974
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Employees of contract labour will be absorbed when certain is run in principal employer''s premises.
2015 LLR 974
BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Approval for dismissal when declined, would amount to continuity of service. 
2015 LLR 981
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Back-wages of a workman whose approval has been declined, can claim under section 33C(2) of I.D. Act.
2015 LLR 981
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Contractors covered under Provident Fund Act cannot deny to furnish detail of employees.
2015 LLR 982
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Illness when not supported with evidence would not justify absence.
2015 LLR 984
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Termination for absence after holding enquiry would be justified.
2015 LLR 984
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Provident Fund Act once applicable will continue to apply even if number of workers is reduced.
2015 LLR 986
TRIPURA HIGH COURT

 Employer-employee relationship is established when the employee had the authority to represent the employer.
2015 LLR 986
TRIPURA HIGH COURT

 Over time payment will not attract provident fund contribution.
2015 LLR 986
TRIPURA HIGH COURT

 Termination sans retrenchment compensation would be illegal.
2015 LLR 990
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Go slow; shut down, strike and abusive language will justify dismissal. Bom HC 920 Reinstatement with back-wages to follow an illegal termination.
2015 LLR 990
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA