-->

Test 1

LATEST OTHER UPDATES

ID Act 2010
  • Enhancement of wage ceiling of a workman from Rs. 1600/- pm to Rs. 10000/- pm under section 2(s) of the Act
  • Direct access for the workman to the Labour Court or Tribunal in case of disputes arising out of section 2A of the Act
  • Expanding the scope of qualifications of Presiding Officers of Labour Courts or Tribunals under sections 7 and 7A of the Act
  • Establishment of Grievance Redressal Machinery in every Industrial establishment employing twenty or more workmen for the resolution of disputes arising out of individual grievances
  • Empowering the Labour Court or Tribunal to execute the awards, orders or settlements arrived at by Labour Court or Tribunal
  • Link to ID Act (Amnd) Act, 2010
    • GRATUITY ACT
    GRATUITY MAXIMUM LIMIT INCREASED FROM RS. 350000 TO RS. 1000000 (FOR PRIVATE COMPANIES EMPLOYEES)

    THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009
    Given below are the synopsis of the changes.
  • THE WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009 is now renamed as THE EMPLOYEE'S COMPENSATION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2009 and wherever "workman" or "workmen" is mentioned in the entire Act the same needs to be read as "Employee" to make it gender sensitive.
  • The compensation payable on death from the injury, is (i) minimum of Rs.80000 is increased to Rs.120000 or (ii) 50% of the monthly wages of deceased multiplied by the relevant factor.
  • The compensation payable on Permanent Total Disablement from the injury, is (i) minimum of Rs.90000 is increased to Rs.140000 or (ii) 60% of the monthly wages of deceased multiplied by the relevant factor.
  • actual reimbursement of medical expenses incurred on account of injury caused during course of employment.
  • Empower the Central Government to specify monthly wages for the purpose of compensation. It is 50% of Rs.8000/-. This amendment is notified vide Central Government Notification No. S.O. 1258(E) vide Ministry of Labour & Employment dated 31st May 2010.
  • Definition of workmen replaced by "Definition of Employee"- also now includes CLERICAL employees.
  • The Commissioner shall dispose compensation cases within a time period of 3 months.
  • Download Emploee's Compensation (Amnd) Act, 2010
  • Download Emploee's Compensation Wage Limit Notification

    •
    Test 1

    ESIC UPDATES

    Employees’ State Insurance (Amendment) Act, 2010.
    Following are the some salient feature of the ESI (Amendment) Act, 2010.
    Extension Of The ESI Scheme To The Construction Site WorkerS :
  • The Construction site workers who were kept out of coverage of ESI act till date, Now covered with the implementation of it roll out "any time, anywhere". esic services will be available to these mobile and migratory workers with no geographical barrier.
    • APPRENTICES COVERED:
  • Benefits under the scheme have also been extended to apprentices and trainees employed under Apprentice Act and Standing Order Act.
    • POWER TO APPROPRIATE GOVERNMENT;
  • The appropriate Government is empowered to extend the provisions of ESIC Act 1948 to any other establishment or class of establishments, industrial, commercial, agricultural or otherwise after giving one month’s notice of its intention of doing so by notification in Official Gazette instead of notice period of six months.
    • DEFINITION OF DEPENDENT EXPANDED:
  • Definition of “dependents” as contained in clause 6A of section 2 of the Act has been extended to enlarge the number of beneficiaries under the act such as:
  • A widow, a legitimate or adopted son below the age of 25 years and an unmarried legitimate or adopted daughter. The age limit of the dependants has been enhanced from 18 to 25.
  • Dependent parents as per definition of “family” has been substituted so as to include;
    • “A minor brother or sister wholly dependent upon the earnings of the insured person in case the insured person is unmarried and his or her parents are not alive”. It has been also clarified that dependent parents to include “Dependent parents, whose income from all sources does not exceed such income as prescribed by the Central Government”.
    SMALL FACTORIES ALSO ARE COVERED:
  • The definition of Factory under Section 2(12) has been amended to expand coverage of smaller factories. The amended Act covers all factories, which employ 10 or more persons irrespective of the fact whether the manufacturing process is being carried out with the aid of the power or without the aid of the power.
    • INSPECTORS RE-DESIGNATED AS SOCIAL SECURITY OFFICERS:
  • The designation of Inspector has been re-designated as “Social Security Officer” to enroll them as facilitator of the Scheme rather than to act as mere inspectors.
    • VRS EMPLOYEES ALSO COVERED:
  • Medical benefits to the insured person and his spouse have been extended under circumstances where insured person retires under Voluntary Retirement Scheme or takes premature retirement. In the earlier Act the benefit was applicable only on attaining the age of superannuation. Proviso to sub section 3 of section 56 has been substituted to provide the same.
  • NOTIONAL EXTENSION OF PREMISES:
  • Accident occurring to an insured person while commuting from his residence to the place of employment and vice-a-versa shall be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment for the purpose of benefit under the Act. A new section 51-E has been added for this purpose.
    • UNORGANIZED SECTOR EMPLOYEES COVERED:
  • A new Chapter V-A has been added to enable provision for extending medical care to non insured persons against payment of user-charges to facilitate providing medical care to the below poverty line (BPL) families and other un-organized sector workers covered under the Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY).
  • Exemption of a factory or establishment or class of factories or establishments from the operation of this Act will be granted only if the employees in such factories or establishments are otherwise in receipt of benefits substantially similar or superior to the benefits provided under this Act.
  • Section 91 A of the Act is amended to removing. retrospective grant of exemption from the provision of the Act
  • Download ESI (Amendment) Act 2010
    • ESIC ONLINE PORTAL:
  • ESIC Launched New Online Portal for Submitting Application and Returns
    • ESI WAGE CEILING:
  • ESI WAGE CEILING ENHANCED FROM Rs. 10000 TO Rs. 15000 w.e.f 01-05-2010
  • Download ESI Wage Ceiling Notification

    		•
    P F UPDATES

    P F UPDATES

  • EPFO Launched new Grievance Management Portal


    • Enhancement of the cash benefit on Pension:

  • Enhanced the cash benefit payable to the family of EPF subscribers on their death in service from present maximum of rs.60,000 to rs.1.00 lakh. Published in the gazette of india, part ii, section 3, subsection (i), vide number g.s.r. 523(e), dated the 18th june, 2010
  • Download Notification


    • EPF(Amendment) Scheme, 2011


    MINISTRY’ OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT
    NOTIFICATION
    New Delhi, the 15th January, 2011

    G.S.R. 25(E).—In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 5, read with sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby makes the following Scheme, further to amend the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952. namely

    1. (1) This Scheme may be called the Employees’ Provident Funds (Amendment) Scheme, 2011.

       (2) It shall come into force from the 1st day of April, 2011

    2. In the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as the said Scheme), in paragraph 60, after sub-paragraph (5), the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted, namely:—

    “(6) Interest shall not be credited to the account of a member from the date on which it has become Inoperative Account, under the provisions of sub-paragraph (6) of paragraph 72”

    3. In the said Scheme, in paragraph 72, in sub-paragraph (6):—

       (a) for the words “but no claim has been preferred” the words “but no application for withdrawal under paragraphs 69 or 70 or transfer, as the case may be has been preferred ” shall he substituted:

       (b) for the words “three years”, at both the places where they occur, the words “thirty six months” shall be substituted.

        [F. No. S-35012/01/2010-SS-1I]
    S. K.. DEV  VERMAN, Jt. Secy.

    For more details :
    The PF old balance will stop earning interest. After three years of inactivity.
  • Download Notification

    		•

    IMPORTANT LABOUR JUDGMENTS - 2011





    Abandonment :
    When bank employee remainedabsent unauthorizedly for about two years and did not respond to management'scall to report for duty, voluntary abandonment is rightly presumed.
    Yousuf Khan vs. State Bank ofHyderabad, rep. by its Managing Director & Another. 2011 LLR 967 (AP HC)

    Abandonment by workman can't bepresumed when management did not initiate any action to call upon to report forduty and offer for employment.
    Divisional Manager, BoudhCommercial Division, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. vs. GodabarishBadajena & Anr. 2011 LLR 181 (Orissa HC)

    By not applying leave in advanceand remaining absent can't be presumed to be an act of voluntary abandonment.
    Veer Chand vs. D.T.C. 2011 (128)FLR 803 (Del. HC)

    When no letter of resumption ofduty was sent to workman, abandonment of job by workman can't be presumed, thattoo without enquiry. Compensation in lieu of reinstatement rightly granted.
    M/s. Hindustan AssociatesEngineer Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sh. K.K. Aggarwal & Ors. 2011 LLR 312 (Del. HC)

    When suspension was revoked andemployee was transferred, he was under obligation to make compliance oftransfer order. Bank was justified in drawing presumption of voluntaryabandonment of ervice by the employee when he failed to comply with thetransfer order.
    U.P. Singh vs. Punjab NationalBank. 2011 LLR 708 (Del. HC)

    Letter sent by UPC for reportingon duty can't be termed as service. Presumption of abandonment of job byemployee not valid.
    Shiv Kumar vs. Hansita 2011 LLR13 (Del. HC)

    Refusal to work on site alongwith other workers for repairing of advertising boards inspite of repeatedcalls by employer will amount to voluntary abandonment of service.
    Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd. vs.Javedali Kutubali Hashmi. 2011 LLR 197 (Guj. HC)

    Even if sending four letters to adaily wager asking him to report for duty will not be a ground of abandonmentbut will be a case of illegal termination, when not followed by retrenchmentprocedure. Compensation appropriate instead of reinstatement in such a case.Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. R.L. Chugh and Others. 2011 LLR 1256 (Del.HC)

    Apprentice :

    Board can't adopt different yardstick for same category of apprentices for their appointment after completionof apprenticeship. When others appointed, few one can't be left behind.
    Chairman, Tamil Nadu ElectricityBoard and Another. vs. D. Venktesan and Another. 2011 (128) FLR 949 (Mad. HC)

    Back wages :

    Allowing 50% back-wages by theDivision Bench of the High Court not proper since the employer was not given anopportunity for hearing before passing of the order.
    T.V.S. Finance and Services Ltd.vs. H. Shivakumar. 2011 LLR 613 (S.C.)

    Working as barber in own saloon,will amount to gainful employment, hence not entitled to full back wages.
    Mahalakshmi Fibres and IndustriesLtd., Kolkata and another vs. Deolal Hazam. 2011 (128) FLR 258. (Jharkhand HC)

    Reinstatement without back wagesproper of a driver when his negligence in driving vehicle was negligible.
    Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation (Kumbakoham) Ltd. Rep. by its General Manager, Trichy vs. PresidingOfficer, Labour Court, Trichy. 2011 LLR 154 (Mad. HC)

    In the absence of proofestablished by the workman about his unemployment, there will be no justificationfor granting back wages.
    Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd.vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Others. 2011 LLR 245 (All. HC)

    In the absence of establishingthe fact that driver was appointed as daily wager and caused fatal accident,reinstatement of such driver with back wages would be proper.
    Management, State ExpressTransport Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Ltd., Chennai vs. Presiding Officer, 1stAdditional Labour Court Chennai and Another. 2011 LLR 281 (Mad. HC)

    In the absence of charge sheetfor unauthorised absence, compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back-wageshas been rightly granted.
    Delhi Transport Corporation vs.Kuldeep Singh. 2011 LLR 400 (Del. HC) 20

    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011 Daily wagers will not be entitled for Back Wages onreinstatement.
    Ramjibhai Dhanjibhai vs. DeputyExecutive Engineer. 2011 LLR 421 (Guj. HC)

    No back wages to the employee forthe period prior to his regularisation.
    Satinder Kumar vs. Lt. Governor,NCT of Delhi and Another. 2011 LLR 483 (Del. HC)

    In case of illegal retrenchment,reinstatement with 50% back wages granted by labour court held proper by HC.
    Municipal Council vs. Chhotalaland Another. 2011 LLR 517 (Raj. HC)

    When the dismissed chowkidar wasdetained in jail and could not get any job, 50% Back Wages instead of fullwould be appropriate as no able-bodied person can remain unemployed and mighthave worked to earn wages.
    Nirmal Singh vs. Labour Court,Bhatinda and Others. 2011 LLR 768 ( P & H HC)

    No grant of back-wagesautomatically on reinstatement.
    Ram Kumar vs. Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Ambala & Ors. 2011 LLR 820 (P&H HC)

    High Court affirmed the award ofLabour Court holding retrenchment illegal under Section 25-F of IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 and the workmen will be entitled to full back-wages.
    Aska Central MultipurposeCo-operative Society Ltd. vs. Their Workmen rep. by the Secretary, AskaRegional Employees' and Workers' Federation and Another. 2011 (III) LLJ 45(Orissa HC)


    After acquittal from criminalcourt, when employee is not permitted to join duty by employer, he will beentitlted to get back wages for the period, he was kept out without duty.
    Inderjeet Singh vs. DelhiTransport Corporation. 2011 LLR 901 (Delhi HC)

    On reinstatement, back wages isnot a thumb rule. It lies with the court discretion.
    Bhajabhai Danabhai Rabari &Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 2011 LLR 903 (Guj. HC)

    In the absence of any evidence ofremaining unemployed throughout the period, awarding back wages onreinstatement till superannuation would be wrong and illegal.
    Senior Regional Manager vs.C.G.I.T., Jabalpur and Another. 2011 LLR 941 (MP HC)

    Even when the retrenchment washeld to be illegal, reinstatement with 25% back wages instead of 50% would beproper.
    Divisional Forest Officer, ForestDivision, Rewa, M.P. and Another vs. Leelavati Yadav. 2011 LLR 494 (MP HC)

    Income from agriculture landwould not be taken as earning to adjust or deny back wages.
    G.K. Pandey vs. RegionalDirector, International Airport Authority of India. 2011 LLR 1055 (Bom. HC)

    No reinstatement with full backwages to employees who could not prove employer-employee relationship andinfact were engaged for less than one hour every day in the morning for dustingand cleaning the bank premises.
    The Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Limitedvs. The Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Employees Union & Ors. 2011 LLR 1059 (Bom. HC)


    Full Back Wages justified whentermination effected without retrenchment compensation and workman was notgainfully employed.
    1. Ram Chander, Peon vs. ThePresiding Officer, Labour Court and Another. 2011 LLR 1217 (P&H HC)
    2. Haryana AgriculturalUniversity vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court andAnother. 2011 LLR 1218 (P&H HC)

    Back Wages on reinstatement wouldbe proper when the employee was dismissed solely on the basis of conviction bya criminal court and his conviction was set-aside by higher court.
    Mohammed Abdur Raheem vs. StateBank of India and Another. 2011 LLR 1237 (Mad. HC)

    Even when there is violation ofsec. 25F of the ID Act, reinstatement with full or partial back wages is not
    automatic. Compensation is suchcase is appropriate. International Tractors Ltd; Hoshiarpur & Anr.
    vs. Presiding Officer, LabourCourt, Jalandhar & Anr. 2011 LLR 406 (P&H HC)

    Bonus :

    Bonus and difference of wagescan't be claimed by invoking sec. 33C(2) of the ID Act being notpre-determined.
    State of U.P. and Anr. vs. KunwarPal Singh and Another. 2011 LLR 171 (All. HC)

    Though Minimum Wages can be splitup into various allowances under Minimum Wages Act but for the purpose ofBonus, minimum wages can't be bifurcated and bonus has to paid on total wages.
    Globe Detective Agency (P) Ltd.vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal No. III & Another. 2011 LLR 236(Del. HC)

    Where department and branches ofthe corporation have independent seprate balance sheets, bonus will becalculated by treating each branch independently.
    Management of India TourismDevelopment Corporation, Madras and Anr. vs. General Secretary, All India ITDCEmployees' Union. 2011 LLR 272 (Mad. HC)

    Local body of Haryana StateAgricultural Marketing Board will not be covered under Payment of Bonus Act.
    Haryana State AgriculturalMarketing Board Field Staff Employees' Welfare Association, Jind vs. State ofHaryana and Another. 2011 LLR 301 (P&H HC)


    Building & Construction Workers:
    Even the factory building underconstruction before its registration will be covered under BOCW Act.
    Sterlite Engery Ltd. vs. StateOrissa 2011 I CLR 358 (Orissa HC) ; 2011 LLR 322

    Building construction company isunder obligation to pay 1% cess under the Act and employer can deduct the samefrom the contractor bill.
    M/s. Jain Construction Co. vs.Moradabad Development Authority and Another. 2011 LLR 925 (Allahabad HC)

    No writ maintainable againstassessment order of the authority under Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act.
    Employer should approachappellate authority and not the High Court.
    M/s. Tanks and Tube-Wells Class-ACategory Contractor vs. Collector/District Magistrate, Allahabad and Others.2011 LLR 849 (All. HC)

    Contract Labour

    who pays the salary to thecontractor labour and who has the control and supervision on the work of suchemployee. It is for the contract labour to prove that he was directly employedby the principal
    employer and not the contractor.
    General Manager (OSD), BengalNagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon vs. Bharat Lal & Anr. 2011 LLR 113: 2011(128) FLR 560 (S.C.)

    Employees of agencies running Govt.hostels can’t claim status or salary at par with the State Govt. employees.
    State of Rajasthan and others vs.Daya Lal and others. 2011 (128) FLR 928 (S.C.) In view of MRTU & PULP Actand Bombay Industrial Relations Act, matter is referred to larger bench todecide whether a person
    who is employed by a contractorto undertake the work of principal employer, is an employee under the Act?
    Raymond Ltd. & Another vs.Tukaram Tanaji Mandhare & Another. 2011 LLR 374 (S.C.)

    When workers shown as contractlabours but found as sham, must be presumed to be workers of principal employerand is such case reference is maintainable.
    Airports Authority of India vs.Indian Airport Kamgar Union and others. 2011 (128) FLR 236 (Bom. HC)

    Contractor labours engaged in afactory which is a scheduled employment under minimum wages act will beentitled for minimum wages of that establishment.
    Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. andOthers vs. Government of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, L.E.T. & P. Departmentand Others. 2011 LLR 250 (AP HC)

    Female partners of constructionfirm not involved and responsible in the management of business affairs can'tbe prosecuted for violation of provisions of contract labour act.
    M/s. Kamala Construction CompanyThrough When it was held by labour court that subterfuge was resorted to by theemployer to show that the workmen concerned were only of a contractor, SC foundno infirmity in the judgment of labour court and high court. SC deplored suchpractices of employer.
    Bhilwara Dugdh Uptadak SahakariS. Ltd. vs. Vinod Kumar Sharma Dead by LRs & Ors. 2011 LLR 1079 (SC)

    To get relief of reinstatementagainst principal employer, contract worker has to prove that he was directlypaid by principal employer and not contractor.
    General Manager (OSD), BengalNagpur Cotton Mills, Rajnandgaon vs. Bharat Lal & Anr. 2011 I CLR 1 (S.C.)


    In determining relationshipbetween principal employer and contract labour, two determining factors are tobe seen-Rajendra Prasad Singh and Others. vs. State of Jharkhand and Another.2011 LLR 424 (Jharkhand HC)

    Industrial tribunal can't directthe management not to terminate the services of contract labour pending disputeof regularisation.

    Batra Hospital Employees Union(Regd.) vs. Management of Batra Hospital & Medical Research Centre &Ors. 2011 LLR 682 (Del. HC)

    Employees of the contractor can'tbe thrusted upon the principal employer merely because the contractor did notobtain the requisite licence under Contract Labour Act. For such violation,action against the contractor can be taken under sec. 23 of the Act.

    Merely because the principalemployer paid bonus to the contractor workers, it will not establish the masterservant relationship between principal employer and contractor labour.
    M/s Indian Iron & SteelCompany Ltd. (Burnpur Works, Burnpur) vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2011LLR 771 (Cal. HC)
    Railway canteen employees gettingall benefits where it is mandatory to have a statutory canteen, will be treatedas railway employees from the years of their joining.
    Mohan Singh & Ors. vs.Chairman, Railway Board & Ors. 2011 LLR 319 (Del. HC)

    Court Powers :
    Court will not re-assess theevidence and findings in the enquiry unless the findings are found perverse.Courts will however interfere with the enquiry if principles of natural justiceor statutory regulations have been violated.
    State Bank of Bikaner &Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya. 2011 LLR 634 (S.C.)

    Courts should not grant reliefbeyond scope of prayers. When employer challenged the grant of back wages onlyand not the order of reinstatement, High Court erred in granting compensationin toto.
    Ranbir Singh vs. ExecutiveEngineer. 2011 LLR 612 (S.C.)

    Interference on quantum ofpunishment would be permissible only in rare cases where punishment awardedappears to be unconscionable and actuated by malice.
    State of U.P. & Ors. vs. J.P.Saraswat. LLN(2) 2011 P. 372 (S.C.)

    Stay order of termination of apeon appointed on contract basis is illegal.
    Mukhiya Karyapalak Adhikari, U.P.Khadi Tatha Gramodyog Board Karmit Anubhag, Lucknow & Anr. vs. SantoshKumar. 2011 LLR 1235 (SC)

    High Court not to interfere withthe punishment, instead should have remanded back the matter to labour court ifthe punishment was disproportionate to the charges.
    Management of Christ CollegeRegd. Society vs. Kenchareddi. 2011 LLR 117 (S.C.)

    Labour Court has no power toaward interest on the amount due under section 33C(1) of the I.D. Act.
    Durlabhbhai Naranbhai Parmar vs.Divisional Controller. 2011 LLR 649 (Guj. HC) ; 2011 FLR (129) 1065

    Industrial Tribunal should nothave declined the withdrawal of the petition of the employer seeking permissionfor dismissal of the workmen during pendency of the industrial dispute and, assuch, the High Court allowed the petition for withdrawal of application by theManagement subject to without prejudice to the rights of the concerned workmen.
    Hema Chemicals Industries vs.Ramkailas Saroj. 2011 (II) LLN 216 (Guj. HC)

    Tribunal has jurisdiction toentertain the application for setting aside the exparte award if made beforeaward becomes enforceable.
    Greaves Cotton Limited vs.Government of N.C.T. of Delhi and Others. 2011 LLR 244 (Del. HC)

    Ex-parte award of labour courthaving sound reasons will not be interfered by High Court.
    Bhimani Khadi Gramodyog Sangh vs.Malshi Desar Maheshwari. 2011 (I) CLR 869 (Guj. HC)

    High Court will not interferewith the Award passed by the Labour Court unless the conclusions drawn by thetribunal are perverse or not based on the evidence on record.
    Dhoraji Municipality vs. MaganlalJivrajbhai. 2011 (I) CLR 852 (Guj. HC)

    After expiry of 30 days ofpublication of award, no application for setting aside the ex-parte award canbe entertained by the Labour Court as he becomes functus officio.
    Management of M/s GeneralIndustries Co. & Anr. vs. Satish Kumar. 2011 LLR 792 (Del. HC)

    High Court can't sit like a courtof appeal and re-evaluate the evidence to arrive at different conclusion inwrit jurisdiction. Only perversity of the empugned order can be examined.
    Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Limitedthrough its Managing Director, Nainital vs. Presiding Officer, Labour CourtHaldwani, District Nainital & Ors. 2011 LLR 797 (Uttara. HC)

    The power of Labour Court undersection 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is so wide that a punishment oflesser magnitude can be imposed by it even while upholding the findings in thedomestic enquiry.

    Techno Electrics, Hyderabad vs.ChairmanCum-Presiding Officer, Hon'ble Addl. Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Addl.Labour Court, Hyderabad and Another. 2011 (130) FLR 183 (AP HC)

    Labour court has powers to reducethe punishment when it is considered shockingly disproportionate to the chargeslevelled. But where the misconduct was about misbehaving with superior andabsuing him, punishment of dismissal should not have been reduced.
    Karnataka State Road TransportCorporation, Kolar Division, Kolar vs. P. Selvaraj. 2011 LLR 934 (Karn. HC)

    Interest rightly awarded ondelayed payment of back-wages as granted by labour court at the time ofreinstatement.
    Manager, Naaz Cinema vs.Vasantben Rameshbhai Ghumadiya. 2011 (130) FLR 895 (Guj. HC)

    Labour court while exercisingequitable jurisdiction has powers to allow interest on delayed payment of dueamount.
    Manager, Naaz Cinema vs. VasantbenRameshbhai Ghumadiya. 2011 LLR 1092 (Guj. HC)

    Industrial Tribunal is not toconfine its adjudication strictly to the matter as referred for adjudicationsince the incidental question can also be decided.
    M/s. NHK Spring India Ltd.,Malanpur, Bhind vs. NHK Shramik Sangh, Gwalior (M.P.) 2011 (130) FLR 768 (MPHC)

    Tribunals adjudicating labourdisputes should desist from trying some issues as preliminary ones.
    Mahipal Singh vs. PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal-III & Ors. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 387 (Del. HC)

    Dismissal of a workman, if notapproved under sec. 33(2)(b) of the Act, becomes void abinitio and labour Courtmay allow a reference regarding such dismissal without considering it onmerits.
    Delhi Transport Corpn. vs. PremChand, ex sweeper. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 213 (Del. HC)

    When witness shirked theresponsibility in answering questions during cross examination, rejection ofapplication by the court for summoning CMD of the company under MRTU & PULPAct in complaint for
    unfair labour practice is right.
    Vasudev Tanaji Narvekar vs.Larsen & Toubro Ltd., Mumbai & Anr. 2011 LLR 395 (Bom. HC)

    Industrial tribunal is under nolegal obligation to call witnesses of his own for cross examination.
    M.P. Hasta Shilpa Hath KarghaVikas Nigam Maryadit Headquarters, Bhopal vs. Om Prakash Kori and Others. 2011LLR 347 (MP HC)

    When the workman is notacquainted with labour laws, he should be given opportunity to call record ofthe management to prove his 240 days working.
    Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs. DivisionalForest Officer, General Forest Division, Sheopur and Ors. 2011 LLR 349 (MP HC)

    Under section 11-A of IndustrialDisputes Act, interference with punishment can be only in cases of dismissal ordischarge of workman.
    Zonal Manager, Bank of India vs. GeneralSecretary, Bank of India Staff Union. LLJ (I) 2011 P. 529 (Mad. HC)

    Labour Court becomes functusofficio after 30 days of notification / publication of the award in thegazette, thereby cease to have jurisdiction to set aside the award.
    M/s. Ador Multiproducts Ltd. vs.Mr. N.B. Sagadevan. 2011 LLR 1166 (Karn. HC)

    There is no complete bar underOrder 6 Rule 17 of the CPC and proviso thereto, for seeking amendment to thepleadings even after commencement of the trial.
    Municipal Corporation of Delhivs. Workmen, Workers Working in Electrical Department of MCD. 2011 VIIAD(Delhi) 531 (Del. HC)

    Labour court is required to giveadequate reasons while denying back wages on reinstatement when termination wasfound illegal.
    Pramod Singh vs. DivisionalForest Officer and Others. 2011 LLR 1242 (MP HC)

    Court not to interfere with thepunishment of dismissal order when driver was found drunk and used filthylanguage and misbehaved with the passengers.
    A. Chandrappa vs. Management ofBangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. 2011 LLR 1277 (Karn. HC)

    It is not open for the courts tosubstitute their subjective opinion in place of legitimate conclusion arrivedat by the enquiry officer.

    The Management of SundramFasteners Limited vs. The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court,Chennai and Another. 2011 LLR 286 (Mad. HC)

    In the absence of any party whileproceeding ex-parte labour court has to answer the reference and simply can'tpass a 'no dispute award'. Labour Court can't reject the application forrestoration of the dispute.
    Satendra Singh Gujar vs. Bank ofIndia, Gwalior and Others. 2011 LLR 61 (MP HC)

    When workman played fraud inseeking ex-parte award even after receiving full and final payment, court canset aside such award on application filed by the employer within 30 days of itsknowledge.
    Preetam Singh & Sons vs.Chotey Lal and Others. 2011 LLR 242 (Del. HC)

    Labour Court has no jurisdictionto entertain industrial dispute of workmen and Co-operative Society.
    Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd.vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others. 2011 (129) FLR 85 (All. HC)

    Labour Court, in a petition undersection 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, cannot grant relief for theperiod beyond what it has been claimed by the workman.
    M/s. National Woollen Mills andAnother vs. Ramesh Chand. 2011 (129) FLR 912 (P & H HC)

    Court directions to make workmanpermanent at the lower grade will be proper.
    Mahavir Steel Industries (P)Limited, Pune vs. Pune Workers Union, Pune and another. 2011(130)FLR 1103 (Bom.HC)

    Daily wager :
    Daily wagers are not entitled forregularisation and payment of minimum wages in view of SC judgment of Uma Devicase [(2006 (109) FLR 826].
    Superintending Engineer andAnother vs. Secretary. 2011 LLR 422 (Guj. HC)

    Daily wager appointed for a fixedperiod on scarcity relief work will not be entitled for reinstatement.
    Gujarat Water Supply and SewerageBoard vs. M.D. Doshi. 2011 LLR 262 (Guj. HC)
    Daily wager has no right tocontinue. Reinstatement liable to be set aside.

    State of Maharashtra,Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Beed vs. Sadashiv Maroti Doke and Another. 2011(128) FLR 610

    Daily wager appointed as treeplanter does not hold a post. No reinstatement of such employee aftertermination. Can only be awarded consolidated damages.
    State of U.P. vs. PresidingOfficer, Labour Court (1st) U.P., Kanpur and Another. 2011 LLR 516 (All. HC)

    Reinstatement of daily-wagers,appointed on fixed salary on temporary basis, would not be tenable since theyhave been engaged not against advertisement or through the employment exchangeshence
    it would be appropriate toconvert the reinstatement into compensation only.
    Manager, Gujcomasol PesticidesDeptt. vs. Kiritkumar Babulal Patel and Another. 2011 (129) FLR 831 (Guj. HC)

    Compensation of fifty thousandinstead reinstatement would be proper in the case of a daily wager who wasretrenched without complying with the provisions and served for about 14 yearsas safai karmchari.
    Prasar Bharti BroadcastingCorporation of India vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patna andAnother. 2011 (130) FLR 569

    Compensation in lieu ofreinstatement appropriate when termination of daily wagers or temporary workmenwas illegal.
    Aniruddhsinh Vajubha Zala &Anr. vs. Sarpanch. 2011 LLR 64 (Guj. HC)

    A daily wager does not have theprotection of ID Act.
    State of Haryana and Others vs.Sanjay Kumar. 2011 LLR 1240 (P&H HC)

    Disciplinary :
    Proceedings When employeeabsented in the enquiry even after notice, ex-parte enquiry will be justified.

    Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal IndiaLtd. and Ors. vs. Ananta Saha & Ors. 2011 LLR 673 (SC)

    Vague charges in the charge sheetwill render the enquiry and dismissal invalid.
    Where disciplinary authoritychoose to differ with Enquiry Officer’s finding, employee must be given anopportunity of personal hearing before any action.
    Anil Gilurker vs. Bilaspur-RaipurKshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr. 2011 LLR 1121 (SC)

    It is for the employer to provethe misconduct in the court when he chooses to dismiss employee directlywithout enquiry.
    Amar Chakravarty & Ors. vs.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2011 LLR 1 (S.C.)

    Refusal of summoning defencewitnesses and documents by the enquiry officer in the absence of justificationand relevance stated by the employee, will not render enquiry invalid.
    State Bank of India & Ors.vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra & Ors. 2011 LLR 561 (S.C.)

    If employee absents from enquirywithout information to EO even after three chances are given and enquiry heldexparte, cannot be said to be vitiated. It is not the duty of the enquiryofficer to find out
    from the management whether anyintimation was received from the employee about enquiry.
    S.B.I. vs. Hemant Kumar. 2011 LLR449 (S.C.)

    Punishment of demotion withpromotion bar for seven years is appropriate for the misconduct of financialirregularity by bank employee. Even the reviewing authority of the bank shouldnot have interfered with the punishment of removal from service and reduced it.
    State Bank of Mysore & Othersetc. vs. M.C. Krishnappa. 2011 LLR 857 (S.C.)

    Issuing charge sheet after theemployee was relieved and VRS accepted in all respects, is untenable in law.Such action is totally opposed to settled principles of law.
    G. Mallaiah vs. A.P. StateHandloom Weavers Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Another. 2011 LLR 986 (AP HC)

    Having believed the misconduct,tribunal ought not to have disturbed the punishment given by corporation. Indomestic enquiry guilt of employee has to be established on preponderance ofprobabilities and degree of proof is not that of beyond reasonable doubt.
    Life Insurance Corporation ofIndia vs. General Secretary & Anr. 2011 II CLR 271 (Guj. HC)

    In the matter of disciplinaryproceedings High Court is only concerned about the decision making processrather than on the merits of the proceedings.
    S. Singaravelu vs. GeneralManager, Southern Railways, Chennai and Anr. 2011 LLR 35 (Mad. HC)

    Conclusion drawn by the enquiryofficer on the basis of undisclosed facts and circumstances and not on evidencewill make the enquiry vitiated.
    Shyamal Kumar Sarkar vs. BangiyaGramin Vikas Bank and Another. 2011 LLR 78 (Cal. HC)

    When workman conceded thatdisciplinary enquiry against him was fair and proper, court can't declare itunfair.
    Rachappa vs. Managing Director,North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Gulbarga. |2011 LLR 63 (Karn.HC)

    In departmental enquiry, it isnot necessary that the charges have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt as incourt of law. What is required in enquiry is preponderance of possibility.
    Sanat Kumar Vijjan vs. UCO Bank& Ors. 2011 LLR 85 (Uttrakhand HC) ; 2011 LLJ (II) 74

    Punishment of dismissal would beillegal on the charge of negligence not framed in the charge sheet. EOexonerated the employee from the charges of embezzlement leveled against theemployee.
    Kashmira Singh vs. Punjab State.2011 LLR 155 (P & H HC)

    Employee can't claim subsistenceallowance from the employer during the period of de novo inquiry in the court.
    Mumbai Cricket Association vs. PramodG. Shinde. 2011 I CLR 745 (Bom. HC)

    When principles of naturaljustice are not followed and Inquiry Officer was biased, civil courts will havejurisdiction to intervene.

    Delhi Transport Corporation vs.Subhash Chand. 2011 (128) FLR 707 (Del. HC)

    Onus of proof that inquiry wasnot fair was on the workers' union which had to prove the allegation made byit.
    Federal Mogul Bearing India Ltd.vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. LLJ (I) 2011 P. 605 (HP HC)

    Enquiry vitiated when enquiryofficer performs the role of prosecutor by cross examining the witnesses ofboth the parties. Requisite degree of impartiality is expected to be maintainedby EO in enquiry.
    C.R. Das-I Alias Chittaranjan Dasvs. Personal Manager, Jute Corporation of India & Anr. 2011 LLR 529 (Cal.HC)

    Enquiry conducted in a one go insingle day without examining material witnesses can't be held to be proper andlegal.
    U.P. State Road TransportCorporation, Jhansi vs. Mohd. Ahmad and Another. 2011 LLR 926 (Allahabad HC)

    Over work is no licence tonegligence. Domestic enqury can't be held to be unfair on ultra technical andtrivial defects.
    Managing Director, U.P.S.R.T.C.,Lucknow and Others vs. Har Prasad Pathak and Another. 2011 LLR 930 (AllahabadHC)

    When the workman was acquitted incriminal trial by giving benefit of doubt, initiation of domestic enquiry aftersuch acquittal cannot be stayed on the ground of delay.

    Om Prakash-II vs. Delhi Societyfor Prevention of Cruetly to Animals & Ors. 2011 LLR 614 (Delhi HC)

    When disciplinary authority didnot agree with the findings of the enquiry officer exonerating the employeefrom misconduct and punishing him by his own reasons wihout giving him notice,will be illegal and will amount to violation of principles of natural justice.
    Janeshwar Prasad Yadav vs. Stateof Jharkhand and others. 2011 (129) FLR 690 (Jhar. HC)

    Where the inquiry is vitiatedonly then the labour court can go into merits of charges and direct theemployer to prove the charges.
    Uttarakhand Transport Corporationvs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dehradun and others. 2011 (129) FLR 700(Uttra. HC)

    Calling employee to first leadevidence in the enquiry will vitiate the enquiry. Management has to lead theevidence first.
    Chief Manager, Rajasthan StateRoad Transport Corporation, Vidhyadhar Nagar Depot, Jaipur vs. Sukhveer Singh(since deceased) through his Legal Heirs & Anr. 2011 LLR 680 (Raj. HC)

    Court can't grant stay againstdomestic enquiry pending criminal trial.
    National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Sunil kumar and Others. 2011 LLR 754 (Del. HC)

    Confirming the order ofpunishment by board of directors without giving opportunity of hearing to theemployee would be violative of principles of natural justice.
    Madhukar Tulsiram Tayade vs.Chairman, Board of Directors, Vidarbha Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Akola and Others.2011 LLR 770 (Bom. HC)

    Findings of Court in a criminalcase must prevail over the department proceedings on same set of charges.
    State of West Bengal and othersvs. Vidyasagar Pandey and another. 2011 (129) FLR 45 (Cal. HC)

    It is not the quantum of amountmisappropriated but the unreliable conduct of the employee which is relevantfor the purpose of imposing penalty.
    K. Murthy vs. Labour Court &Ors. LLN (1) 2011 P. 105 (Mad. HC)

    When reasons in writing arerecorded by authority for dispensation of enquiry being not resonablypracticable to follow the procedure prescribed in the rules, authority candispense with the enquiry and terminate the services.
    S.P. Arya vs. Union of India& Ors. 2011 LLR 1139 (Delhi HC)

    Charge sheet about the misconductof theft has to be very precise and specific. In that absence workman can’t beheld responsible for loss of goods by EO in the enquiry.
    K. Ramesh vs. Presiding Officer,Principal Labour Court, Chennai & Anr. 2011 LLR 1149 (Mad. HC)
    Pending disciplinary proceedings,transfer of the president of the union instead of placing under suspensioncan’t be said to be malafide.
    Kedar Singh Baghel vs. M.P. PurvaKshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, Jabalpur and Others. 2011 LLR 1185(Mad. HC)

    Enquiry will be invalid when EOhimself appeared as witness. Termination on the basis of such enquiry notsustainable.
    The Haryana State Co-operativeSupply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. Prem Singh & Anr. 2011 LLR 1188(P&H HC)

    Suspension of an employee has tobe supported by justifiable reasons.
    Sharad Chandra Sharma vs. DelhiTransco Limited & Ors. 2011 LLR 1226, 2011 VI AD (Delhi) 557 (Del. HC)

    Employee failed to participate inthe enquiry, can’t further challenge the violation of principles of naturaljustice.
    Jitender Kumar Goel vs. Director,Directorate of Education & Ors. 2011 VII AD(Delhi) 592 (Del. HC)

    When enquiry is not delayed forthe reason directly attributable to workman, he is entitled to subsistenceallowance in accordance with the service rules of the bank or settlement withthe union.
    Smt. Jayashree Vani vs. Bank ofIndia, Bangalore. 2011(130) FLR 1034 (Karn. HC)

    Even if there is a provision inthe bank rules for conducting common enquiry against two or more employees onthe ground of having identical charges, bank can go for individual enquiries.
    T. Baba Prasad vs. Andhra Bankand two others. 2011(4) LLN 94 (AP HC)

    High Court is not required tointerfere with the findings of the enquiry officer based on evidence anddecision of the disciplinary authority to come to a different finding.
    Failure of employee to submitwritten explanation of the charge sheet, can’t be presumed as admission ofcharges by the employee.

    Imposing major penalty withoutholding enquiry is a serious flaw.
    U.P. Cooperative Bank Ltd. &Ors. vs. P.O., Labour Court & Ors. 2011 LLR 1247 (All. HC)

    necessary to justify thepunishment.

    U.P. State Road TransportCorporation vs. Sudhir Nigam. 2011 LLR 361 (All. HC)

    Enquiry not vitiated for nonsupplying of list of documents and enquiry report.
    Raja Ram vs. Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat & Anr. 2011 LLR 1164 (P&HHC)

    Disciplinary authority is underobligation to provide an opportunity of hearing to the employee when he chooseto differ from the findings of the enquiry officer.
    Dandapani Muli vs. P.O.,Industrial Tribunal, BBSR & Ors. 2011 LLR 910 (Orissa HC)

    When enquiry officer exoneratedthe employee from charges and disciplinary authority dissented from, workmanneeds to be provided opportunity of hearing.
    Senior Regional Manager vs.C.G.I.T., Jabalpur and Another. 2011 LLR 941 (MP HC)

    In the absence of any such pleaof bias before EO during enquiry, EO will not be deemed as biased.
    Kewal Krishan vs. PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal & Anr. 2011 LLR 1011 (Delhi HC)

    It is always open for thedisciplinary auhority to change his view after going through the explanation ofthe employee submitted after show cause notice.
    Subhashchandra Mukherjee vs.Chairman. 2011 LLR 1049 (MP HC)

    Permanent withdrawal of pensionis appropriate punishment to the person who was found guilty ofmisappropriation.
    Dipak Kumar Lahiri vs. NationalInsurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2011 (II) LLN 151 (Cal. HC)

    Before imposing penalty to thedelinquent, the disciplinary authority has to bear in mind the nature andgravity of charges and whether any financial loss was caused by the delinquentas also his physical disability.
    T.R. Raghukumar vs. Union Bank.CLR I 2011 P. 893 (Kar. HC)


    Dismissal :
    In enquiry, proof is not requiredbeyond doubt. It is in the realm of probability.
    Divisional Controller, GujaratSate Road Transport Corporation vs. Mohmad Adambhai Mushabhai Bhodiya. 2011(131) FLR 859 (Guj. HC)

    Proving charge in the enquiry onthe basis of the concept of theory of beyond reasonable doubt is not applicablein domestic enquiry. Dismissal justified of bus conductor for not issuingtickets to passengers.
    Hidayatali s/o Mehaboobali Sayed,Chandrapur vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through DivisionalController, Chandrapur. 2011 LLR 521 (Bom. HC)

    When dismissal is for misconductof using abusive language towards superior, some indication of words, languageor getures are Dismissal of the employee even after retirement is not illegalif rules so permit.
    State Bank of India vs. Ram LalBhaskar & Anr. 2011 LLR 1233 (SC)

    Dismissal justified of theemployee for removing gold jewellery packet from the bank and also admittingthe same.
    Canara Bank, Bangalore vs. SriDevaraju H. 2011 LLR 97 (Karn. HC)

    When the enquiry was held to befair and proper, setting aside dismissal of salesman charged with misconduct ofembezzlement of funds not valid.
    Beerh Rau Ke Co-OperativeAgricultural Services Society Ltd. & Anr. vs. Presiding Officer and Ors.2011 LLR 40 (P. & H. HC)
    Dismissal proper of watchmanguilty of insubordination and threatening the security officer.

    Dhirendra Bahadur Shahi vs.Empire Industries Ltd., Vikhroli, Mumbai & Ors. 2011 LLR 125 (Bom. HC)

    Dismissal proper for abusing andassaulting the co-worker.
    Asharfi Lal vs. Management ofDelhi Cloth Mills. 2011 LLR 118 (Del. HC)

    Dismissal proper for habitual andunatuhorized absence.

    V. Manoharan vs. The PresidingOfficer, Labour Court, Vellore and Another. 2011 LLR 144 (Mad. HC)

    Dismissal invalid for single actof absence particularly when the employee (driver) suffered from injuries dueto accident.
    Managing Director, Tamil NaduState Transport Corporation (Salem Division II) Ltd., Dhamapuri vs. K.V.Krishnan and Another. 2011 LLR 148 (Mad. HC)

    Dismissal of bus conductorjustified for the misconduct of misappropriation.
    B. Narayanappa vs. ManagingDirector, K.S.R.T.C., Bangalore and Another. 2011 LLR 412 (Karn. HC)

    Even if the victim back trackedstating that he was not assaulted, dismissal of employee charged for assaultingcoworkman can't be over looked.

    A. Kajendran vs. PresidingOfficer, Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Cum Labour Court, Chennai &Ors. 2011 LLR 438 (Mad. HC)

    Dismissal justified of busconductor for not issuing tickets to passengers.
    Hidayatali s/o Mehaboobali Sayed,Chandrapur vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through DivisionalController, Chandrapur. 2011 LLR 521 (Bom. HC)

    Unauthorised absence and goingabroad without management permission shows that employee has no interest in thework.
    Dismissal for the misconduct justified.
    M.A. Azim vs. Maharashtra StateRoad Transport Corporation, through its Works Manager, Central Workshop. 2011-1LLN 123 (Bom. HC)

    When bank employee was dismissedon the basis of his past record and it was not brought to his notice before,such dismissal would be invalid.
    Dehi Ram Baruah vs. RegionalManager, UCO Bank (A Govt. of India Undertaking), Guwahati & Ors. 2011 LLR480 (Gauhati HC)

    Dismissal justified for refusalto obey instructions of superior, catching hold of neck of superior, slappingand threating to see him outside factory.
    Raja Ram vs. Presiding Officer,Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat & Anr. 2011 LLR 1164 (P&HHC)

    Refusal to report at place oftransfer establishes in subordination and unauthorised absence. Terminationjustified due to this misconduct.
    Hindalco Industries Ltd. vs.Suman Lata Tuteja & Ors. 2011 LLR 1197 (Del. HC)

    No reinstatement to teachers ofthe school for the misconduct of openly insulting, humiliating and forciblyentering into principal’s bunglow.

    Managing Committee, Frank AnthonyPublic School & Anr. vs. C.S. Clarke & Ors. 2011 LLR 1201 (Del. HC)

    Diverting customers to thirdparty causing loss is a dishonest act and loss of confidence is imperative.Dismissal justified for such misconduct.

    Abeheraj Jaswal vs. M/s. GodrejBoyce Manufacturing & Ors. 2011 LLR 1210 (Del. HC)

    Dismissal not proper on theground of unauthorised absence when he developed heart disease and was onmedical leave.
    Phulkumari and Others vs. BharatCoking Coal Ltd. Dhanbad and Others. 2011(131) FLR 186 (Jhar. HC)

    Dismissal justified of driver formisbehaving with passengers using filthy language in drunken state.
    A. Chandrappa vs. Management ofBangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation. 2011 (131) FLR 342 (Karn. HC)
    Dismissal justified of a busconductor found carrying 18 ticketless passengers.
    U.P.S.R.T.C. through its RegionalManager, Jhansi vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court (IV), Kanpur and Another.2011 LLR 1236 (All. HC)

    Dismissal justified for habitualabsence.
    A. Ganesh Reddy vs. Chief TrafficManager, B.M.T.C. Central Officers, Bangalore. 2011 LLR 1243 (Karn. HC)
    An employee who could not respecthis superior can’t be permited to remain in service.
    U.P. State Road TransportCorporation Through Regional Manager, Kanpur Nagar vs. Rajendra Singh andAnother. 2011 LLR 1257 (All. HC)

    Labour court order of modifyingthe punishment of dismissal into reinstatement by withholding two incrementsfor the misconduct of unauthorized absence of 11 months would be illegal.
    Smt. Padma and others vs. ChiefTraffic Manager BMTC Central Office, Bangalore. 2011 (131) FLR 914 (Karn. HC)

    Dismissal of bus conductorappropriate when found guilty of misappropriation.
    K. Murthy vs. 1. The LabourCourt, Salem, (2) The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, SalemDivision-II, Dharmapuri-5. 2011 LLR 329 (Mad. HC)

    Dismissal justified fordefamatory aspersions against senior officers without substantiating themduring enquiry.
    Kewal Krishan vs. PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal & Anr. 2011 LLR 1011 (Delhi HC)
    Dismissal of union leader justified for
    shouting and abusing managementin filthy language and trying to snatch papers from officers and disruptingproduction for one and half hours.
    Ravindra Sharma vs. Labour Courtand Others. 2011 LLR 495 (Uttarakhand HC)

    Dismissal justified of pharmacistfor stealing drugs by keeping in dickey of his scooter.
    Sunil Kumar vs. M/s Telco Ltd.2011 LLR 611 (Jhar. HC)

    Dismissal justified for falseundertaking of the workman that there was no criminal trial pending againsthim.
    Anil vs. Assistant Commissioner,Food and Drugs Administration, Jatharpeth, Akola. 2011 LLR 619 (Bom. HC)

    Dismissal not justified formisbehaving with the father of managing partner and partner of the firm notconnected with day-to-day activity of business, that too outside the premises.
    B. Rajagopal vs. Jomy Xavier& Anr. 2011 Lab IC 1131 (Kerala HC)

    Dismissal of bus conductor legalwhen found carrying passengers three times without ticket. It is gravemisconduct.
    U.P. State Road TransportCorporation, Kanpur Nagar vs. Chandra Prakash Soni and Another. 2011 LLR 923(Allahabad HC)

    Dismissal of bank employee properfor misconduct of misappropriation of funds.
    Shrawan Kumar, S/o Sri Ram AutarPrasad, Patna vs. Central Bank of India, through its Chairman-cum-ManagingDirector & Ors. 2011 LLR 998 (Patna HC)

    Dismissal too harsh punishmentfor the misconduct of retaining key of power house with himself withoutsanction. Reinstatement with partial back-wages would be appropriate relief.
    Managing Director, Shree PanchagangaSahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kolhapur vs. Kallappa Narasappa Sangale andOthers. 2011 LLR 822 (Bom. HC)

    Employees Compensation Act

    If the insured vehicle is notinvolved in accident, insurance company can't be held liable for compensation.
    Mamtaj Bi Bapusab Nadaf vs.United India Insurance Co. & Ors. LLN (2) 2011 P. 19 (SC)

    Taking auto on per day rent fromthe owner will not constitute employer-employee relationship for the purpose ofcompensation under E.C. Act.
    Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. rep.by its Senior Divisional Manager vs. T. Saramma and Others. 2011 LLR 75 (A.P.HC)

    Driver - son of a tractor ownedby his father can't be termed as employee under Employees Compensation Act forthe purpose of Compensation award.
    Oriental Insurance Company vs.Santosh Devi & Anr. 2011 LLR 55 (HP HC)

    In a claim for compensation, theamount paid under the Group Insurance Accident Policy will be deducted from theamount of compensation awarded by the Compensation Commissioner.

    Ubel Company vs. Jaswinder Kaurand Others. 2011 LLR 72 (P. & H. HC)

    No relief to the deceaseddependents under EC Act when claim was filed after considerable long delay.
    United India Insurance CompanyLtd. vs. Kadar Harun Changda and Others. 2011 LLR 187 (Guj. HC)

    Compensation rightly awarded whenthe employee died sitting in the vehicle cabin which he used to drive. Suchdeath will be deemed out of and in the course of employment.
    M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.vs. Zaheeda Banu & Ors. 2011 LLR 178 (Karn. HC)

    The insurer has been rightly heldliable to pay the compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased workman whodied while cutting the trees in an estate insured with the insurer.
    The United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vs. Manjunath & Ors. 2011 LLR 180 (Karn. HC)

    It would be wrong for theCommissioner to dismiss the compensation claim merely on the ground of themedical report that the deceased driver was alcohlic and there was no evidencethat death caused due to alcoholism and smoke.
    Smt. Jayalakshmi M. Shetty andOthers vs. Ramesh and Another. 2011 LLR 310 (Karn. HC)

    Awarding compensation on lesssalary than the amount admittedly evident on record would be wrong.
    (Smt.) Vithabai BhavsahebKhairnar and Others vs. Subhash Kanhaiyalal Bafna, Dhule and Another. 2011 LLR385 (Bom. HC)

    If the employee was unable toperform the duties which he was doing before the accident, will amount to lossof 100% earning capacity even though the physical disability is 20-25%.Compensation on the basis of 100% loss is appropriate.
    National Insurance Company Ltd.vs. Hari Om and Anr. 2011 LLR 428 (Del. HC)

    Workman injured in an accidentcaused by his own negligence cannot claim compensation.
    Louis Martis vs. Louis Korrea& Anr. LLJ (1) 2011 P. 342 (Karn. HC)

    Loosing right arm in accident isitself a proof of loss in earining capacity, commissioner under W.C. Act shouldhave decided the claim on the basis of submission only.
    Narayan Bansilal Vaishnav,Buldhana vs. Champatrao Tryambakrao Deshmukh, (dead through L.Rs.). 2011 LLR524 (Bom. HC)

    Employee is not entitled forgrant of medical expenses for the injury caused during employment under EC Act.
    New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.Viram Vela Rabari and Another. 2011 LLR 484 (Guj. HC)

    100% disability for compensationwill be presumed when driver of the vehicle has lost his right eye since hewill not be able to perform the duties of a driver.
    Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Shri Diwan Singh and Another. 2011 (129) FLR 78 (Uttarakhand HC)

    Being EC Act as social welfarelegislation, benefit of doubt about death in course of employment should beallowed and compensation be given.

    New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,Bangalore vs. Naseem Banu and Others. 2011 LLR 588 (Kar. HC)

    Loss of vision in one eye ofdriver would be treated as permanent total disablement with 100% earningcapacity loss.
    New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.Santhosh. 2011 LLR 748 (Kerala HC)

    Sub-Divisional officers are notentitled to act and function as commissioner under Employees Compensation Actas amended from 2010.

    National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Bhim Singh &Ors. 2011-II CLR 129 (Del. HC)

    Diabetes Mellitus is not adiseases in the list of occupational diseases as mentioned in the Schedule tothe Employees Compensation Act hence a claim by a workman cannot be allowed bythe Commissioner under the Act.

    Shipping Corporation of IndiaLtd. vs. Ratanji Somabhai Tandel. 2011 (129) FLR 926 (Bom. HC)

    Insurer of the vehicle has toindemnify the employer with compensation and interest which was paid in an accidentcaused to the driver while in the employment who was rendered unfit to drivethe vehicle.

    M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd.vs. Lakhindra Das and Another. 2011 (129) FLR 845 (Gauhati HC)

    Assessment of loss of earningcapacity upto 10% without any basis cannot be relied upon.
    Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,Bangalore vs. Shivanna @ Shivananjegowda and Another. 2011(129) FLR 821 (Karnataka HC)

    No compensation to deceasedfamily when the death of the operator occured by falling down from the thirdfloor of the administartive building away from the factory. Such death is notaccident under EC Act.

    Smt. M. Suvarna W/o Late S.Narayanaswamy & Ors. vs. The Factory Manager, Motor Industries Co. Ltd.,Adugodi & Anr. 2011 LLR 804 (Kar. HC)

    Employer - owner of theautoriksha will be liable to pay compensation to the dependents of the deceaseddriver when he knew that driver was not holding a valid driving licence.Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation in such case.
    Faimada Begum vs. Akram Pasha& Anr. 2011 LLR 872 (AP HC)

    The law is settled on this aspectthat the statutory liability under the Employees Compensation Act is on theemployer and unless a separate clause is included for the lability of interest,the Insurance Company
    is not liable to make payment ofinterest especially in case where the accident is not related to a motorvehicle accident.
    New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.Hiralal Gomaji Moriya (Regar) and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 43 (Guj. HC)

    In reply to plea of the InsuranceCompany that notice under Section 10 of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923
    was not given, the High Courtpointed out Clause (a) of the fourth proviso to Section 10(1) of the Actapplied in the case of death of workman occurred in accident while he wasworking in the premises, and under the control of employer.
    New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.Smt. Vimla Devi and Others. 2011 (III) LLJ 209 (All. HC)

    In an ex-parte proceedings, noevidence of doctor is necessary when commissioner was satisfied with themedical certificate about extent of loss of earning capacity.
    Sashin and Company vs. Rupa UkaSakaria (Deceased) by Heir and Another. 2011 LLR 912 (Guj. HC)

    Insurance company will not beliable to pay compensation when the driver died while replacing the electricfuse wire in transformer, not permissible under the electricity rules.
    United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,Hyderabad vs. Elkachenu kistamma and Ors. 2011 LLR 931(AP HC)

    For the purpose of determiningcompensation, minimum wages is to be taken in to consideration where theemployee was paid even less than minimum wages.
    Shankar vs. The Chief Engineer,KPTCL, Gulbarga and Others. 2011 LLR 934 (Karn. HC)

    Insurance company is not liableto pay compensation for accident while working at crusher, because tractor andtrailer were insured by the company and not the crusher.

    Branch Manager, NationalInsurance Co. Ltd., Mandya vs. Ramalingegowda and Another. 2011 LLR 939 (Karn.HC)

    Insurance company liable to paycompensation to deceased dependents. Can't escape from liability for want ofexact number of workers working at accident place.
    Oriental Insurance Company vs.Narpartu and Ors. 2011 LLR 987 (HP HC)

    Exhorbitant compensation in caseof non scheduled injury without appreciating evidence correctly and genuinelyby EC commissioner is liable to be quashed.
    The New India Assurance CompanyLtd. by its Dn. Mang. vs. K. Somashekhar & Anr. 2011 LLR 1043 (Karn. HC)

    Death due to heart attack whiledriving vehicle would amount to accident under EC Act and compensation rightlyawarded.
    National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs.Sheeja. 2011 LLR 1071 (Kerala HC)

    Death of trailer driver due toheart attack out of stress and strain of employment would amount to accidentarising out of and in the course of employment. Dependents entitled forcompensation.

    Commissioner should not rejectthe claim on mere technical grounds.
    Bangaru Koteswaramma & Ors.vs. G. Srinivasa Rao & Anr. 2011 LLR 1105 (AP HC)

    For filing an appeal against theorder of Employees' Compensation Commissioner, the awarded amount besides theinterest to be deposited as a condition precedent.
    New India Assurance CompanyLimited vs. Biju. 2011 (130) FLR 596 (Kerala HC)

    For getting compensation underthe E.C. Act the claimant has to establish (1) Personal
    injury, (2) Accident and (3) Thatit arose out of and in the course of employment.
    Pratap vs. Panipat Co-op. SugarMills Ltd. & Anr. FLR (130) 2011 P. 476 (P&H HC)

    Where there is no medicalevidence that the death of the driver was due to his consuming alcohol, claimfor compensation cannot be denied.
    Jayalakshmi M. Shetty & Ors.vs. Ramesh & Anr. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 108 (Karn. HC)

    Workman has to choose one remedyfor his compensation - either to file petition under EC Act or a civil suit forrecovery of damages. He can't have both the options.
    Jairam s/o Hindusingh Balai vs.Jaswant Singh alias Fakirchand s/o Sukharam and Ors. 2011 LLR 1050 (MP HC)

    Death due to quarrel withco-worker while on duty will amount to accident arising out of and in thecourse of employment.
    Union of India Through GeneralManager, Northern Railway and Another vs. Ifzal Hussain and Another. 2011 LLR200 (All. HC)

    Death can’t be said to be occuredduring the course of employment as employment injury when the driver died as aresult of altercation and fist fight with another auto driver when vehicles ofboth dashed with each other.
    New India Assurance CompanyLimited, rep. by its Divisional Manager vs. Noorjahan Begum and 8 Others. 2011LLR 1221 (AP HC)

    A Fireman of U.P. Government firedepartment will not be covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act hence thecommissioner has erred in allowing the claim for accident compensation.
    State of U.P. and Others vs.Deputy Labour Commissioner (Prescribed Authority), Azamgarh and Another. 2011(130)FLR 881 (All. HC)

    When husband is the driver andhis wife is the owner of the autorikshaw, there would be no master-servantrelationship for the purpose of getting claim under E.C. Act.
    Prapulla Chandra Satyanarayanavs. Prapulla Chandra Appalakonda and Another. 2011 LLR 1245 (AP HC)

    Employees Provident Fund :

    Two establishments rightlyclubbed under EPF Act when both were having functional and financialintegrality and directors of both from the same family, MD, technical andcommercial manager common, employees of both were being swapped and bothregistered at same address with same telephone numbers.
    M/s. L.N. Gadodia & Sons& Anr. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 2011 LLR 1124 (SC)

    Once paying EPF contribution onsalary more than prescribed limit by the employer, he can reduce hiscontribution to Rs. 6,500. Sec. 12 of the EPF Act will not be a bar nor sec. 9Aof the ID Act will operate in negative.
    Marathwada Gramin Bank KaramchariSanghatana and Another vs. Management of Marathwada Gramin Bank and Others.2011 LLR 1130 (SC)

    Even though there is nolimitation for EPF authorities to issue notice for damages, time has to bereasonable. Period of 7-8 years for issuing notice can't be termed as reasonableand was liable to quashed.
    I.O.L. Limited vs. Union of Indiaand Ors. 2011 LLR 100 (All. HC)

    Amount paid to C & F Agent asex-gratia and commission can't be treated as wages for the purpose of EPF. C& F Agent are not the employees of the company.
    The Assistant Provident FundCommissioner, Nagpur vs. M/s. Leben Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., Akola. 2011 LLR 27(Bom. HC) ; 2011(II) LLJ 468

    When the establishment producesthe record about labour wages, it will be illegal for the EPF authorities toassess the labour cost as 25% lump-sum on machine maintenance andloading-unloading bills.
    Vikas Electricals, Jabalpur vs.Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur. 2011 LLR 3 (MP HC)

    No writ is maintainable againstPF authorities order when remedy of appeal before tribunal is not exhausted.
    Lakshmi Metal Industries,Tirunelveli vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Tirunelveli & Ors.2011 LLR 152 (Mad. HC)
    Special Allowance given toconfirmed employees arising out of settlement is not basic wage or deemed partof deemed DA to attract PF contribution.
    Gordon Woodroffe Ltd., Madras vs.RPFC Madras, 2011 LLR 29 (Madras HC)
    No PF dues can be demanded whenFactory closed down with due process of law and EPF was informed.
    Bomin Pvt. Ltd. vs. AssistantProvident Fund Commissioner 2011 I CLR 523 (Guj. HC)

    EPF Appellate Tribunal is alsoempowered to reduce or waive the damages levied by Employees' Provident FundAuthority.
    Regional Provident FundCommissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Nagpur vs. Manoharbhai Ambalal, Gondia. 2011LLR 332 (Bom. HC)

    Damages under sec. 14B of EPF Actwill not be legal if there remains no default or arrears on the date when thedamages are levied.
    Hi-Tech Vocational TrainingCentre vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. 2011 LLR 231 (Del. HC)

    Accountant and goldsmiths notpaid regular wages will not be considered as employee under EPF Act.
    Assistant Provident FundCommissioner, Ranchi vs. Sushil Kumar Gupta. 2011 LLR 305: 2011 (128) FLR 718(Jharkhand HC)

    EPF appellate tribunal must givereasons in a speaking order for dispensing with the compliance of sec. 7-O.
    Assistant Provident FundCommissioner, Karnal vs. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal andAnother. 2011 LLR 235 (P&H HC)

    While deciding about exemptionunder sec. 17 of EPF Act, authorities have to test the application whetherproposals offered better than of EPF Scheme.
    H.C. Gupta, Assistant GeneralManager (Retd.) and Others vs. Punjab State Co-operative Bank Limited andOthers. 2011 LLR 302 (P&H HC)

    Employer can split the minimumwages into various allowances for the purpose of determining their liabilityunder EPF Act.
    Asstt. Provident FundCommissioner, Gurgaon vs. M/s. G4S Security Services (India) Ltd. and Another.2011 LLR 316 (P&H HC)

    If the employer is aggrieved bythe order of the provident fund authority, should appeal before the EPFAppellate Tribunal and not the writ petition is to be filed.
    State Infrastructure andIndustrial Development Corporation of Uttarakhand Ltd., Dehradun vs. RegionalProvident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun and Others. 2011 LLR 308 (Uttarakhand HC)

    In the absence of any speakingorder by appellate tribunal under EPF Act, dismissal of appeal challenging levyof damages would be unreasonable. HC restored the appeal.
    Cable Corporation of India Ltd.vs. Union of India & Anr. 2011 LLR 380 (Bom. HC)

    Unloaders employed temporarilycannot be treated as regular for the purpose of coverage of establishment underEPF Act 1952.
    Saroj Oil & Dal Industriesvs. Central Board of Trustees Through CPF Commissioner and another. 2011 (128)FLR 984 (Del. HC)

    Rejection of objections filed byemployer because limitation Act did not apply, is illegal. RPFC directed tohear the matter afresh under sec. 7A of EPF Act.
    Fouzdar Farm Equipments, Satnavs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur & Another. 2011 LLR 373(MP HC)

    Before recovery of any dues underEPF Act, authority needs to provide opportunity of hearing to the employer.
    U.A. Transport Corporation vs.Employees' Provident Fund Organisation. 2011 LLR 418 (Uttarakhand HC)

    Two hotels of the same companyhaving no financial integrality with separate establishments are not to beclubbed together for the purpose of EPF.
    PIEM Hotels Limited & Anr.vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 2011 LLR 526 (Bom. HC)

    When old employees are absorbedby the new employer on purchase of old unit, EPF Act will continue to apply.
    Jessore Industries (India)Limited & Anr. vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal& Nicobar Island & Ors. 2011 (I) LLN 772 (Cal. HC)

    Canteen subsidy pursuant tosettlement does not attract PF contribution and can’t be part of D.A.
    Indian Petrochemicals CorporationLtd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Another. 2011 LLR 460 (Guj.HC); 2011 LLR 717 (Guj. HC): 2011 I CLR 533 (Guj.)

    Transport allowance, washingallowance, attendance incentive and special allowance paid to all employeesexcept HRA and lunch allowance will form part of 'basic wages' and will attractPF contribution.
    Surya Roshni Ltd. vs. Employees'provident Fund and Another. 2011 LLR 568 (M.P. HC)

    Merely working of part timeaccountant in two different establishments will not be sufficient to club bothinto one for PF coverage when partners and employees were different.
    M/s Paramount Leathers vs.Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another. 2011 LLR 597 (Cal. HC)

    Recovery officer cannot recoverthe PF amount determined under section 7A till expiry of 60 days of appeal.
    Mahindra Gears and TransmissionPvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund.2011 LLR 602 (Guj. HC)

    More than 50% workers engagedunder the guise of "apprentices" and paying them salary, allowancesand bonus instead of stipend will not be excluded from provisions of the EPFAct.
    Sree Mangayarkarasi Mills (P)Ltd., Madurai Distt. vs. 1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Madurai,2. The Presiding Officer, EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2011 LLR 604(Madras HC)

    EPF Appellate Tribunal is underobligation to consider the submissions made and grounds raised in the appeal bythe employer. Failure to do so will render the order illegal.
    M/s BSBK Pvt. Ltd. vs. Employees'Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Anr. 2011 LLR 610 (ChattisgarhHC)

    EPF Authorities were lawful inrejecting the exemption application of the bank when required documents andrecords were not produced.
    Bihar State Co-operative LandDevelopment Bank Limited, Bihar and Jharkhand, Budh Marg, P.S. Kotwali, District-PatnaThrough its Managing Director and Another vs. Union of India through itsSecretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi and Others. 2011 LLR624 (Patna HC)

    Writ not maintainable againstorder passed by EPF authorities under section 7A. Whether a person is anapprentice under standing orders has to be decided on the basis of evidence byappellate tribunal.
    Tirupati Jute Industries Limited& Anr. vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation & Ors. 2011 LLR 657(Cal. HC)

    Before rejecting application ofexemption under EPF Act, authorities are under obligation to provide hearingapportunity to the school management.
    Satyabrata Chakraborti vs. Unionof India and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 315 (Cal. HC)

    Order of EPF Authority undersection 7A, if reversed by appellate tribunal in appeal, cannot be challengedin high court by EPF Authority.
    Asstt. Provident FundCommissioner, Goa vs. Nirmitee Holidays (P) Ltd., Pune. 2011-II LLJ 469 (Bom.HC) ; 2011 LLR 28 (Bom. HC)

    Assembling of parts of gun in thefactory will be a manufacturing process within sec. 2(m) of Factories Act andthe unit would be covered under EPF Act.
    M/s Lowtan and Co. vs. PresidingOfficer, Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and Another.2011 LLR 807 (Patna HC)

    Ex-parte order passed againstemployer by EPF authorities which was communicated to him after seven months isnot proper. High Court ordered EPF authorities to hear afresh the employer andcommunicate fresh order.

    M/s. Nityanand Restaurant &Bar. vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. 2011 LLR 851 (Bom.HC)

    When the reference under section17 of SICA before BIFR was pending against the petitioner-Company, the P.F.Authorities cannot take recourse to any coercive steps during pendency of suchreference.
    M/s. R.S.I. Ltd. & Anr. vs.Employees' Provident Fund Organisation & Ors. 2011 LLR 852 (Cal. HC)

    Employer purchasing the machinesfrom the closed establishment after taking full and final payments by workersand setting up the machines at different place will not be a continuingbusiness under EPF Act and PF authorities can't order new employer for paymentof EPF contributions of past period.
    Management of Lingam Press,Coimbatore vs. Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal& Anr. 2011 LLR 863 (Mad. HC)

    Special allowance &Conveyance paid to all workers universally, necessarily and ordinarily will bepart of basic wages for the purpose of PF contributions.
    Montage Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs.Employees' Provident Fund, Indore & Another. 2011 LLR 867 (MP HC)

    Conveyance Allowance, EducationAllowance, Special Allowances, Food Concessions, Medical Allowance, SpecialHolidays, Night Shift Incentive and City Compensatory Allowance will be deemedas basic wages for the purpose of PF contributions under the EPF Act.
    The Management of Reynolds PensIndia Pvt. Ltd., Kancheepuram and Others vs. The Regional Provident FundCommissioner-II, Chennai. 2011 LLR 876 (Mad. HC)

    Person treated as employee forpayment of bonus would come within the ambit of employee as defined by E.P. F.Act.
    Sree Mangayarkarasi Mills (P)Ltd. vs. The Astt. Provident Fund Commissioner. LLN (2) 2011 P. 304 (Mad. HC)

    Division bench also upheld theorder of single judge declaring spiliting of minimum wages in to basic andallowances as legal for PF purpose.
    Assistant Provident FundCommissioner vs. M/s. G4S Security Services (India) Ltd. & Another. 2011LLR 943 (P&H HC)

    When interim relaxation from theprovisions of the EPF Act was granted by PF commissioner, withdrawl of suchrelaxation during exemption can't be enforced. Court converted such order in toshow cause notice.
    Religare Enterprises Ltd. vs.Labour Secretary & Ors. 2011 LLR 950 (Delhi HC)

    When contractor agency was paidas “karigar charges” after deducting TDS for specialised work of embroidery andprinting, such amount will not attract PF contribution.
    When the status of person asemployee is to be determined, it should be seen whether such person has anobligation to report for duty next day.
    The Regional Provident FundCommissioner, Mumbai vs. M/s. Syndicate Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 2011 LLR 953 (Bom.HC)

    Junior telecom officers or junioraccount officers can't be excluded from EPF coverage for the period of theirpre induction training, specifically when their such period was termed as'duty' in the rule book and gratuity was also applicable for such period.
    Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,Chennai vs. Union of India and Others. 2011 LLR 959 (Mad. HC)

    Company providing financial serviceswould be covered under the EPF Act and agents getting commission would betreated as employees.
    Focussed Corporate Services(India) Pvt. Ltd.,Coimbatore vs. Union of India, Ministry of Labour andEmployment, New Delhi & Ors. 2011 LLR 989 (Mad. HC)

    Provisions of EPF Act do notprohibit the authorities to proceed for recovery of amount even during theperiod of appeal provided to the employer.
    Employees' Provident FundOrganisation vs. Rollwell Forge Ltd. & 1. 2011 LLR 1006 ( Guj.HC)

    It is for the employer and notthe EPF authorities to prove the strength of employees, employed by him againstthe report of PF authority.
    J.K. College of Nursing &Paramedicals vs. Union of India & Ors. 2011 LLR 1013 (Delhi HC)

    Condition of deposit the amountbefore filing appeal under EPF Act, can't be subsituted by bank gurantee.
    Socrus Pharmaceutical Limited vs.Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. 2011 LLR 1018 (Delhi HC)

    The financial corporation and notthe new owner to whom the unit was sold, would be liable to pay PF arrearsamount to PF department. Sec. 17B of EPF Act will not be applicable in suchcase.
    Alico Rubber Reclamation(Private) Limited vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Anr. 2011 LLR1032 (HP HC)

    Passing order by EPF tribunaldeclaring ex-parte on the same day ignoring the application of the employerrequesting for adjournment on which employer was intimated about next date ofhearing,
    would be illegal and liable to bequashed.
    Nocil Limited (Erstwhile NationalOrganic Chemical Industries Ltd.) vs. The Regional Provident FundCommissioner-II & Another. 2011 LLR 1052 (Bom. HC)

    The organization engaged in theactivities of the inspection, sampling, analysis and survey work in the fieldof ores, minerals & chemicals can't fall in the schedule head of 'engineersand engineering contractors' under EPF Act.

    Regional Provident FundCommissioner, W.B. & Anr. vs. Superintendence Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. 2011LLR 1067 (Cal. HC)

    When susequent purchaserpurchased business by way of sale and continued same business, Sec. 17B of EPFAct will apply and new owner will be liable to pay PF contribution of earlierperiod if any.

    A.L. Subramanian vs. Employees'Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi & Ors. 2011 LLR 1074 (Mad. HC)

    No writ lies against the order ofEPF authorites under Sec. 7A. Employer has to file an appeal before tribunal.
    Bharat Polychem Ltd. vs. RegionalProvident Fund Commissioner & Anr. 2011 LLR 1082 (Delhi HC)

    Order of EPF authorities undersec. 7A & 7B, if made without making compliance of principles of naturaljustice, is liable to be set aside.
    MGM New Bombay Hospital, Vashivs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. 2011 LLR 1117 (Bom. HC)

    EPF tribunal was duty bound toenquire from the employer counsel for fixatation of hearing outside Delhi. Anysuch ex-parte order passed at camp hearing by tribunal against employer wouldbe illegal.
    B. Mansukhlal and Company vs.Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Ors. 2011 LLR 240 (Del. HC)

    PF appellate tribunal orderwithout hearing the employer will be invalid.
    Shiv Herbal Research LaboratoryLtd., Nagpur vs. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur & Anr. 2011 LLR1146 (Bom. HC)

    Govt. Notification about coverageof establishment under EPF Act can also be challenged before appellatetribunal.
    Asahai Infrastructure andprojects Ltd., Akola vs. Asstt. Provident Funds Commissioner, Akola. 2011 LLR1148 (Bom. HC)

    Order for imposing damages andinterest under sec. 7A of EPF Act without considering various factors offrequency of delay and default, amount etc. is liable to be set aside.
    Damien Foundation India Trust,rep. by Mr. L. Camillus Rajkumar, Chennai vs. Presiding Officer, Employees'Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Coimbatore & Anr. 2011 LLR 1156 (Mad.HC)

    EPF authority before passing anyorder of PF contribution determination amount, has to ensure that notice on theperson/establishment on whom liability is proposed to be is fixed, is servedand opportunity of hearing is provided.

    Contractor society being exemptedfrom EPF Act not liable to pay contribution.
    Pathankot Janta CooperativeLabour & Construction Society Ltd. and Anr. vs. State of Punjab throughSecretary, Irrigation, Punjab, Chandigarh & Ors. 2011 LLR 1162 (P&H HC)

    In the absence of any provisionabout depositing the assessed amount or part thereof under sec. 7-C of EPF Act,appellate tribunal can’t make it a precondition to hear the appeal. Such orderis liable to be set aside.
    Writer Safeguard Private Limitedvs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Assessing Officer & Others.2011 LLR 1193 (Bom. HC)

    Employees pension scheme underEPF Act is a contributory pension scheme, the employee is bound by the terms ofthe Scheme and he cannot escape his lability to make out the amount payable bypointing
    out the alleged lapse of theemployer. From The Court Room Important Labour Judgments 2011
    C. Govindasamy vs. RegionalProvident Fund Commissioner, Chennai and Others. 2011(130)FLR 843 (Mad. HC)

    A transferee of an establishmentcannot escape the liability of the provident fund dues which were payable bythe transferor whereas the liability would be restricted to the value of assetsas obtained on transfer.
    Mrs. Radhamani vs. EnforcementOfficer, Kollam and Others. 2011 Lab. IC 2965 (Kerala HC)

    Failure on the part of Tribunalto assign reasons to differ from the view taken by Assistant Provident FundCommissioner to allow the appeal, as rightly contended, has occasioned denialof justice to the petitioner and matter remanded back for reconsideration.

    Assistant Provident FundCommissioner, Bangalore vs. Chinmaya Mission Hospital, Bangalore. 2011(131) FLR159 (Karn. HC)

    PF authorities can’t imposeinterest under sec. 7Q over and above the rate given.
    Jyoti Cements (P) Limited andOthers vs. P.F. Commissioner and Others. 2011 (131) FLR 557 (Raj. HC)

    EPF authority can’t claimcontributions for the period for which workman neither worked nor agreed to betreated on duty.
    Universal Brakes (P) Ltd.,Coimbatore vs. Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunaland Ors. 2011 III CLR 662 (Mad. HC)

    Civil suit is not maintainableunder EPF Act as the same has its own special provisions of appeal beforeappelate authority.
    Regional Provident Fund Commissionervs. Dr. O.P. Mittal and Another. 2011 LLR 1254 (P&H HC)

    When apprentices are paid wages,salaries and bonus, they are employees under EPF Act.
    Sree Mangayarkarasi Mills (P.)Ltd. rep. by its Director vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, E.P.F.Organization, Regional Office and another. 2011 (129) FLR 117

    Recovery of PF dues determinedunder 7A of EPF Act not permissible when unit is closed.
    Bomin Private Ltd. vs. AssistantProvident Fund Commissioner. 2011 (128) FLR 1092 (Guj. HC)

    Employment :
    Exchange (CNV) Act

    There is nothing in theEmployment Exchange (CNV) Act which obligates the employer to appoint onlythose who are sponsored by Employment Exchange.
    Union of India and others vs. Ms.Pritilata Nanda. 2011 (128) FLR 838 (S.C.)

    It is essential for the publicsector establishments to notify every vacancy under employment exchanges (CNV)Act 1959.

    Thota Srinivasa Rao vs. Director,Telugu Academy, Hyderabad and Another. 2011 LLR 138 (A.P. HC)

    E.S.I. :
    Definition of factory covers "shop",and there being more than 20 persons, ESI coverage is valid.
    Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs.Regional Director, ESI Corporation & Anr. 2011 I CLR 120 (Del. HC)

    Doing loading and unloading ofcargo outside the premises of employer will come under 'shop' for ESI purpose.ESI applicable.
    Employees' State InsuranceCorporation vs. Sea Hawk Cargo Carriers Pvt. Ltd. 2011 (128) FLR 82 (Del. HC)

    Even if blending and packing oftea in continuation to manufacturing process in plantation is done whole theyear, would amount to seasonal factory and will be out of ESI coverage.
    Hindustan Lever Ltd.Kirumampakkam, Pondicherry vs. Deputy Director, Regional Office (Pondicherry)Employees, State Insurance Corporation, Pondicherry and others. 2011 (128) FLR108 (Mad. HC)

    The establishment providingprofessional services about machine tools and equipments to industries rightlycovered under ESI as "shop".
    Machine Tools (India) Ltd., vs.Employees' State Insurance Corporation. 2011 LLR 121 (Del. HC)


    Providing services of sale andpurchase of immovables will be termed as shop under Delhi Shops Act making theestablishment coverable under ESI Act
    Anant Raj Agencies Pvt. Ltd. vs.Regional Director, ESI Corporation & Anr. 2011 LLR 204 (Del. HC)

    ESI Act not applicable on NagarPalika/Parishad employees.
    Nagar palika, Hardwar vs.Employees' state Insurance Corporation and others. 2011 (128) FLR 331(Uttarakhand HC)

    Proceedings under section 45A andunder section 75 of the Employees' State Insurance Act are distinct and noperiod of limitation for recovering arrears under section 45A of the Act isapplicable.

    Deputy Director, Employees' StateInsurance Corporation, Hyderabad vs. CMC Ltd. (A Govt. Business Manager ofIndia Enterprise), Rep. by its Senior Executive, Legal & I.R. Sri A.M. Rao.2011 LLR 247 (AP HC)

    When the master servantrelationship was not denied before the Labour Inspectors by the employer,absence of employee name in the ESI record will not be sufficient to prove thatemployee was not employed by the employer.
    Vivek Metal Industries vs. P.O.,L.C & Ors. 2011 LLR 239 (Del. HC)

    Production incentive paid by thecompany to its employees would be part of "wages". E.S.I.contribution would be payable in respect of the same. Impugned order passed byE.S.I. Court set aside.
    E.S.I. Corporation vs. TracoCable Co. Ltd. 2011(128) FLR 656 (Kerala HC)

    For recovery of ESI dues, thepersonal property of a former Director of a Company cannot be attached.
    Rani K. Lulla vs. Employees'State Insurance Corporation, Chennai. 2011 LLR 289 (Mad. HC)

    Clubbing of employees working insales office and manufacturing unit for coverage under ESI is proper.
    E.S.I. Corporation vs. VijayGrover. 2011 (129) FLR 102 (Del. HC) ; 2011 LLR 499 (Del. HC)

    Director / Managing Directorreceiving salary less than the prescribed under ESI Act will come within thedefinition of employee under the Act.
    Employees' State InsuranceCorporation through its Regional Director vs. Padma Bhawan Engineers (P) Ltd.and Others. 2011 LLR 433 (P&H HC)

    Non profit making organization isnot entitled to waiver of condition of 50% deposit of the amount directed by EICourt.
    Sulabh International SocialService Organisation vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr. 2011LLR 435 (P&H HC)

    For admitting the appeal againstESI demand, 25% instead of 50% deposit by employer would be proper becausethere is no ESI hospital near the workplace.
    M/s. Bihar Industrial Corporationvs. State of Jharkhand and Others. 2011 LLR 485 (Jharkhand HC)

    Recovery of ESI dues undersection-45A of ESI Act not maintainable when raised after 5 years.
    M/s. Madhav Retreads vs.Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Others. 2011 LLR 492 (Jharkhand HC)
    Sick company cannot stall ESIrecovery dues merely because it was sick under BIFR.

    A&F Overseas Trade Limitedvs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Anr. 2011LLR 451 (Mad. HC)

    Pendency of BIFR proceedingscannot prevent ESI authorities from enforcing the provisions of the Act. Employercannot escape from interest on delayed payments. But damages can be waived orreduced.
    M.M. Rubber Company Ltd. vs.Deputy Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Ors. 2011 LLR 454(Mad. HC)

    Giving 7 days notice instead of15 for recovery of ESI dues by the authorities would be illegal under sec. 45G.
    M/s. G.R. Thangamaligai Jewellersvs. M/s. Employees' State Insurance Corporation & Anr. 2011 LLR 545 (Mad.HC)

    Writ petition against show causenotice issued by ESI authorities under Sec. 75 & 45 A of ESI Act notmaintainable. Employer is under obligation to reply show cause notice.
    Alagappa Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd.Represented by its Personnel Officer, Rajapalayam, Virudhunagar vs. Employees'State Insurance Corporation. 2011 LLR 573 (Madras HC)

    Principles of limitation are notapplicable on recovery of interest amount on delayed payment of ESIcontributions.
    Essma Woollen Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs.Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Anr. 2011 LLR 650 (P& H HC)

    Prosecution against employerunder ESI beyond limitation period of 6 months will not be maintainable.
    E.S.I. Corporation vs.Brajakishore Panigrahi and Another. 2011 (129) FLR 347 (Orissa HC)

    An order by Employees' InsuranceCourt rejecting plea for waiver of deposit of 50% amount due (under section75(2-B) of ESI Act, 1948) is not appealable since no substantial question oflaw has arisen.
    JCT Electronics Ltd. Mohalithrough its Vice President vs. Employee's State Insurance Corporation, NewDelhi and Others. 2011-II LLJ 3803 (P& H HC)

    The ESI Act has not provided foran appeal against an award declining to impose interest and/or penalty.
    Shankarji Kaluji Thakur vs.Chabindas Babulal Jain. LLN (1) 2011 P. 472 (Guj. HC)

    Schools fall within the ambit ofestablishments as provided in section 1(5) of the ESI Act.
    Private Schools Co-ordinationCommittee vs. State & Ors. LIC 2011 P. 997 (J&K HC)

    Architectural / Engingeeringconsultancy organization will be 'shop' for the purpose of coverage under ESIAct.
    Consulting Engineering Services(I) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Chairman, ESI Corporation & Ors. 2011 LLR 687 (Del. HC)

    When employees of two unitsworking in the same premises having functional integrality with commonelectricity connection, both the units will be treated one for the coverageunder ESI Act.
    Regional Director, Employees'State Insurance Corporation Ltd., Chennai vs. M/s. Ambika Offset. 2011 LLR 726(Mad. HC)

    Conveyance allowance will not attract ESI contribution.
    M/s Asian Paints (India) Ltd.(Now known as Asian Paints Ltd.) vs. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation& Anr. 2011 LLR 776 (AP HC)
    "Minority" institutionshaving constitutional protection to administer the institution in their ownmanner, signify an identifiable group of people or community, who are seen asdeserving protection from likely deprivation of their religious, cultural andeducational rights by majority communities and likely to gain political powerin a democratic form of government based on election hence coverage ofeducational institutions by clubbing them with others will not be legal andtheir coverage under ESI Act  is liableto be set aside.
    Salesian Province of Kolkata(Northern India), represented by its Secretary, Father Mananchira ChackoMatthew vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 2011-II CLR 666 (Cal. HC)

    When there were only eightemployees and such attendance register was also scruitinized by the ESIinspector, no amount of contribution can be determined against such employer,specifically when the establishment was not liable to covered.
    Syndicate Printers by itsProprietor, V. Chockalingam, Contract of Insurance-14 vs. The RegionalDirector, ESI Corporation, 143 Sterling Road, Contract of Insurance-34. 2011LLR 963 (Mad.HC)

    Travelling allowance is not wagesfor the purpose of ESI.
    Conveyance allowance issynonymous to travelling allowance.
    Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd. vs.Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Hyderabad. 2011 III CLR 121 (AP HC);2011 LLR 1174

    Order threatening coercive actionfor failure to pay ESI contribution cannot be challenged on the ground that thecompany had become sick or that the demand for interest was unjustified.
    M.M. Rubber Co. Ltd. vs. Dy.Director, Employees State Insurance Corpn., Chennai. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 322(Mad. HC)

    Waiver of deposit of 50% of theamount as challenged in a petition under section 75 of the ESI Act rightlydenied since no extraordinary circumstances have been made out from thepetitioner.
    M/s. Aakavi Spinning Mills Pvt.Ltd., Melasubrayapuram vs. Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Pondicherry.2011 Lab. IC 3098 (Mad. HC)

    Notifications relating toincrease in wage limit under ESI Act do not violates Article 21 ofConstitution.
    Elgi Equipments Workers &Staff Union, Coimbatore vs. Union of India and Others. 2011(4) LLN 305 (Mad.HC)

    No damages for late depositwithout serving show cause notice.
    A.K. Industries, Rohtak throughits Authorised Signatory D. Mukherjee vs. Employees' State InsuranceCorporation through its Regional Director, Faridabad and Ors. 2011 LLR 1248(P&H HC)

    In the absence of having anymedical facility for treatment of heart ailment by ESIC, expenses incurred fortreatment is a private hospital by the employee who died, his legal heirs willbe entitled for reimbursement of expenditure from ESIC.
    Regional Director, E.S.I.Corporation, Bangalore vs. Smt. Lakshmi Biradar and Others. 2011 LLR 1271(Karn. HC)

    Managing Director or Director ofa company can't be treated as an employee under the Act.
    Regional Director, E.S.I. v. SriVasavi Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. LLN (3) 2010 P. 438 (A.P. HC)

    Merely using deep freezer by ahotel employing 11 employees will not make him coverable under ESI with in thedefinition of factory.
    Arif (Mohd.) vs. Employees' StateInsurance Corp. 2011 LLR 91 (Del. HC)

    The payment towards productionincentive paid to the employees within a span of two months will be deemed as'wages' for ESI contributions.
    E.S.I. Corporation vs. TracoCable Co. Ltd. 2010(4) KLT 892 (Kerala HC)
    Equal Remuneration :

    When an establishment is not an'industry' under ID Act, Contract Labour Act will not apply but EqualRemuneration Act will be applicable on such establishment.
    Leelaben Parmer and Others vs.Physical Research Laboratory and Another. 2011 LLR 813 (Guj. HC)

    Criminal complaint under equal
    remuneration act against MD andCRM of IRCTC Limited (Railway catering) not responsible for conduct of businessof the company is liable to be quashed P.K. Goel And Another vs. LabourEnforcement Officer (Central)-I, Bangalore. 2011 LLR 410 (Karn. HC)

    EQUAL Work-Equal WAGES :
    There can’t be any prohibition onthe employer to have different grade of posts in its different units. Courtshould avoid application of principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work.
    Steel Authority of India Ltd.& Ors. vs. Dibyendue Bhattacharya. 2011 I CLR 602 (S.C.)

    Merely because casually employedworkmen are performing the same task as of regularly employed workmen- can't itself constitute a legal justification for equal pay for equal work.
    Air India Ltd. vs. PresidingOfficer, CGIT & Anr. 2011 LLR 951 (Delhi HC)

    Principle of equal pay for equalwork will not be applicable even when the workmen appointed on casual basis areperforming the same duties.
    Air India Ltd. vs. PresidingOfficer, CGIT & Anr. 2011 LLR 1080 (Delhi HC)

    The demand of equal pay for equalwork not justified on the basis of industry cum region formula. When two unitsof the industry are situated in deffernt parts of the country, equal pay can’tbe given to employees of both the units.

    Workmen represented by HyderabadAsbestos Cement Products Limited vs. Management of M/s Hyderabad IndustriesLtd. 2011 LLR 1269 (Jharkhand HC)

    Daily wager not holding any postis not entitled to invoke the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'.
    Hindustan Salts Ltd. vs. DrangSalt Mine Labour Union and Another. 2011 LLR 402 (HP HC)

    A railway porter working on aplatform, required to work for railways sometime in handling parcels andluggage in the custody of railways, cannot be treated at par with the casuallabourers for payment of wages.
    South Eastern Railway, AdraDivision, Adra vs. Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Dhanbad-Cum-AuthorityUnder the Minimum Wages Act and Another. 2011 (128) FLR 862 (Jharkhand HC)

    Factories Act :

    Unless an establishment iscovered under the Factories Act, the prosecution launched aginst owners of theestablishment engaged in courier service will be illegal.
    The Management of DHL Express (I)Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Inspector of Factories-III, O/o Inspector of Factories,Chennai. 2011 LLR 292 (Mad. HC)

    Cognizance of offence u/s. 92 ofFactories Act can not be taken if the complaint is filed beyond the period ofsix months.
    Soumendu Biswas & Anr. vs.State of Jharkhand. 2011 LLJ II P. 166 (Jhar. HC)

    No other person than occupier andfactory manager be summoned and prosecuted.
    Qimat Rai Gupta & Ors. vs.State of H.P. & Anr. 2011 LLR 945 (HP HC)

    Prosecution filed by FactoryInspector beyond limitation period of three months is liable to be rejected.
    Soumendu Biswas @ S. Biswas andAnother vs. State of Jharkhand. 2011 LLR 50 (Jharkhand HC)

    Fixing of work hours, providedthey do not violate any statutory provision, are management functions andcourts should not interfere with such function.
    Transport And Dock Workers Unionand others vs. Mumbai Port Trust and another. 2010(127) FLR 1095

    Statutory duty of occupier toensure safety and welfare to worker can not be shifted to any one.
    S. J. Ghandy and another vs.State of Jharkhand and others. 2010 (127) FLR 1005 (Jharkhand HC)

    Fixed term appointment :

    No reinstatement withconsequential benefits to a person employed for a fixed term of service.
    U.P. State Textile Corpn. Ltd.vs. Suresh Kumar. 2011 LLR 637 (S.C.)

    Fixed term appointment comming toan end automatically on the completion of the period, will not amount toretrenchment.
    Smt. Manjeet Arora (Kataria) vs.Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court,Lucknow. 2011 LLR 509 (Uttarakhand HC)

    Keeping employees on fixed termappointment for a long period by renewing their contract from time-to-time willnot fall within the mischief of section 2(oo)(bb) of I.D. Act.
    Keru Kisan Rokade vs. GeofferyManners & Co. Ltd., Nasik. 2011-II LLJ 408 (Bom. HC)

    Ad hock appointment of threemonths continued with repeated artificial breaks, thereby completing 240 daysof service by employee, his termination will not attract 2(oo)(bb) of ID Actand will amount to retrenchment.
    Rakesh Kumar and Ors. vs.Management of Bhagini Nivedita College. 2011 LLR 1143 (Delhi HC)

    Reinstatement of a traineeinitially appointed for six months, subsequently extended and relieved aftercompletion of training will be illegal being covered under sec. 2(oo)(b) of theID Act.
    Chairman / Manager vs. UmeshKumar Radheshyam Brahmbhatt. 2011 LLR 161 (Guj. HC)

    No reinstatement for the employeeengaged on contractual basis whose contract was not renewed.
    Jawaharlal Nehru University vs.Sh. D.K. Pandey. 2011 LLR 10 (Cal. HC)

    Termination of employee on contractwill not be entitled for reinstatement.
    Indravadan N. Adhvaryu vs.Laxminarayan Dev Trust (through Chief Executive Kothari). 2011 LLR 261 (Guj.HC)

    Temporary driver engaged againstregular post, who continued for years together, got all benefits, will not beentitled to any relief under ID Act when terminated, as such termination wouldfall under under 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act.
    1. State of Maharashtra, throughDistrict Civil Surgeon, 2. Deputy Director of Health Services vs. MehboobkhanS/o Rasool Khan Pathan. 2011 LLR 750 (Bom. HC)

    Gratuity :
    Provisions in relation togratuity of working journalists Act will prevail over the provisions of thePayment of Gratuity Act.
    P. rajan Sandhi vs. Union ofIndia & Anr. 2011 LLR 426 (S.C.)

    When employee is allowed toretire, his gratuity can't be forfeited merely beacuse criminal proceedingswere pending against him.
    New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.Ashwin Chimanlal Sheth & 2 Ors. 2011 LLR 66 (Guj. HC)

    The person on fixed termemployment when worked for more than 5 years because his contract was extendedfrom time to time, will be entitled for gratuity. amount cannot be forfeited.
    Vinod vs. State of Maharashtraand others. 2011 (128) FLR 618 (Bom. HC)

    Once the authority passed orderunder Gratuity Act, recovery against employer is bound to be effected.
    Jehangir Textile Mills vs.Sahebsingh Chotesingh and Another. 2011 LLR 265 (Guj. HC)

    When the employee was re-employedas fresh badli worker, he will only be entitled to gratuity for the period fromthe date of his re-employment till the last date of working.
    Phoenix Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs.Manohar Arjun Rasal. 2011 LLR 382 (Bom. HC)

    In the absence of any domesticenquiry and order under sec. 4 (6)(a) and (b) of the Payment of Gratuity Act,forfeiture of gratuity would be illegal.
    Maharashtra State Road TransportCorporation, Mumbai vs. Maruti Ramchandra Mastud. 2011 LLR 397 (Bom. HC)

    Allowing 15% compound interestfor delay in making payment of gratuity by employer is proper.
    Hindustan Steel Works ConstructionLtd. vs. Suresh Kumar Chetal and Others. 2011 (128) FLR 745 (Chhattisgarh HC)

    Payment of Gratuity Act isapplicable on library. High Court can't direct the authority under the Act toextend the period of limitation beyond provided under the Act.
    Administrative Officer,T.M.S.S.M. Library and Research Centre, Thanjavur vs. Appellate Authority UnderPayment of Gratuity Act (The From The Court Room Important Labour Judgments2011 Indravadan N. Adhvaryu vs. Laxminarayan Dev Trust (through Chief ExecutiveKothari). 2011 LLR 261 (Guj. HC)

    Temporary driver engaged againstregular post, who continued for years together, got all benefits, will not beentitled to any relief under ID Act when terminated, as such termination wouldfall under under 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act.
    1. State of Maharashtra, throughDistrict Civil Surgeon, 2. Deputy Director of Health Services vs. MehboobkhanS/o Rasool Khan Pathan. 2011 LLR 750 (Bom. HC)



    Habitual Absence :

    When workman remained absent for57 days during four months and also habitually absenting, striking off the namewould be proper.
    Workman Sri P.C. Manjhi vs.Management of Bokaro Steel Plant. 2011 LLR 846 (Jhar. HC)

    No reinstatement to the workmanwho is found guilty of habitual absence from duty. Past record of variouspunishments on account of habitual absence cannot be ignored. Reinstatement setaside.
    Management of Bokaro Steel Plant,A Subsideary of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand andAnother. 2011 LLR 847 (Jhar. HC)

    Industrial Disputes Act

    Dismissal of the case by thecourt is neither an award under I.D. Act nor determination of Industrial Dispute.
    Rajman Shrikrishna Morya vs.Marshal Security Pvt. Ltd. 2011 LLR 25 (Bom. HC)

    Part-time employee is entitled toprotection under ID Act.
    Himachal Pradesh StateElectricity Board and Anr. vs. Laxmi Devi and Anr. 2011 LLR 52 (HP HC)
    Management is absolutely withintheir powers to decline the recognition to charge sheeted union office beareras protected workman. Such employee is not entitled to be nominated by unionfor recognition as protected workman under sec. 33(3) & (4) of ID Act
    Hill Life Care Ltd. vs. HindustanLatex Union (AITUC) 2011 (128) FLR 471 (Kerala HC)

    Reducing the pay by merging 50%DA in basic would be illegal without complying with the Sec. 9A of the ID Act.
    Sikh Educational Society vs.Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh. 2011LLR 159 (P & H HC)

    When the ID Act contemplatesseveral steps like conciliation before reference to labour court, High Courtcan't circumvent the process and direct for reference for adjudication straightway.
    SPIC Pharma Employees Union(SPEU), Cuddalore vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Chennai and Ors. 2011 LLR 275 (Mad.HC)

    Overtime can't be claimed undersec. 33C(2) of the ID Act.
    K.S. Natarajan, S/o. K.A.Srinivasan, Chennai vs. (1) Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai(2) Ananda Vikatan Vasan Publications Ltd., Chennai. 2010 (4) LLN 702 (Mad. HC)

    For any breach of settlement,matter of dispute is to be referred by the Govt. for adjudication under ID Actsince remedy is available under sec. 36A. Writ not maintainable.
    Tamil Nadu Pokkuvarathu KazhagaT. Nala Sangam vs. Sate of Tamil Nadu. 2010 (128) FLR 688 (Mad. HC)

    Since the establishment wasinvolved in manufacturing process of preparation of different articles fromforest, will be an industrial establishment under ID Act.
    Kishan Atmaram Kasti vs. ForestDevelopment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors. 2011
    (I) CLR 971 (Bom. HC)

    When relationship ofemployer-employee between IIT and workman working in hostel is established,claim of over time payment under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act rightly allowed byLabour Court.

    Indian Institute of Technologyvs. The Presiding of Officer & Ors. 2011 LLR 591 (Madras HC)

    Termination of a workman who isinterested in pending dispute, without obtaining approval under section 33(1)of I.D. Act will be illegal. Labour court was not justified in rejecting theapplication of the workman without examining the legality.
    Ashok Kumar Pradhan vs. PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal, Orissa and Others. 2011 LLR 627 (Orissa HC)

    Provisions of section 33C(1) ofI.D. Act include the payment arising out of chapter V-B and section 25-O. Ifconsequent of closure of industry, workers were not paid compensation, they canvery well claim the
    amount under section 33C(1) ofI.D. Act.
    M/s. United Soya Products Ltd.vs. Dy. Labour Commissioner, Bhopal and Others. 2011 LLR 629 (MP HC)

    When an industrial dispute israised belatedly, it is upon the workman to show that he was not responsiblefor the delay.
    Executive Engineer, Public WorksDepartment, Wardha vs. Namdeo Govindrao Nandurkar, Wardha. 2011-II CLR 46 (Bom.HC)

    Industrial Dispute betweenworkman & management of co-operative bank shall be decided exclusively bythe Labour Court prospectively from date of SC judgment on the point.
    Nirmalchandra Sirvastav vs.Labour Court, Varanasi. FLR (129) 2011 P. 370 (All. HC)

    The jurisdiction of IndustrialCourt is not ousted only because the employer denies relationship of employerand employee.
    Indo-European Brewaries Ltd. vs.Dnyaneshwar s/o Shyamrao Dhanwate & Ors. CLR I 2011 P. 923 (Bom. HC)
    Workman will be entitled to getrelief under section 33C(2) of I.D. Act for payment of difference of wagesreduced by the employer in contravention of section 9A of the I.D. Act.
    Municipality Baretta, Bhatindavs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhatinda and Another. 2011 LLR 818(P&H HC)

    An offence under section 29 of theIndustrial Disputes Act for non-implementation of the Award will be
    continuing and section 468 ofCriminal Procedure Code, providing for limitation, will not be applicable.
    Joytirmay Roy vs. State of Biharand Others. 2011 (129) FLR 982 (Patna HC)

    A legal practitioner, in thecapacity of an office-bearer of an Association, can represent an employerbefore the Labour Court.
    South Arcot Vallalar DistrictMazdoor Union vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore and Others. 2011(129) FLR 995 (Mad. HC)
    In the absence of approval fordismissal pending proceedings, the order of the management terminating theservices of workman becomes void ab initio.
    Delhi Transport Corporation vs.Sudan Pal. 2011 LLR 897 (Delhi HC)

    When workman was discharging hisduties of driver after reinstatement, he will be paid current wages as paid toothers and not the last drawn wages at the time of termination.
    S.G. Ramalingam vs. Management ofTamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. 2011 LLR 979 (Mad. HC)

    Under sec. 33C(2) of ID Actlabour court can interpret the settlement on which employee claim is based andallow the claim.
    Registrar, J.N.K.V.V., Jabalpurand Others vs. Sudarshan Singh and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 130 (MP HC)

    Claim application under sec.33C(2) for more than last drawn wages not maintainable as it required furtheradjudication.
    Kagatila Sambasiva Rao vs. LabourCourt, Guntur, Guntur District and Others. 2011 (3) LLN 78 (AP HC)
    Workmen are entitled to wagesfrom the date of termination where retrenchment was held illegal and suchclaims of money under sec. 33C(2) rightly awared by court.
    Dhanalakshmi Mills Ltd., Tirupurvs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and Ors. 2011 LLR 1028 (Mad.HC)

    Labour court order is liable tobe quashed when claim under sec. 33C(2) was neither based on existing right northe award as adjudicated.
    State of U.P. and Another vs. RamSahai and Another. 2011 LLR 1103 (All. HC)

    High Court is not expected toreappriciate the evidence and interfere with the labour court award passedunder sec. 33(2)(b) in writ jurisdiction.
    Delhi Transport Corporation vs.Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-II & Anr. 2011 LLR 1113 (Del. HC)

    Award after attaining finalitycan't be disturbed under the garb of factual errors.
    Hind Filters Employees' Union vs.Factory Manager, Hind Filters Limited and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 675 (MP HC)

    It is incumbent upon the workmanto submit application to the Labour Court praying for summons for production ofrelevant record showing that he has worked continuously for a period of 240days.
    Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs.Divisional Forest Officer, M.P. & Ors. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 136 (MP HC)

    Reduction of wages cannot be madewithout issuing a notice under section 9A of the Act.
    Sikh Educational Society vs.Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal. FLR (128) 2011 P. 200 (P&H HC)

    The labour court award withoutappreciating the recorded evidence in right perspective is liable to be setaside.
    Krishan Kumar Nagar vs. TheManagement of M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation. 2011 LLR 1191 (Del. HC)

    Section 33B of U.P. IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 provides power to the State Government for withdrawing anyproceeding pending before a Labour Court and transfering the same to another
    Labour Court, hence a LabourCourt can transfer a dispute to another Labour Court.
    Meerut Development Authority,Meerut vs. Labour Court, Saharanpur and Another. 2011(130)FLR 868 (All. HC)

    The benefit that is payable undersection 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is pre-existing benefit orflowing from preexisting right.
    Crompton Greaves Limited vs. S.B.Lokhande and Others. 2011(130) FLR 908 (Bom. HC)

    Compensation amounting to approx7 years salary will be appropriate to the employee who worked little less thana year.
    Bindan Singh vs. Institute ofCompany Secretaries of India. 2011(131) FLR 95 (Del. HC)

    The benefit of overtime allowancewas being made available upto 1982 and again from 1987, but when the workmenfiled petition under section 33(C)(2) claiming this benefit during the interimperiod, the denial thereto by the Management, on the basis of departmentalcircular, is not justified and application is perfectly maintainable.
    Faqir Chand vs. Food Corporationof India and Another. 2011(131) FLR 164 (P&H HC)

    Labour court is not empowered toentertain a claim under sec. 33(C)(2) of ID Act which is not based on existingright.
    Mohan Nagpal vs. Editor,Navbharat Times, New Delhi and Anr. 2011 III CLR 692 (P&H HC)

    Conciliation Officer’s bounden dutyis either to record / register a settlement or to submit a failure report. Hehas no power and jurisdiction to declare that a bipartite settlement will beconsidered as binding
    upon all workmen. Vidyut MetalicsEmployees' Union, Thane vs. Vidyut Metalics Pvt. Ltd., Thane and Ors. 2011 LLR1262

    When the workmen received theamount in terms of settlement without any protest, no claim under 33(C)(2) ofID Act can be made by them. Status of petitioners as to whether they aretrainees or workmen can’t be decided under such application.
    R. Udayakumar etc. vs. ThePresiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai and Anr. 2011 LLR 1265(Mad. HC)

    An ex-parte order by the LabourCourt, if not a speaking one and without findings on issues raised, is liableto be quashed.
    Management of VenkateswaraElectricals P. Ltd., Chennai vs. Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court,Chennai and Anr. 2010 (IV) LLJ 393 (Mad. HC)

    In the absence of production ofcomplete pay roll, workman will be presumed to have worked for more than 240days.
    Divisional Forest Officer,Bhiwani vs. Chameli (Smt.) and Others. 2011 LLR 206 (P & H HC)

    For claiming closure compensationworkman has to prove that he has worked for 240 days during last 12 months.Burden not to be shifted to employer.
    VST Industries Ltd. vs. PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani, KarimnagarDistrict and Others. 2011 LLR 1170 (AP HC)

    Industry :

    Rajghat Samadhi committee willnot be Industry under the ID Act.
    Kanhaiya Lal vs. Union of Indiaand Others. 2011 (130) FLR 109 (Delhi HC)

    Integrated Child DevelopmentServices Scheme of Maharashtra state is an industry and the Anganwadi Sevikasand helpers are workmen under the ID Act.
    Vidya vs. State of Maharashtraand another. 2011 (129) FLR 556 (Bom. HC)
    Central council for research inAyurveda & Siddha is "industry" under ID Act.
    Central Council for Research inAyurveda & Siddha vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr.2011 LLR 469 (Raj. HC)

    Interim Relief :

    The principle of hearing theother side has to be followed in all proceedings.
    T.V.S. Finance and Services Ltd.vs. H. Shivakumar. LLN(2) 2011 P. 12 (S.C.)

    When interim relief was grantedwithout hearing management, payment of 50% of last drawn wages would beappropriate.
    TVS Finance and Service Ltd. vs.H. Shiva Kumar. 2011 LLR 192 (S.C.)

    To avail interim relief under IDAct, filing of affidavit by workman about non employment is sufficient.
    Food Corporation of India vs.Union of India and Others. 2011 LLR 77 (Cal. HC)

    Interim relief under sec. 17B ofthe ID Act will be payable from the date of filing the writ by employer.
    Candila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs.Jyotiben Harisbhal Pandit. 2011 LLR 162 (Guj. HC)

    It is mandatory for the employerto pay interim relief under sec. 17B of ID Act when challenging reinstatementin higher court.
    Union of India and Another vs.Hemant Shamrao Sankpal. 2011 LLR 919 (Bom. HC)

    Employer can pay last drawn wagesas interim relief under sec. 17B without taking work from employee or if hewants to take work from him, employer has to pay at least minimum wages.
    M/s. Natraj Picture Palace vs.Prescribed Authority, Minimum Wages Act, Asstt. Commissioner, Mirzapur andOthers. 2011 LLR 921 (Allahabad HC)

    Awarding interim relief ofreinstatement till the decision of the complaint of unfair labour practice bythe Industrial Court would not be interfered by the High Court in writpetition.
    Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad,Yavatmal and Another vs. Smt. Pratibha Pradip Gaikwad. 2011(131) FLR 94 (Bom.HC)

    For getting interim relief undersec. 17(B) of ID Act pending proceedings in HC, workman has to give anaffidavit that he is unemployed, only then the payment will be released.
    Satya Prakash and Sons vs.Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur and Another. 2011 LLR 1275 (All. HC)

    An interim relief should notamount to granting final relief.
    Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli andOthers vs. Chandramala. 2011 (130) FLR 701 (Bom. HC)

    When labour court reinstatedprovisionally with 75% back wages, it will From The Court Room Important LabourJudgments 2011
    Vidya vs. State of Maharashtraand another. 2011 (129) FLR 556 (Bom. HC)

    Central council for research inAyurveda & Siddha is "industry" under ID Act.
    Central Council for Research inAyurveda & Siddha vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr.2011 LLR 469 (Raj. HC)

    Interim Relief :

    The principle of hearing theother side has to be followed in all proceedings.
    T.V.S. Finance and Services Ltd.vs. H. Shivakumar. LLN(2) 2011 P. 12 (S.C.)
    When interim relief was grantedwithout hearing management, payment of 50% of last drawn wages would beappropriate.
    TVS Finance and Service Ltd. vs.H. Shiva Kumar. 2011 LLR 192 (S.C.)

    To avail interim relief under IDAct, filing of affidavit by workman about non employment is sufficient.
    Food Corporation of India vs.Union of India and Others. 2011 LLR 77 (Cal. HC)

    Interim relief under sec. 17B ofthe ID Act will be payable from the date of filing the writ by employer.
    Candila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs.Jyotiben Harisbhal Pandit. 2011 LLR 162 (Guj. HC)

    It is mandatory for the employerto pay interim relief under sec. 17B of ID Act when challenging reinstatementin higher court.
    Union of India and Another vs.Hemant Shamrao Sankpal. 2011 LLR 919 (Bom. HC)

    Employer can pay last drawn wagesas interim relief under sec. 17B without taking work from employee or if hewants to take work from him, employer has to pay at least minimum wages.
    M/s. Natraj Picture Palace vs.Prescribed Authority, Minimum Wages Act, Asstt. Commissioner, Mirzapur andOthers. 2011 LLR 921 (Allahabad HC)

    Awarding interim relief ofreinstatement till the decision of the complaint of unfair labour practice bythe Industrial Court would not be interfered by the High Court in writpetition.
    Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad,Yavatmal and Another vs. Smt. Pratibha Pradip Gaikwad. 2011(131) FLR 94 (Bom.HC)

    For getting interim relief undersec. 17(B) of ID Act pending proceedings in HC, workman has to give an affidavitthat he is unemployed, only then the payment will be released.
    Satya Prakash and Sons vs.Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur and Another. 2011 LLR
    1275 (All. HC)
    An interim relief should notamount to granting final relief.
    Zilla Parishad, Gadchiroli andOthers vs. Chandramala. 2011 (130) FLR 701 (Bom. HC)

    When labour court reinstatedprovisionally with 75% back wages, it will From The Court Room Important LabourJudgments 2011 When the workman is gainfully
    employed getting more than adequateremuneration, there will be no justification of granting interim relief undersec. 17B of ID Act.

    Rauf Mohmed Sheikh vs. PragatiGlass Works Pvt. Ltd. 2011 LLR 257 (Guj. HC)

    Benefit of sec. 17B of ID Actwill be available to workman from the date of filing application and not fromthe date of award.
    Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs.Jyotiben Harishbhai Pandit. 2011 LLR 267 (Guj. HC)

    Interim relief under section 17-Bof I.D. Act is available to the workman from the date of filing the writ petitionby managment and not from the date of the award.
    Airport Authority of India andAnother vs. Bharat H. Parmar and Others. 2011-II LLJ 390 (Guj. HC)

    Amount paid by the employer tothe employee as interim relief under sec. 17B is in the nature of 'subsistenceallowance' and can't be recovered even if employee reinstatement is set aside.
    General Manager, Government MilkScheme vs. Shivaji Basvantrao Patil and 45 Others. 2011 LLR 752 (Bom. HC)

    Employer is liable to pay interimrelief to the employee pending proceedings in higher court under sec. 17B of IDAct even after his superannuation.
    Management of Centaur Hotel vs.P. S. Mohan Nair & Anr. 2011 LLR 762 (Del. HC)

    not be deemed as final award andif challenged in High Court by employer, no interim relief would be availableto workman under 17-B of I.D. Act.
    Hiru B. Barot vs. IPCALaboratories Limited & Anr. 2011 LLR 644 (Bom. HC)

    Lay-Off

    For commencement of continuanceof lay-off permission through application under Section 25-M(1) of IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947 had to be made but the mills did neither apply for norobtained the said permission hence the claim for wages for the alleged periodof lay-off has been rightly allowed.

    Management of Cambodila Mills,Coimbatore and Another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore andOthers. 2011-III LLJ 157 (Mad. HC)

    Limitation :

    Labour Court would be treated asa court under limitation act.
    Jankiram Pandharinath Thorat vs.Akot Municipal Council and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 427 (Bom. HC)


    under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act. M/s.Bhartiya Cutler Hammer Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II Faridabadand Others. 2010 (127) FLR 1086 (P & H HC) 770 (P & H HC)


    Lock Out :

    Once it has been accepted by theworkmen themselves that they had indulged in violence, a declaration of lockout cannot be held to be illegal.
    Punjab Tractors Workers Union vs.Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh. 2011 (131) FLR 503(P&H HC)


    Minimum Wages :

    For non payment of Minimum Wages,three times panelty justified.
    Unity Infraprojects Ltd. vs.Labour Enforcement Officer (Central) & Ors. 2011 LLR 25 (Bom. HC) andTiruchirappali North Sarvodhaya Sangam, rep. by its Secretary, Trichy vs.Secretary to Government, Labour and Employment, Government of T.N., Chennai& Ors. 2011 LLR 33

    Minimum Wages Act will not beapplicable upon society registered under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Acteven though it is registered under the Factories Act.
    Management, Dindigul LadiesPolythene Workers Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. vs. ControllingAuthority under the Minimum Wages Act, Dindigul and Another. 2011 LLR 283 (Mad.HC)

    When the establishment notcovered under Shop Act and out of 'Scheduled employment, can't be prosecutedunder MW Act.
    M/S Reliance Telecom Ltd. andanother vs. State of Bihar and another. 2011 (128) FLR 198. (Patna HC)

    Prosecution of an employer, fornon-production of record and failure to furnish information to the inspectorunder Minimum Wages Act, will be tenable.
    Radhe Shyam Makharia and anothervs. State of Bihar and another. 2011 (128) FLR 272 (Patna HC)

    Either the High Court or theCompany Judge has no authority to direct payment of wages under the MinimumWages Act since appropriate authority under the said Act has been constituted.
    Bikramaditya Mishra vs. OfficialLiquidator, Rohtas. 2011 (128) FLR 1096 (Patna HC)

    Misconduct :
    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011 (Madras HC)

    Security guards even engagedthrough contractors are entitled to get minimum wages from the principalemployer in case contractor fails to pay the same. Principal employer being agovernment body cannot take the stand that they are not liable to pay minimumwages.
    Tool Room & Training Centrevs. Delhi Industrial Security Guards (Regd.). 2011 LLR 827 (Del. HC)

    Authority under the Minimum WagesAct and not the Labour Court would be appropriate forum for making a claim whenthe wages, as paid by an employer, are less than the minimum rates of wages.
    State Bank of India and Othersvs. Basukinath Das and Others. 2011 (3) LLN 415 (Patna HC)

    Part time employees working inhospital are also entitled for minimum wages.
    Manjulaben Punjalal Dabhi vs.State of Gujarat and other. 2011 (130) FLR 824 (Guj. HC)

    Before passing any order bylabour commissioner, employers needs to be heard.
    Hasmat Rai Burman vs. Union ofIndia and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 578 (Patna HC)

    Ten times amount of difference ofwages as compensation not justified against principal employer when lessminimum wages paid by contractor.
    Fertilizer Corporation of IndiaLtd., G. Unit vs. Authority under M.W.A.C. for W.A.L.C. and Others. 2011 LLR172 (All. HC)

    Non-disclosure by the workman ofhis having appeared for Matriculation examination was held not to be misconduct.
    Bank of Baroda vs. PresidingOfficer, CGI Tribunal. LLN(1) 2011 P. 388 (P&H HC)

    Failing to cooperate in theenquiry will not be a misconduct.
    Vinod Kumar Srivastava vs. Stateof U.P. and Others. 2011 LLR 975 (Allahabad HC)

    Non-intimation about hisadmission in hospital by the employee will not be a misconduct warrantingdismissal.
    K.A.K. Babu vs. Depot Manager,A.P.S.R.T.C., Madhira Bus Depot Khammam District and Anr. 2011 LLR 993 (AP HC)

    Misconduct means arising from illmotive. Acts of negligence, errors of judgment or innocent mistakes do notconstitute such misconduct.
    Narayan Prasad Dehariya vs. Stateof M.P. and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 1044 (MP HC)

    Termination of bus conductor wasnot proper when he was found carrying passengers of another bus without ticketwhich met with accident. During accident normal rules often not followed.Standard
    of duty changes. So themisconduct can't be judged by same standards.
    Dilip Srivastava vs. PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal, U.P. Kanpur and another. 2011 LLR 971 (AllahabadHC)

    Disabled person does not haveright to commit fraud against any one.
    Satya Prakash & Sons vs.Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur & Anr. 2011 III CLR 170 (All. HC)

    Acts of negligence, errors ofjudgment or innocent mistake cannot constitute misconduct which warrantsinitiation of disciplinary proceedings.
    Narendra Kumar Tripathi vs. Unionof India and others. 2011 (129) FLR 519 (Cal. HC)

    No Work-No Pay :

    If the workmen are not allowed towork by the employer, the principle "no work no pay" will not apply.
    Panipat Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd.vs. Presiding fficer, Labour Court & Ors. CLR II 2011 P. 292 (P&H HC)

    Over time :
    When a worker is provided withaccommodation, travelling allowance and city compensatory allowance are notuniversally paid to each and every employee, such allowances are not required
    U.P. State Road TransportCorporation vs. Appellate Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Mau and Others.2011 LLR 629 (All. HC)

    Construction of residential houseactivity will be covered under the Payment of Wages Act.
    Smt. Shashi Sharma vs. TheLabour-cum-Conciliation Officer & Anr. 2011 LLR 841 (P&H HC)

    Challenging order of the employerproposing to make deduction of 8 days' wages of the striking workers underarticle 226 of Constitution of India will not be appropriate since theappropriate forum has been provided under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
    Hind Khadan Mazdoor Federationvs. Coal India Ltd. and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 125 (MP HC)

    Five times penalty instead of tentimes for non payment of leave wages would be proper keeping in view thefinancial difficulties of the organization.
    Akola Zillah Dudh Utpadak SanghSahakari Sansthanacha Sangh Ltd., Akola vs. Sheshrao Ramchandra Mhasaye. 2011LLR 1018 (Bom. HC)

    No writ against order ofauthority under Payment of Wages Act.
    Ramala Sahkari Chini MillsLimited, Meerut vs. Authority under Payment of Wages Act and Others. 2011 LLR1102 (All. HC)

    Denial of wages to data entryoperators reverted to the post of conductors for the period from the date ofreversion to date on which the workmen were restored to their original positionwill be illegal.

    Disabled person does not haveright to commit fraud against any one.
    Satya Prakash & Sons vs.Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur & Anr. 2011 III CLR 170 (All. HC)

    Acts of negligence, errors ofjudgment or innocent mistake cannot constitute misconduct which warrantsinitiation of disciplinary proceedings.
    Narendra Kumar Tripathi vs. Unionof India and others. 2011 (129) FLR 519 (Cal. HC)


    Payment of wages :

    It is not necessary for theauthority to decide preliminary issue first without discussing the merits underPayment of Wages Act
    Sub Divisional Officer, BharatSanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Prescribed Authority and Another. 2011 LLR 170 (All. HC)

    In the absence of any loss due tonegligence, deduction of wages will be illegal.
    Charan Singh vs. General Manager,Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur. 2011 LLR 579 (P&H HC): 2011 FLR (129) P. 630
    It would be unjust to allowmanagement to recover the amount from workman after 15 years which he mighthave withdrawn from the payment of wages authority court under his order.
    State Express Transport Corp.Ltd., rep. by its M.D., Chennai and Another vs. Arasu Viraivu PokkuvarathuOozhiyar Sangam, Rep. by its General Secretary, Chennai-2. 2011 LLR 278 (Mad.HC)

    Part Time Employee

    For reckoning the length ofservice in context of sec. 25F of the ID Act engagement of part time typist onintermittent occasions can't be counted as service. Not entitled to retrenchmentbenefits.
    G.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd.,Hyderabad and Another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabadand Another. 2011 LLR 801 (AP HC)

    Probationer :
    “Unsatisfactory service” will notbe penal in case of termination of the probationer.
    Paramjit Singh vs. Director,Public Instructions & Ors. 2011 LLR 116: 2011 (128) FLR 495 (S.C.)

    The days put in by the workman onhis probation can't be considered for counting 240 days for the concept ofcontinuous service. Termination of probationer as per his terms of appointmentwill not be termed as retrenchment.
    Management of Apparel ExportPromotion Council vs. Surya Prakash. 2011 LLR 333 (Del. HC)

    Promotion :
    Employee can't be promoted merelyon the basis of his claim that he was performing highly skilled work and possessminimum qualification.
    U.P. State Road TransportCorporation vs. Imtiaz Ahmad and Another. 2011 LLR 977 (Allahabad HC)

    Punishment :

    The findings of the enquiryofficer having being upheld by court, no reason why the employee could escapethe penalty of dismissal from the service.
    Punchmahal Vadodra Gramin BankVs. D.M. Parmar 2011 (131) FLR 1019 (SC)

    It is well settled thatpunishment is primarily a function of the Management
    I.N.T.U.C., Bhagalpur and Anothervs. Union of India and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 989 (Patna HC)

    Though there is no limitation formaking reference provided in the law but it ought to be made within reasonabletime.
    Employer must show that suchdelayed reference has caused prejudice to him.
    Bank of India vs. Union of Indiaand Others. 2011 (130) FLR 48 (Patna HC)

    The Government can refuse to makea reference to the Labour Court or Industrial Court if the dispute is raised aftera long delay.
    Natvargiri Shivgiri Goswami vs.Union of India & Ors. FLR (129) 2011 P. 974 (Guj. HC)

    When conciliation proceedingswere pending, no order to refer the dispute could be made by the High Court inwrit petition.
    SPIC Pharma Employees Union(SPEU) Cuddalore vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 72 (Mad. HC)

    The appropriate government canvery well decline to refer the dispute when raised after 20 years.
    M. Kadirvelu vs. Union of India,rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi & Anr. 2011 LLR 534(Mad. HC)

    Refering a dispute by Govt.raised by workman after about 9 years is liable to be quashed.
    All India Institute of MedicalSciences vs. Sanjay Kumar & Anr. 2011 LLR 398 (Del. HC)

    Workman can raise industrialdispute From The Court Room Important Labour Judgments 2011 The days put in bythe workman on his probation can't be considered for counting 240 days for theconcept of continuous service. Termination of probationer as per his terms ofappointment will not be termed as retrenchment.
    Management of Apparel ExportPromotion Council vs. Surya Prakash. 2011 LLR 333 (Del. HC)

    Promotion
    Employee can't be promoted merelyon the basis of his claim that he was performing highly skilled work and possessminimum qualification.
    U.P. State Road TransportCorporation vs. Imtiaz Ahmad and Another. 2011 LLR 977 (Allahabad HC)

    Punishment :
    The findings of the enquiryofficer having being upheld by court, no reason why the employee could escapethe penalty of dismissal from the service.
    Punchmahal Vadodra Gramin BankVs. D.M. Parmar 2011 (131) FLR 1019 (SC)

    It is well settled thatpunishment is primarily a function of the Management
    I.N.T.U.C., Bhagalpur and Anothervs. Union of India and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 989 (Patna HC)

    Though there is no limitation formaking reference provided in the law but it ought to be made within reasonabletime. Employer must show that such delayed reference has caused prejudice tohim.
    Bank of India vs. Union of Indiaand Others. 2011 (130) FLR 48 (Patna HC)

    The Government can refuse to makea reference to the Labour Court or Industrial Court if the dispute is raised aftera long delay.
    Natvargiri Shivgiri Goswami vs.Union of India & Ors. FLR (129) 2011 P. 974 (Guj. HC)

    When conciliation proceedingswere pending, no order to refer the dispute could be made by the High Court inwrit petition.
    SPIC Pharma Employees Union(SPEU) Cuddalore vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 72 (Mad.HC)

    The appropriate government canvery well decline to refer the dispute when raised after 20 years.
    M. Kadirvelu vs. Union of India,rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi & Anr. 2011 LLR 534(Mad. HC)

    Refering a dispute by Govt.raised by workman after about 9 years is liable to be quashed.
    All India Institute of MedicalSciences vs. Sanjay Kumar & Anr. 2011 LLR 398 (Del. HC)

    Workman can raise industrialdispute From The Court Room Important Labour Judgments 2011 and the Courtsrarely interfere with the quantum of punishment.
    Sate Bank of Mysore and othersetc. vs. M.C. Krishnappa. 2011 (130) FLR 1082 (SC)

    Denial of salary on principle of“no work no pay” and termination of service on account of unauthorised absenceare not two punishment.
    State of U.P. and others vs.Madhav Prasad Sharma. 2011 (128) FLR 915 (S.C.)

    Reference :
    Govt. is not to see the delay inraising the dispute, but whether the dispute existed or not while makingreference.
    Kuldeep Singh vs. G.M.,Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and another. 2011(128) FLR121; 2011 I CLR 5 (S.C.)

    Reference of a dispute forincrease of salary by the employee of a temple, not against the appropriateperson/employer, will not be justified hence the claim is liable to be quashed.
    Sri Nathji Bhandar and Anothervs. State of West Bengal and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 1086 (Cal. HC)

    Appropriate government, inexercise of its administrative powers, can decline to refer a dispute foradjudication when there is perversity and inordinate delay without anyjustifiable explanation. even after receiving VRS benefits though managementcan object the legality of the reference before tribunal.
    M/s. Greaves Cotton Ltd. vs.Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. 2011 LLR 315 (Del. HC)

    State Govt. power for referingthe dispute is administrative one and not a judicial or quasi-judicial.
    Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,Dhanbad vs. Union of India & Ors. 2011 LLR 304 (Jharkhand HC)

    Govt. while declining to referthe dispute should records reasons for the same. Govt. can't assume power andjurisdiction of adjudicator.
    Kartar Singh and Ors. vs. JointSecretary to Government of Haryana and Ors. 2011 LLR 859 (P& H HC)

    Regularisation :
    When canteen is run by Hotel Corporationof India in the premises of Air India, dismissed employees of HCI an't betreated as employees of Air India and any such regularisation would be illegal.
    Balwant Rai Saluja & Ors. vs.Air India Ltd. & Ors. 2011 LLR 739 (Del. HC)

    Daily wager has no right to askfor restoration of status as he has no status. No regularisation of suchemployee.
    Sushil Kumar Srivastava vs.Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand and Others. 2011 LLR 309 (Uttarakhand HC)

    Once enquiry is conducted,management can't take plea that workman was temporary and no enquiry wasrequired.

    In the absence of any referenceon the point, tribunal can't grant regularization to the workman.
    General Manager (Telecom), Nagpur& Ors. vs. Zarir S/o Pesi Mawalwala, Nagpur & Ors. 2011 LLR 1020 (Bom.HC)

    Employees appointed asassistants
    temporarily by LIC in variousbranches will not be entitled to regularisation.
    Hashmuddin and Others vs. LifeInsurance Corporation of India and Others. 2011 LLR 511 (All. HC)

    Reinstatement :
    Merely because the appointmentwas contrary to the recruitment rules, reinstatement with back-wages can't be deniedto the employee who was appointed on consolidated salary and continued to workfor two years and termination was found illegal.
    Devinder Singh vs. MunicipalCouncil, Sanaur. 2011 LLR 785 (S.C.)
    reinstatement by the employer.
    Nagar Palika Nigam, Khandwa vs.Tulsiram and Another. 2011 LLR 405 (MP HC)

    Even though the retrenchment maybe illegal and unjustifiable, that itself does not create a right ofreinstatement with full employment benefits and back wages.
    Kripa Ram vs. Secretary H.P.State Board. LLN (1) 2011 P. 264 (MP HC)

    Non payment of retrenchment compensationat the time of termination does not mean that such workman will be automaticallyreinstated.
    National Small Industries,Kashmipur vs. Labour Court, Haldwani and Another. 2011 LLR 419 (Uttarakhand HC)

    Compensation instead ofreinstatement is justified when employee was terminated according to terms ofappointment though Section-25F was not complied with.
    Ramesh Singh Rajput vs. CastrolIndia Ltd. and Another. 2011 LLR 505 (Del. HC)

    Striking off name of workman fromroll due to absence without notice or retrenchment compensation will beillegal.
    Compensation instead ofreinstatement would be proper.
    Mayank Desai vs. Sayaji Iron& Engg. Co. Ltd.& Anr. 2011 LLR 536 (Guj. HC)

    In case of illegal termination, compensationin lieu of reinstatement and back wages will be proper.
    State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.vs. Umendi & Ors. 2011 LLR 581 (Chattis. HC)

    Sushil Kumar Srivastava vs.Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand and Others. 2011 LLR 309 (Uttarakhand HC)
    Once enquiry is conducted,management can't take plea that workman was temporary and no enquiry wasrequired. In the absence of any reference on the point, tribunal can't grantregularization to the workman.
    General Manager (Telecom), Nagpur& Ors. vs. Zarir S/o Pesi Mawalwala, Nagpur & Ors. 2011 LLR 1020 (Bom.HC)
    Employees appointed as assistantstemporarily by LIC in various branches will not be entitled to regularisation.
    Hashmuddin and Others vs. LifeInsurance Corporation of India and Others. 2011 LLR 511 (All. HC)

    Reinstatement :
    Merely because the appointmentwas contrary to the recruitment rules, reinstatement with back-wages can't be deniedto the employee who was appointed on consolidated salary and continued to workfor two years and termination was found illegal.
    Devinder Singh vs. MunicipalCouncil, Sanaur.2011 LLR 785 (S.C.)

    reinstatement by the employer.
    Nagar Palika Nigam, Khandwa vs.Tulsiram and Another. 2011 LLR 405 (MP HC)
    Even though the retrenchment maybe illegal and unjustifiable, that itself does not create a right ofreinstatement with full employment benefits and back wages.
    Kripa Ram vs. Secretary H.P.State Board. LLN (1) 2011 P. 264 (MP HC)

    Non payment of retrenchment compensationat the time of termination does not mean that such workman will be automaticallyreinstated.
    National Small Industries,Kashmipur vs. Labour Court, Haldwani and Another. 2011 LLR 419 (Uttarakhand HC)

    Compensation instead ofreinstatement is justified when employee was terminated according to terms ofappointment though Section-25F was not complied with.
    Ramesh Singh Rajput vs. CastrolIndia Ltd. and Another. 2011 LLR 505 (Del. HC)

    Striking off name of workman fromroll due to absence without notice or retrenchment compensation will beillegal. Compensation instead of reinstatement would be proper.
    Mayank Desai vs. Sayaji Iron& Engg. Co. Ltd.& Anr. 2011 LLR 536 (Guj. HC)

    In case of illegal termination, compensationin lieu of reinstatement and back wages will be proper.
    State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.vs. Umendi & Ors. 2011 LLR 581 (Chattis. HC)

    Charge of misappropriation is notmitigated by depositing the amount back. Reinstatement in such case with fullback wages is improper and set aside.
    S.B.I. vs. Hemant Kumar. 2011 LLR449 (S.C.)

    Even in the case of illegaltermination, reinstatement with back wages is no longer a rule.
    Bata India Ltd. vs. FourthIndustrial Tribunal, West Bengal and Others. 2011 LLR 68 (Cal. HC)

    Reinstatement not proper of abank cashier who is found guilty of misappropriation. Even no compassionate appointmentfor legal heir of such person.
    B.K. Basavalingappa, sincedeceased by his L. Rs. vs. Chitradurga Gramin Bank, represented by itsChairman. 2011 LLR 189 (Karn. HC)

    No reinstatement of Bus conductorwho assaulted checking inspector and took back sold tickets.
    Management of Pallavan Transport Corporation(represented by its General Manager), Chennai vs. (1) Anbazhagan (2) PresidingOfficer, First Additional Labour Court, Chennai. 2010 (4) LLN 736 (Mad. HC)

    Misconduct of negligence being negligible,reinstatement appropriate.
    T.N. State Transport Corporation(K) Ltd. vs. P.O. Labour Court Trichy, 2011 LLR 284 (Mad. HC)

    Workman is entitled to receivewages for the period from the date of order of reinstatement to the date ofactual Reinstatement not the compensation will be appropriate relief to themalaria workers who have worked for more than 240 days of their disengagementand were not paid retrenchment compensation.
    Smt. P. Pentamma vs. ThePresiding Officer Labour Court, Guntur & Anr. 2011 Lab IC 1206 (A.P. HC)

    Granting reinstatement would notbe proper when the establishment has been closed down at the time of orderhence the workman will get benefit of retrenchment compensation.
    State of U.P. through PrincipalSecretary, Deptt. of Land Development vs. Vinay Kumar Maurya. 2011 (II) LLN 65(All. HC)

    Compensation in lieu ofreinstatement with back wages can be granted by the court, to be calculatedtaking into consideration service putting by the workman.
    Suresh Chander vs. Nagar Palika,Rajsamand & Anr. 2011 LLR 654 (Raj. HC)

    At the age of 57, employee shouldbe awarded monetary compensation instead of reinstatement.
    State Bank of Patiala vs. Unionof India & Ors. 2011 LLR 701 (All. HC)

    When a worker is dismissed fromservice in view of his conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude, hemay be reinstated in service on his acquittal by the Appellate Court.
    Maharashtra State FinancialCorporation vs. Nimba Jagannath Tamboli. CLR I 2011 P. 1018 (Bom. HC)

    Lump-sum Compensation in place ofreinstatement would be appropriate where workman only worked for 3 years and 15years have passed since termination.
    Indian Acrylics Ltd. and Anr. vs.Presiding Officer, labour Court, Patiala and Ors. 2011 LLR 794 (P&H HC)

    Relief of reinstatement withback-wages granted by labour court was upheld partially by the High Courtrestricting the same to reinstatement only. Back-wages was set aside because itshould not be passed in a mechanical order.
    Oghad Masri Rabari vs. State ofGujarat. 2011 LLR 811 (Guj. HC)

    Reinstatement with full backwages proper in the case where employee got the loan and leave from theemployer for under going bypass surgery but could not go because he was unableto arrange money demanded by the hospital. Such Act can't be termed asdeceiving the employer and unauthorised absence. Termination on such misconductis illegal.
    Punjab National Bank and Othersvs. Subhasini Das and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 812 (Cal. HC)

    Though termination was heldillegal and violative of standing orders of corporation, no reinstatement wasordered because workman reached the age of retirement by the time of order.
    General Manager, Indian OilCorpn. Ltd. vs. Ravindranath Mishra & Anr. LLJ II 2011 P. 802 (Patna HC)

    Reinstatement set aside grantedby labour court when workman (trainee) remained absent unauthorizedly and not respondedto management call to report for duty. Employee lost the job of his own and notdue to any wrong by management.
    Surat Municipal Corporation vs.Aminesh Chandravadan Bodiwala. 2011 LLR 905 (Guj. HC)

    Consequential reliefs onreinstatement would mean the back-wages on higher post.
    Punjab Land Development andReclamation Corporation Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjaband Another. 2011 LLR 1090 (P&H HC)

    Reinstatement justified whenretrenchment compensation was not paid to the employee.
    Fosroc Chemicals (India) Ltd.,through Jayesh B. Sarang vs. Satishbhai Tamakuwala. 2011 (I) CLR 848 (Guj. HC)

    Reinstatement proper of female employee,who was dismissed for slapping security guard with chappal in self defence,when she was sexually harrassed by security guard.
    Smt. Vijaya Jalali vs. HMTLimited & Ors. FLR (127) 2010 P. 651 (MP HC)

    When petition of the employer,seeking approval for dismissal of a workman is rejected, the workman will be automaticallyentitled to reinstatement and he can claim wages under section 33C(2) of theIndustrial Disputes Act.
    P. Sundararaj vs. PresidingOfficer, I Addl. Labour Court, Chennai and Another. 2011 (129) FLR 119 (Mad.HC)

    In the case of loss of confidence,compensation instead of reinstatement would be appropriate.
    Vajravelu vs. Management of SalemSteel Plant, Salem and Anr. 2011 LLR 269 (Mad. HC)

    In lieu of reinstatement and backwages, compensation of Rs. 10,000/-is too meagre. Enhanced to Rs. 75,000/-
    Rukshmaniben Hiralal Rajpopat vs.Rajkot Nagar Primary Education Committee. 2011 (131) FLR 872 (Guj. HC)
    When employer denied duty toworkman on reinstatement, employee will be entitled to salary for the period.
    Panipat Co-operative Sugar MillsLtd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Others. 2011 LLR 918(P&H HC)

    When the bus conductor wascharged for taking money from passengers without issuing tickets but foundshort of cash or Rs. 8.50, charge can’t be believed to be proved. Dismissalillegal. Reinstatement
    with 50% back wages appropriate.
    Krishan Kumar Nagar vs.Management of M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation. 2011 LLR 1273 (Del. HC)

    No reinstatement of a bankemployee who showed lack of honesty and integrity.
    Sagar Sadashiv Kasture, Pune vs.Central Bank of India, Bombay and Others. 2011 LLR 17 (Bom. HC)

    No reinstatement with back wagesto a workman who declined the offer of the employer during conciliation to takehim back but without back wages.
    Milestone (Franki Stall) Mumbaivs. Mathew D'souza & Anr. 2011 LLR 22 (Bom. HC)

    Reinstatement with 50% back-wagewill be appropriate when the employer, at the time of termination of service ofthe workman, did not comply with the conditions precedent as stipulated by section25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act.
    Chairman, Central Silk Board,Central Silk Complex, Bangalore and Another vs. Presiding Officer, IndustrialTribunal, Patna and Another. 2011 (III) LLJ 36 (Patna HC)

    When a reinstated workman hadworked from the date of his initial appointment, the earlier period will becounted for continuity of service hence the employer is directed to grantwork-charge status to the workman alongwith interest on the unpaid amount.
    Nanda Ram vs. State of H.P. andOrs. 2011 LLR 415 (HP HC)

    Termination of daily wagesbeldars without paying retrenchment compensation is illegal. Reinstatement withoutback wages justified.
    Yog Raj vs. State of H.P. andOthers. 2011 (128) FLR 999 (HP HC)

    When daily wage workman raisedIndustrial Dispute after 10 years, compensation of Rs. 25000/- in lieu ofreinstatement would be proper. Reliefs rightly refused.
    Mohd. Zakir S/o Sheikh Rahmatullavs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation,Amravati and Two Others. 2011 LLR 1023 (Bom. HC)

    Lump-sum compensation equivalentto 6 months wages would be proper instead of reinstatement with 50% back wagesin case of a workman of 4 year service.
    State of U.P. and Another vs.Hind Majdoor Sabha, Meerut and Others. 2011 LLR 1024 (All. HC)

    When the workman produced medicalcertificate of his disease while reporting for duty, his dismissal would beillegal and reinstatement with 25% back wages would be proper.
    Employers in relation to theManagement Sijua Colliery of M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. vs. Their Workman Dilip KumarSingh. 2011 LLR 214 (Jharkhand HC)

    Compensation and notreinstatement
    justified in case where TaxCollectors
    services were discontinued evenin violation of sec. 6N of U.P. ID Act.
    Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur vs.Balram Mehrotra and Another. 2011 LLR 102 (All. HC)

    When workman failed to establishhis working of 240 days in a year and there is no breach of sec. 25F of ID Act,even assuming illegal termination, compensation and not reinstatement will beappropriate.
    New Ambika Sahkari Mandali Ltd.(I.B.P. Dealers) vs. Charansinh Shiv Narayansinh Rajput. 2011 LLR 345 (Guj. HC)

    Compensation instead ofreinstatement proper when the workman reached age of superannuation and wasdisabled due to injuries and he was illegally terminated on the ground beingunfit for service.
    General Manager, Indian OilCorporation Ltd., Begusarai & Anr. vs. Rebindra Natha Mishra & Anr.2011 LLR 185 (Patna HC)


    When a helper on daily wage aftercompletion of 240 days was terminated without notice and compensation, reinstatementwithout back wages is proper.
    Superintending Engineer, RaniAwanti Bai Sagar Project, Jabalpur and Others vs. Narayan Prasad Vishwakarmaand Another. 2011 (128) FLR 907 (MP HC)

    Resignation :

    Acceptance of resignation before completionof notice period will not be invalid even though it was stated in the resignationthat it will be accepted after three months.
    Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. LabourCourt, Dehradun and Another. 2011 LLR 493 (All. HC)

    Resignation of an employeeaccepted on the same day by the school managing committee will not be construedto be given voluntarily when employee did not have any time to withdraw.
    Manager, Shri Sanatan DharamSaraswati Bal Mandir School & Anr. vs. Shri K.P. Bansal & Ors. 2011 LLR605 (Delhi HC)

    It is the discretion of the managementto accept the resignation or treat it under VRS. Rejecting application of theemployee to treat his resignation under VRS by management can't be said to bemalafide.
    Dr. C. Madhusoodan vs. SteelAuthority of India Ltd. and Another. 2011 LLR 1046 (Karn. HC)

    In the absence of any verson bythe employer against the plea of employee that she was forced to resign,reinstatement rightly awarded against such illegal termination.
    M/s. Jagran Ltd., Meerut Throughits Director vs. Labour Court (II, U.P.), Meerut, and Others. 2011 LLR 1084(All. HC)

    To be treated as a letter ofresignation with in the eyes of law, language should be un-conditional withoutreflecting any pressure.
    Gujarat Water Supply & SewageBoard and Anr. vs. Mahavirsinh Balapbha Gohil. 2011 LLR 1259 (Guj. HC)

    When there is no provision ofwaiver of notice period, instant acceptance of resignation will not come in theway of withdrawal of resignation by the employee after four days of submission.
    P. Gayathri vs. Secretary,Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad, and Another. 2011 LLR 139 (A.P.HC)

    When the resignations were inemployee handwriting and received all legal dues with extra amounts, can't besaid that resignations were obtained under coercion and were invalid.
    Management of Madura Coats Pvt.Ltd. and Anr. vs. Presiding officer, labour court, Tirunelveli 2011 I CLR 298(Mad. HC)

    In the absence of any proof ofobtaining resignation under coercion, no industrial dispute is maintainable.
    Management of Madura Coats Pvt.Ltd. and another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli and others.2011(128) FLR 1040 (Mad. HC)
    Daily-rated employees, onceregularised, would become entitled to all service benefits.
    Din Bandhu vs. Presiding Officer,Labour Court, Bhatinda, and Another. 2011 (130) FLR 469 ( P&H HC)

    Resignation submitted afterdeveloping an under standing can't be termed as involuntary or retrenchment.
    Shuddhodhan and Others vs. MemberIndustrial Court, Nagpur, 2011 (128) FLR 412 (Bom. HC)

    After completion of stipulatedperiod of service in bond, employer can't compel the employee to be with him inservice.
    Damodar Valley Corporation &Ors. vs. Souvik Sarkar and Ors. 2011 LLR 174 (Cal. HC)
    Retrenchment :
    Retrenchment compensation can be claimedonly against existing establishment and not a closed one.
    Ram Janam Singh vs. Ashok KumarJain. 2011(128) FLR 97 (Jharkhand HC)

    When the workman performance was foundunsatisfactory, compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be appropriate eventhough his retrenchment was illegal.
    Prakesh Chand Agrawal vs.Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Kanpur & Anr. 2011 LLR 167 (All. HC)

    When workers were recruited for aspecific program not as permanent employee, such workers can't acquire permanentstatus. Such retrenchment is not illegal.
    Vijay Kumar Bajpayee vs. M.P.Urga Vikas Nigam Ltd. and Another. 2011 (128) FLR 672 (MP HC)

    Even if employer did not complywith the provisions of section 25-F of I.D. Act regarding payment ofcompensation while terminating the services, payment of consolidateddamages/compensation Daily wager completed 240 days will be entitled of benefitof sec. 25F of I.D. Act.
    Retrenchment without complianceillegal.
    Yog Raj vs. State of HimachalPradesh. CLR I 2011 P. 1011 (Himachal Pradesh HC)
    For applicability of sec. 25F ofID act there is no distinction between a permanent and the muster rollemployee.
    Muster roll employee terminatedwithout
    retrenchment compensation whoworked
    for more than 7 years will beentitled to
    reinstatement with fullconsequential
    benefits.
    Subhash Chand vs. MunicipalCorporation of
    Delhi. 2011 LLR 791 (Del. HC)
    Under U.P. ID Act even theprobationer
    or an appointee for a fix periodis entitled
    to the benefit of sec. 6N.Retrenchment
    compliance is mandatory in thesecases
    too.
    Managing Director, PradeshikCo-operative
    Dairy Federation Ltd., Lucknowand Another
    vs. Presiding Officer, LabourCourt, Agra and
    Others. 2011 LLR 799 (All. HC)
    After lapse of 35 years from
    retrenchment, even if it was heldillegal,
    compensation of Rs. Two Lakhshall serve
    the end of justice in place ofreinstatement
    with back wages.
    State of Bihar vs. Gajadhar Singh(Amin) 2011
    LLR 830 (Patna HC)
    No reinstatement even if there isno
    compliance of retrenchmentprocedure of
    paying notice and compensation.Instead
    50% back wages as damages wouldbe
    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    Damodar Valley Corporation &Ors. vs.
    Souvik Sarkar and Ors. 2011 LLR174 (Cal. HC)
    Retrenchment
    Retrenchment compensation can be
    claimed only against existing
    establishment and not a closedone.
    Ram Janam Singh vs. Ashok KumarJain.
    2011(128) FLR 97 (Jharkhand HC)
    When the workman performance was
    found unsatisfactory,compensation in lieu
    of reinstatement would beappropriate
    even though his retrenchment wasillegal.
    Prakesh Chand Agrawal vs.Presiding Officer,
    Labour Court (II), Kanpur &Anr. 2011 LLR 167
    (All. HC)
    When workers were recruited for a
    specific program not as permanent
    employee, such workers can'tacquire
    permanent status. Suchretrenchment is
    not illegal.
    Vijay Kumar Bajpayee vs. M.P.Urga Vikas
    Nigam Ltd. and Another. 2011(128) FLR 672
    (MP HC)
    Even if employer did not complywith
    the provisions of section 25-F ofI.D. Act
    regarding payment of compensationwhile
    terminating the services, paymentof
    consolidated damages/compensation
    Daily wager completed 240 dayswill be
    entitled of benefit of sec. 25Fof I.D. Act.
    Retrenchment without complianceillegal.
    Yog Raj vs. State of HimachalPradesh. CLR I
    2011 P. 1011 (Himachal PradeshHC)
    For applicability of sec. 25F ofID act
    there is no distinction between a
    permanent and the muster rollemployee.
    Muster roll employee terminatedwithout
    retrenchment compensation whoworked
    for more than 7 years will beentitled to
    reinstatement with fullconsequential
    benefits.
    Subhash Chand vs. Municipal Corporationof
    Delhi. 2011 LLR 791 (Del. HC)
    Under U.P. ID Act even theprobationer
    or an appointee for a fix periodis entitled
    to the benefit of sec. 6N.Retrenchment
    compliance is mandatory in thesecases
    too.
    Managing Director, PradeshikCo-operative
    Dairy Federation Ltd., Lucknowand Another
    vs. Presiding Officer, LabourCourt, Agra and
    Others. 2011 LLR 799 (All. HC)
    After lapse of 35 years from
    retrenchment, even if it was heldillegal,
    compensation of Rs. Two Lakhshall serve
    the end of justice in place ofreinstatement
    with back wages.
    State of Bihar vs. Gajadhar Singh(Amin) 2011
    LLR 830 (Patna HC)
    No reinstatement even if there isno
    compliance of retrenchmentprocedure of
    paying notice and compensation.Instead
    50% back wages as damages wouldbe
    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    instead of reinstatement would beproper.

    Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran NigamLtd.,
    Varanasi and Another vs. State ofU.P. and
    Others. 2011 LLR 631 (All. HC)


    The termination of the service ofthe
    workman was held to be inviolation of
    S.25-F of the Act, but since his
    appointment was not regular, hewas held
    entitled to compensation only.

    Nepal Khichhu Ram vs. PresidingOfficer,

    Labour Court. LLJ II 2011 P. 80(P&H HC)

    It is the bounden duty of theemployer to
    produce the service record of theworkman
    who alleges violation ofprovisions of
    Sec.25-F and 25-G.

    Navinsingh Bharodiya vs. State ofMadhya
    Pradesh. LLJ II 2011 P. 283 (M.P.HC)

    Even in the case of violation ofsec. 25F
    of ID Act or sec. 6N of U.P. IDAct,
    compensation / reasonable damages
    should be paid instead ofreinstatement.

    M/s. Areva T & D India Ltd.vs. Presiding
    Officer, Labour Court U.P.,Allahabad & Ors.
    2011 LLR 697 (All. HC)

    While calculating 240 daysworking in
    case of daily wage workman,period of
    weekly holidays and publicholidays are to
    be excluded. Since workman didnot
    qualify for retrenchmentbenefits, he is not
    entitled to any relief under sec.25H of ID
    Act.

    Ranjit Natvar Lal Chauhan vs.Morbi Nagar
    Palika. 2011 LLR 704 (Guj. HC)

    proper.

    Deputy Director, AdministrationRajya Krishi
    Upadan Mandi Parishad, Agra &Anr. vs.
    Presiding Officer, Labour Court,Agra and
    Another. 2011 LLR 969 (AllahabadHC)


    Compensation and notreinstatement
    would be proper even whenretrenchment
    of supervisor on daily basis wasnot as per
    procedure.

    State of U.P. and others vs.Presiding Officer,
    Labour Court No. 2, GhaziabadU.P. and
    Another. 2011 LLR 973 (AllahabadHC)


    When workman worked for 80 days,plea
    of infraction of 25F of ID Actcan't be
    taken. However, since bank clerkcum-
    cashier was terminated withoutnotice in
    violation of 25G and 25H,compensation of
    one lakh in lieu of reinstatementwith
    back wages would be proper.

    Sudha Ratna Singh vs. Union ofIndia and
    Others. 2011 (130) FLR 58 (PatnaHC)

    Retrenchment justified when a
    department of the school is shutdown. No
    prior approval of retrenchment isrequired
    from director of education incase of
    unaided school.

    Prabhu Dayal Public School &Ors. vs.
    Anirudh Singh and Ors. 2011 LLR1016 (Delhi
    HC)


    In the absence of any document
    pertaining to enquiry on themisconduct of
    wilful absence and terminationorder, such
    termination amounts to illegal

    50


    Business Manager
    February 2012


    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    retrenchment and reinstatementwith back
    wages will be justified.

    Punjab Agriculture University andAnr. vs.
    Presiding Officer, Labour Courtand Anr. 2011
    LLR 1086 (P&H HC)


    Retrenchment effected without
    complying the provisions of sec.9A of the
    ID Act would be illegal.

    Y. Premlatha vs. HyderabadCo-operative
    Central Trading Society Limitedand another.
    2011 (130) FLR 1091 (AP HC)

    When company failed to prove why
    principle of 'last come first go'not
    followed, retrenchment would beinvalid.

    Mahavir Steel Industries (P.)Limited, Pune vs.
    Pune Workers Union, Pune andanother. 2011
    (130) FLR 1103 (Bom. HC)

    Retrenchment without adhering tothe
    mandatory provisions of S.25 isvoid ab
    initio.

    Municipal Council vs. Chhotalal& Anr. LLN I
    2011 P. 258 (Raj. HC)

    Once retrenchment is held to begenuine
    and bonafide by complying allstatutory
    requirements, reinstatement can’tbe
    ordered.

    Vicco Laboratories Limited andAnother vs.
    Maharashtra General Kamgar Union.2011
    LLR 1178 (Bom. HC)


    It is mandatory for the employeeto
    complete 240 days service in ayear to avail
    protection under sec. 25F of IDAct.

    1. Management of Apparel ExportPromotion
    Council vs. Surya Prakash. 2011LLR 1208 (Del.
    HC)

    2. Dharmender Singh vs. ThePresiding Officer,
    Industrial Tribunal-cum-LabourCourt, Union
    Territory and
    Another. 2011 LLR 1215 (P&H
    HC)

    In case of illegal terminationwithout
    retrenchment compensation,
    reinstatement without back wagesproper.

    Board of Secondary Education vs.Rajesh
    Nema and Another. 2011 LLR 1280(MP HC)

    Employee who has continued inservice
    for five years cannot beterminated form
    service without complying withthe
    provisions of section 25(F) ofthe I.D. Act.

    Keru Kisan Rokade vs. GeofferyManners &
    Company Ltd., Nashik. LLN (4)2010 P. 697
    (Bom. HC)

    When bankers cheque towards one
    month notice and retrenchment
    compensation is offered to theemployee at
    the time of retrenchment, itcomplies with
    the provisions of ID Act.

    Sudarshan Rout vs.Commissioner-cum-
    Secretary to Govt. of Orissa& Ors. 2011 LLR
    477 (Orissa HC)

    Retrenchment without followingthe
    principle of "last comefirst go" held
    illegal. Reinstatement withoutback wages
    proper.

    Mussoorie Dehradun DevelopmentAuthority
    vs. Shri Rameshwar and Others.2011 (128)
    FLR 1030 (Uttarakhand HC)

    Retirement

    When the workman retired duringthe
    pendency of the case,compensation and
    not reinsatement rightly awardedby
    Labour Court.

    Krishna Chandra Rout vs.Presiding Officer,
    Labour Court, Sambalpur &Three Ors. 2011
    LLR 354 (Orissa HC)


    In the absence of having practiceof not
    employing persons till life-time,employee
    cannot challenge his retirementat the age
    of 58 on the plea that there wereno service
    rules.

    T. Anantha Krishan vs. Managementof
    Madras Purasawalkam HinduJanopakara
    Saswatha Nidhi or The PermanentGeneral
    Benefit Fund Ltd., Chennai andAnother. 2011II
    LLJ 557 (Madras HC)

    Award of wages beyond the age of
    retirement is not sustainable.

    Mahalaxmi Fibres & IndustriesLtd. vs.
    Santosh Tiwari & Ors. LLJ II2011 P. 100 (Jhar.
    HC)


    When there is a settlement about
    retirement age at 60 years, therewill be no
    significance of Model StandingOrders
    providing 58 years as retirementage.

    Balmer Lawrie & Co. Ltd.,Mumbai & Anr. vs.
    Engineering Workers' Association,Mumbai &
    Anr. 2011 (II) CLR 787 (Bom. HC)


    Settlement

    During the operation ofsettlement when
    agreed that no financial demandwill be
    raised, enhancement of retirementage
    will not be tenable.

    M/s Kennametal India Ltd. vs.Kennametal
    India Employees' Association& Ors. 2011 LLR
    584 (Kar. HC)


    Bipartite settlement arrived atunder
    section 18(3) of I.D. Act willnot be binding
    on the subsequent purchaser ofthe
    factory.

    General Sec., Gujarat AudhyogikKamgar
    Sangthan vs. Kalyan Paper &Board Mills &
    Anr. 2011 LLR 659 (Guj. HC)


    When a settlement has been madeby a
    Union unrecognised under the
    Maharashtra Recognition of TradeUnions
    & Prevention of Unfair LabourPractices
    Act, 1971, only those employeeswill be
    entitled to benefits who havebeen a party
    to it.

    S.D. Muley and Others vs. JaihindIndustries
    and Another. 2011 (129) FLR 929(Bom. HC)
    Business Manager


    February 2012
    51



    Company cannot be said to have
    violatated the provisions of IDAct when
    acted as per conciliationsettlement.
    Indian Semlting And RefiningCompany
    Limited vs. Anthony D' Almeidaand another.
    2011 (130) FLR 958 (Bom. HC)
    Settlement signed by theearstwhile
    employer with the employees willnot be
    binding on the subsequentemployer who
    bought machinery and factory.Since new
    purchaser was not party tosettlement
    employees can't get any benefitfrom the
    new employer on the basis of thesettlement.
    General Secretary, GujaratAudyogik Kamgar
    Sangthan vs. Kalyan Paper &Board Mills &
    Anr. FLR (129) 2011 P. 1067 (Guj.HC)
    Settlement executed with themajority
    union is binding upon all workmen
    including members of minorityunion and
    the settlement will continue tobe effective
    for specific period till the sameis
    substituted by anothersettlement.
    Taj Services Ltd. vs. IndustrialTribunal-1
    Delhi & Ors. 2011 LLR 1133(Delhi HC)
    Employees who have left servicesby
    opting golden handshake and byreceiving
    compensation in terms of section18(1) of
    the settlement are not entitledto enhance
    compensation given to otheremployees in
    subsequent settlement.
    G. Damodaran & Ors. vs. ManagingDirector,
    Hindustan Liver Ltd. LLN (4) 2010P. 725 (Mad.
    HC)
    petitioner's establishmentemployed 100 or
    more workmen in the 12 monthspreceding
    the inspection to attract theapplicability
    of Industrial Employment(Standing
    Orders) Act. Thus, there was nobasis for
    the prosecution to show the Actwas
    applicable to petitioner'sestablishment.
    Bapineedu Chowdary vs. State ofAndhra
    Pradesh and Another. 2011-III LLJ196 (AP HC)
    Strike
    The doctors, residents, interns,para-
    medical staff and any otherperson
    connected with AIIMS can't beallowed to
    go on strike. Any such strike isillegal.
    Such persons engaging themselvesin such
    activity would be liable fordisciplinary
    proceedings and contempt ofcourt.
    Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
    Medical Association (Regd.) Delhivs. Union of
    India and Others. 2011 LLR 366(Del. HC)
    During the pendency ofconciliation
    proceedings it is not open to theunions
    and its members to proceed onstrike. It
    would be an illegal strike.
    Bharat Petroleum CorporationLtd., Mumbai
    vs. Petroleum Workmen's UnionThane & Ors.
    2011 III CLR 187 (Bom. HC)
    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    Shops &
    Establishments

    Society imparting education todeaf
    community covered asestablishment
    under Delhi Shops Act will alsobe covered
    under Minimum Wages Act.

    Multipurpose Training Centre forthe Deaf vs.
    Government of NCT of Delhi &Ors. 2011 LLR
    548 (Del. HC)

    Standing Orders

    When certified standing orders
    providing the age of retirementat 58,
    reduction of retirement age from60 to 58
    by the management will not amountin to
    change in service conditions.

    Sri Achyuta Charan Panda vs. TheManaging
    Director, Paradeep PhosphatesLtd. 2011 LLR
    472 (Orissa HC)

    There was no foundation in the
    complaint, as there was nostatement that

    Suspension


    In the absence of proof ofreporting for
    duty after revocation ofsuspension order,
    workman will not be entitled toany salary.

    Chaman Lal vs. Presiding Officer,Labour
    Court, Patiala. 2011 LLR 577(P& H HC)

    Termination

    When employee submitted cogentproof
    of his date of birth, histermination on the
    ground of providing wrong agewould be
    illegal.

    Shambhu Mishra vs. AirportAuthority of
    India Ltd. & Ors. 2011 LLR 90(Del. HC)

    Termination without any chargethough
    discharge simpliciter would stillbe illegal
    retrenchment when conditionsprecedent
    not followed. Reinstatement with30% back
    wages proper.

    Cotton Corporation of India Ltd.and Another
    vs. State of Rajasthan andOthers. 2011 LLR 74
    (Raj. HC)

    No illegal termination of atemporary
    employee due to abolition of hispost.

    52


    Business Manager
    February 2012


    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    Ahmedabad Municipal TransportService vs.

    Atul Chimanlal Shah. 2011 LLR 194(Guj. HC)

    A temporary employee on a postwhich is
    abolished and is relieved, suchaction can't
    be termed as termination. No
    reinstatement in such case.

    Ahmedabad Municipal TransportService vs.

    Atul Chimanlal Shah. 2011 LLR 254(Guj. HC)

    Termination of a probationer willbe
    illegal without enquiry if showcause is
    issued.

    Jagdish Chand vs. ManagingDirector,

    H.R.T.C. and Others. 2011 LLR 346(HP HC)
    While imposing punishment,
    consideration of past records isimportant.
    Termination for unauthorisedabsence of
    18 days improper. Reinstatementwithout
    wages granted.

    Veer Chand vs. D.T.C. 2011 (128)
    FLR 547 (Del. HC)


    Casual or daily rated workerswhen not
    appointed as per rules will notbe entitled
    to any relief on termination.

    Bachsangji Chehraji Thakur &Ors. vs. Deputy
    General Manager & Ors. 2011(I) CLR 862 (Guj.
    HC)


    Once the termination has beenfound
    void ab-initio, reinstatementwith
    seniority ought to be granted.

    Kirpa Ram vs. Secretary, H.P.State Board and
    Others. 2011 LLR 507 (HP HC)

    Merely because the insurancecompany
    made good the losses caused tobank by the
    abuse of powers by the employeein case of
    granting loans against banklending
    norms, removal from service ofsuch
    employee can't be set aside.

    Sunil Kumar Srivastava vs. Unionof India
    and Others. 2011 LLR 1036 (All.HC)

    One who is offered work on dailywages
    is not entitled for any notice orone
    month's pay in lieu of notice,while service
    terminated.

    State of Maharashtra, SubDivisional Forest

    Officer vs. Sadashiv Maroti Doke& Anr. LLN

    (3) 2011 P. 124 (Bom. HC)
    Regularising juniors andterminating
    the services of senior would bein violation
    of sec. 25A, 25B, 25F and 25G ofID Act.
    Termination has illegal.

    Superintendent, Ummed Hospital,Jodhpur vs.
    Judge, Industrial DisputesTribunal and
    Labour Court, Jodhpur. 2011 LLR1115 (Raj. HC)


    Trade Union

    Derecognition of the union byairlines
    management without following therules
    of natural justice is liable tobe set aside.

    Air Corporation Employees Unionvs. Air India
    Ltd. 2011 (129) FLR 752 (DelhiHC)

    When the employer at the requestof the
    Union has been deducting thesubscription
    of the Union while making thepayment of
    wages, it cannot be stopped sinceit will be
    against the fundamental rightgranted for
    formation of a trade union.

    Coimbatore Periyar DistrictsDravida,
    Panjalai Thozhilalar MunnetraSangam, rep.
    by its Gen. Secretary S.Doraisamy & Ors. vs.
    National Textile CorporationLimited,
    Coimbatore & Ors. 2011 LLR1076 (Mad. HC)

    Registrar is empowered to giveregistration
    to a union as a multi stateunion.

    Akhil Dadra & Nagar HaveliKamgar Sangh,
    Silvassa, Dadra & NagarHaveli vs.
    Krantikari Kamgar Union &Ors. 2011 III CLR
    26 (Bom. HC)

    Withdrawal of recognition of aunion
    will not be interfered by theHigh Court.

    Committee of Management TrimurtiHigher
    Secondary School, Khushhal,Moradabad vs.
    State of U.P. . and others. 2011LLR 246 (All. HC)


    Before de-recognizing the union,
    employer must issue show causenotice to
    union and afford an opportunityof
    hearing.

    Air Corporation Employees Unionvs. Air India
    Ltd. 2011 I CLR 695 (Del. HC)

    Although no employer is under an
    obligation to offer check-off(collecting
    membership fee from members)facility to
    the Union but when such afacility has
    been extended for 21 years, itswithdrawal,
    all of a sudden, would bearbitrary.

    Rashtriya Colliery MajdoorCongress and
    Another vs. South Eastern CoalfieldsLtd. and
    Others. 2011 (130) FLR 248 (MPHC)


    Transfer

    Where undertaking transferredfrom
    one employer to other, in theabsence of
    any specific provision, takingconsent of
    employee for transferring hisservices to
    new employer does not apply. Insuch case
    employee is not entitled to any
    compensation on the ground thathe is not
    willing to work with newemployer.

    J.V. Sudhakar vs. Government ofA.P. rep. by
    its Principal Secretary, LabourDeptt. and Ors.
    2011 LLR 43 (A.P. HC)

    Conciliation officer has nopowers to
    stay the transfer orders made byemployer.
    He can only mediate and notadjudicate the
    dispute.

    Maharashtra General Kamgar Union,through
    its Joint Secretary and Ors. vs.Pix
    Transmissions Ltd. & Anr.2011 I CLR 106
    (Bom. HC)

    Where Standing Orders restricttransfer
    of employees to Bangalore only,transfer of
    employees to another state wouldbe
    illegal.

    Business Manager


    February 2012
    53



    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    M/s. Madura Coats Pvt. Ltd., Rep.by its
    Manager vs. The Workmen of M/s.Madura
    Coats Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by MaduraCoats
    Employees' Union. 2011 LLR 81(Karn. HC)


    Transfer of chemical engineerfrom
    Durgapur plant to sales office assales
    manager at Kolkata that too withoutany
    vacancy would be malafide andillegal.

    Dipankar Bandopadhyay vs.Durgapur
    Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. 2011LLR 293 (Cal. HC)

    Transfer of a Technician Grade IIto
    another post in the same categorycannot
    be construed as illegal.

    T.N. Mohila and Others vs. U.P.State Electricity
    Board and Others. 2011 LLR 834(All. HC)
    Transfer on allegations ofmisconduct
    without putting the employee onnotice
    and seeking his reply is bad inlaw.

    Madhura Mohan Nayak vs. State ofOrissa &
    Ors. LLN(2) 2011 P. 613 (OrissaHC)

    Transfer from Bhopal toBhubaneswar
    that too on temporary basis needsno
    interference.

    Dr. H.S. Tripathi vs. NationalCouncil for
    Teachers Education and Others.2011 LLR 916
    (MP HC)

    When bank employee was suspectedof
    fraud, his transfer instead ofputting him
    on disciplinary proceedings,would be
    illegal and liable to be setaside.

    Biplab Das vs. The Chairman,Bangiya
    Gramin Vikash Bank & Ors.2011 LLR 947
    (Cal. HC)

    Transfer from one company toanother
    having separate legal entity not
    permissible. Transfer on theground of
    indulgence in anti-managementactivities
    cannot be turned intoadministrative
    excegencies.

    Sneha Kumar Pradhan vs. Mahanadi
    Coalfields Limited and others.2011 (130) FLR
    852 (Orissa HC)

    When transfer order affects theservice
    condition and financialentitlements, then
    court can interfere with theorder that too
    when the transfer was orderedonly after
    21 days of first transfer.

    Kartika Chandra Ray vs. NeelachalGramya

    Bank and Others. 2011 LLR 706(Orissa HC)

    Inconvenience of the employee in
    domestic front in view oftransfer can't
    justify interference withtransfer order.

    Tapan Kumar Das Purkayastha vs.Hindustan
    Paper Corporation Ltd. 2011 LLR735
    (Gauhati HC)


    Unfair Labour
    Practice

    Inviting workers to undergotraining to
    act as officers throughintroduction of
    promotion scheme by managementwould
    not be unfair labour practice.

    Siemens Ltd. Vs. SiemensEmployees
    Union 2011 (131) FLR 1100 (SC)

    Showing workers as on project,but in
    fact doing perennial nature ofwork, would
    be unfair labour practice.

    Reliance Energy Ltd., Mumbai vs.Yadayya

    Giri and Others. 2010 (4) LLN 787(Bom. HC)

    Keeping sweepers and bus bodycleaners
    as temporary for years togetherwould be
    unfair labour practice. Order ofmaking
    them permanent proper.

    Tamil Nadu State TransportCorporation
    (Madurai Division-IV) formerlyknown as Rani
    Management Transport CorporationLtd.),
    Dindigul vs. (1) PresidingOfficer, Industrial
    Tribunal (2) Secretary, RaniMangammal
    Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam,Dindigul.
    2010 (4) LLN 703 (Mad. HC)

    Paying less to daily wagershaving
    identical nature of duties withpermanent,
    will amount to unfair labourpractice
    under ID Act.

    Maharashtra Lok Kamgar Sanghatanavs.

    Ballarpur Industries Ltd. andanother. 2011

    (128) FLR 885 (Bom. HC)
    If a workman was employed andreemployed
    to show that his services were
    terminated before 240 days willamounts
    to unfair labour practice.

    Krishan Lal vs. General Manager,Haryana
    Roadways, Rohtak and another.2011 (128) FLR
    752 (P&H HC)

    VRS

    Under VRS, right of management to
    accept or reject the applicationof any
    employee for VRS can’t bequestioned.

    Chairman and M.D., IndianOverseas Bank &
    Ors. vs. Tribhuwan NathSrivastava. 2011 LLR
    225 (S.C.)

    Employees relieved under VRScannot
    raise Industrial Dispute underSection 2A
    of the ID Act.

    Bayer Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd. vs.Presiding
    Officer, Labour Court-I andOthers. 2011 (129)
    FLR 17 (AP HC)


    Once employee makes option forVRS
    and is also accepted by themanagement,
    can't be further withdrawn by the
    employee.

    Anil Nandwani (Mrs.) vs. FoodCorporation of
    India & Ors. 2011 LLR 518(Del. HC)

    When employee was relieved underVRS,
    no disciplinary proceedings couldbe
    initiated against him.

    S.V. Vanajakshi vs. TUCS Limited,represented
    by its Special Officer, 119, BigStreet, Triplicane,
    Chennai-5. 2011 (I) LLN 709 (Mad.HC)

    Employee has a right to withdrawhis
    notice of voluntary retirementbefore
    acceptance by the management.

    54


    Business Manager
    February 2012


    Mahendra Gajanan Trivedi vs. Bankof India
    & Ors. 2011 LLR 1096 (Guj.HC)
    Condition of refunding amountreceived
    after VRS by workman is proper inorder
    to challenge VRS which wasaccepted
    under duress.
    Man Singh vs. Maruti Suzuki IndiaLtd. &
    Another. 2011 LLR 1009 (SC)
    If an application for voluntary
    retirement is not withdrawnbefore
    acceptance, its acceptance by theemployer
    will be valid.
    Siddaiah vs. Management of Mandya
    National Paper Mills Ltd.,Belagula. 2011 LLR
    1267 (Karn. HC)
    Withdrawal of application forvoluntary
    retirement is permissible tillthe date the
    same is to be effected in future.
    Balaram Saghan Kshetra Samiti vs.Kantaben
    Laljibhai Patel & 2 Ors. 2011LLR 1251 (Guj. HC)
    Workman
    Even if the casual workersappointed for
    six months on monthly break up to30
    years can’t claim permanencybeing
    original appointment not in termsof the
    process envisaged by the rules.
    Union of India & Ors. vs.Vartak Labour
    Union. 2011 LLR 337 (S.C.)
    This is the burden, workmen haveto
    discharge.
    Rahimuddin and Others vs. GossiniFashions
    Ltd. 2011 LLR 824 (Del. HC)
    Discharging duties of drafting
    agreement, lease deeds,affidavits and
    maintaining records can't be saidto be of a
    workman in nature. Employee washeld
    not be a workman.
    Anita Mathur vs. Idea CellularLtd. 2011 LLR
    1066 (Delhi HC)
    Advocate / Legal advisor of thebank is
    not a workman under ID Act.
    Sonepat Central Co-operative BankLtd. vs.
    Presiding Officer, IndustrialTribunal-cum-
    Labour Court, Rohtak and Anr.2011 III CLR
    704 (P&H HC)
    Branch officer of a financecompany
    can’t be held to be a workman.
    Gruh Finance Limited vs. PradipK. Shah. 2011
    III CLR 708 (Guj. HC)
    Personal financial consultant ofa bank
    appointed in lower managementcadre will
    not be a workman under ID Act.Dominant
    nature of duties andresponsibilities are to
    be seen.
    Vandana Joshi D/o. Mr. K.D.Joshi, Thane vs.
    Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. 2011LLR 126
    (Bom. HC)
    Assistant civil engineer and
    administrative officer are notworkman
    under ID Act.
    Exhibition Society, ExhibitionGrounds,
    Nampally, Hyderabad vs. LabourCourt-II,
    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    Mahendra Gajanan Trivedi vs. Bankof India
    & Ors. 2011 LLR 1096 (Guj.HC)
    Condition of refunding amountreceived
    after VRS by workman is proper inorder
    to challenge VRS which wasaccepted
    under duress.
    Man Singh vs. Maruti Suzuki IndiaLtd. &
    Another. 2011 LLR 1009 (SC)
    If an application for voluntary
    retirement is not withdrawnbefore
    acceptance, its acceptance by theemployer
    will be valid.
    Siddaiah vs. Management of Mandya
    National Paper Mills Ltd.,Belagula. 2011 LLR
    1267 (Karn. HC)
    Withdrawal of application forvoluntary
    retirement is permissible tillthe date the
    same is to be effected in future.
    Balaram Saghan Kshetra Samiti vs.Kantaben
    Laljibhai Patel & 2 Ors. 2011LLR 1251 (Guj. HC)
    Workman
    Even if the casual workersappointed for
    six months on monthly break up to30
    years can’t claim permanencybeing
    original appointment not in termsof the
    process envisaged by the rules.
    Union of India & Ors. vs.Vartak Labour
    Union. 2011 LLR 337 (S.C.)
    This is the burden, workmen haveto
    discharge.
    Rahimuddin and Others vs. GossiniFashions
    Ltd. 2011 LLR 824 (Del. HC)
    Discharging duties of drafting
    agreement, lease deeds,affidavits and
    maintaining records can't be saidto be of a
    workman in nature. Employee washeld
    not be a workman.
    Anita Mathur vs. Idea CellularLtd. 2011 LLR
    1066 (Delhi HC)
    Advocate / Legal advisor of thebank is
    not a workman under ID Act.
    Sonepat Central Co-operative BankLtd. vs.
    Presiding Officer, IndustrialTribunal-cum-
    Labour Court, Rohtak and Anr.2011 III CLR
    704 (P&H HC)
    Branch officer of a financecompany
    can’t be held to be a workman.
    Gruh Finance Limited vs. PradipK. Shah. 2011
    III CLR 708 (Guj. HC)
    Personal financial consultant ofa bank
    appointed in lower managementcadre will
    not be a workman under ID Act.Dominant
    nature of duties andresponsibilities are to
    be seen.
    Vandana Joshi D/o. Mr. K.D.Joshi, Thane vs.
    Standard Chartered Bank Ltd. 2011LLR 126
    (Bom. HC)
    Assistant civil engineer and
    administrative officer are notworkman
    under ID Act.
    Exhibition Society, ExhibitionGrounds,
    Nampally, Hyderabad vs. LabourCourt-II,
    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    Person can't be denied of benefitof a
    workman under ID Act merelybecause he
    was designated as apprentice ortrainee. In
    the absence of trainer to impartany
    training to such persons, theywill treated
    as workman. Entitled forreinstatement.

    Workmen of PMP Textiles,Coimbatore vs.
    Management of PMP Textiles &Anr. 2011 LLR
    731 (Mad. HC)

    Test to determine whether aperson is a
    workman or not is to be decidedby examining
    the true nature of his dominantduties.

    Superintending Engineer MSEDCompany Ltd.
    vs. Sukhadev Ramchandra. CLR II2011 P. 185
    (Bom. HC)

    'Balsevika' working on honorariumwill
    not be a workman under ID Act.

    Devinder Kaur (Smt.) vs. ChildWelfare
    Council, Punjab & Ors. 2011LLR 357 (P&H
    HC): 2011 I CLR 42 (P&H HC)


    To decide, whether a person is a
    workman, his nature of dominantduties
    and not the designation will besole
    criterion.

    Superintending Engineer,Maharashtra State
    Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.(O&M),
    Chandrapur and Anr. vs. Sukhdeo
    Ramchandra Dhakite, Nagpur. 2011LLR 662
    (Bom. HC)

    No relief to workmen when theyfailed to
    establish the master-servantrelationship.

    Nampally, Hyderabad & Ors.2011 LLR 532
    (AP HC)

    Part time junior executivedischarging
    the functions of loandocumentation,
    cheques disbursement makingledger
    entries, preparing notices,statements,
    maintaing EMI accounts, receiving
    cheques and cash from customersare more
    of administrative nature hencewill not be
    a workman under ID Act.

    G.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd.,Hyderabad and
    Another vs. Presiding Officer,Labour Court-I,
    A.P., Hyderabad and Another. 2011LLR 801
    (AP HC)
    Design and development engineer
    simply checking drawings preparedby
    draftsman will be workman underID Act.
    Mayank Desai vs. Sayaji Iron& Engg. Co.
    Ltd.& Anr. 2011 LLR 536 (Guj.HC)

    Sub managers appointed underseparate
    contract of employment in thesame mill
    will not be workman under ID Act.

    Management of Madura Coats Pvt.Ltd. and

    Another vs. Presiding Officer,Labour Court,

    Tirunelveli and Ors. 2011 LLR 486(Mad. HC)

    Whether the person is a workmanor not,
    this plea is to be raised beforelabour court.
    Raising such objection in HighCourt will
    not be of any help to management.

    Aringer Anna Primary AgriculturalBank v.
    Presiding Officer, Labour Court.LLN (4) 2010 P.

    476 (Mad. HC)

    BM
    Ref.
    : Labour Law Reporter,FLR, CLR,LLJ & APS Labour Digest

    Business Manager


    February 2012
    55










    Gratuity :
    Provisions in relation togratuity of
    working journalists Act willprevail over the
    provisions of the Payment ofGratuity Act.
    P. rajan Sandhi vs. Union of India& Anr. 2011
    LLR 426 (S.C.)
    When employee is allowed toretire, his
    gratuity can't be forfeitedmerely beacuse
    criminal proceedings were pendingagainst
    him.
    New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs.Ashwin
    Chimanlal Sheth & 2 Ors. 2011LLR 66 (Guj. HC)
    The person on fixed termemployment
    when worked for more than 5 years
    because his contract was extendedfrom
    time to time, will be entitledfor gratuity.
    amount cannot be forfeited.
    Vinod vs. State of Maharashtraand others.
    2011 (128) FLR 618 (Bom. HC)
    Once the authority passed orderunder
    Gratuity Act, recovery againstemployer is
    bound to be effected.
    Jehangir Textile Mills vs.Sahebsingh
    Chotesingh and Another. 2011 LLR265 (Guj. HC)
    When the employee was re-employedas
    fresh badli worker, he will onlybe entitled to
    gratuity for the period from thedate of his
    re-employment till the last dateof working.
    Phoenix Mills Ltd., Mumbai vs.Manohar
    Arjun Rasal. 2011 LLR 382 (Bom.HC)
    In the absence of any domesticenquiry
    and order under sec. 4 (6)(a) and(b) of the
    Payment of Gratuity Act,forfeiture of
    gratuity would be illegal.
    Maharashtra State Road Transport
    Corporation, Mumbai vs. MarutiRamchandra
    Mastud. 2011 LLR 397 (Bom. HC)
    Allowing 15% compound interestfor
    delay in making payment ofgratuity by
    employer is proper.
    Hindustan Steel WorksConstruction Ltd. vs.
    Suresh Kumar Chetal and Others.2011 (128)
    FLR 745 (Chhattisgarh HC)
    Payment of Gratuity Act isapplicable on
    library. High Court can't directthe
    authority under the Act to extendthe
    period of limitation beyondprovided
    under the Act.
    Administrative Officer,T.M.S.S.M. Library and
    Research Centre, Thanjavur vs.Appellate
    Authority Under Payment ofGratuity Act (The
    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    U.P. Bhumi Sudhar Nigam, Lucknowvs.
    Appellate Authority and Others.2011 LLR 164
    (All. HC)

    Personal allowance and special
    compensatory allowance would notform
    part of wages for the purpose ofgratuity
    under Payment of Gratuity Act.

    State Bank of India, Goa vs.Laxmikant Vithal
    Palekar & Ors. 2011 LLR 133 :2011 (128) FLR
    317 (Bom. HC)

    Gratuity can't be withheld fornot
    vacating the quarter by employee.

    Jehangir Textile Mills vs.Sahebsingh
    Chotesingh. 2011 LLR 159 (Guj.HC)


    Gratuity can't be withheldwithout
    complying principles of naturaljustice.

    Manmohan Prasad vs. H.P. StateSmall Scale
    Industries and Export CorporationLtd. 2011
    LLR 177 (H.P. HC)


    No forfeiture of gratuity without
    termination for the specified misconduct.

    M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs.Union of
    India. Through its Secretary andOthers. 2011
    LLR 203 (Jharkhand HC)


    Casual worker putting in fiveyears of
    continuous service will beentitled to
    Gratuity.

    Pioneer Spinners, rep. by itsGeneral Manager
    vs. Regional Labour Commissioner,Central,
    Chennai. 2011 LLR 151 (Mad. HC)

    In the absence of any specificfinding
    and charge against thepetitioner, gratuity

    Joint Commissioner of Labour) andOthers.
    2011 LLR 351 (Mad. HC)


    In the absence of separate orderof
    forfeiture of gratuity, samecan't be forfeited.

    Manager Park Side Estate NonsuchPost,
    Coonoor vs. Appellate Authorityunder the
    Payment of Gratuity Act/JointCommissioner
    of Labour, Coimbatore and Ors.2011 LLR 416
    (Mad. HC)


    Gratuity cannot be denied to an
    employee merely on the basis ofthe
    undertaking signed by him that hewill not
    claim gratuity for the pastperiod.

    M. Selvadurai vs. DirectorPersonnel, Block-I,
    Corporate Office Neyveli LigniteCorporation
    Limited & Ors. 2011 LLR 457(Mad. HC)


    Gratuity can not be forfeited for
    misconduct of subversive of good
    behaviour. But only for riotousand
    disorderly behaviour and both
    misconducts have differentmeaning
    altogether.

    Jaya Hind Industries Ltd.,Akurdi, Pune vs.
    Vilas Vithalrao Takale. 2011 LLR638 (Bom. HC)

    Gratuity with 8% interest rightly
    awarded to legal heirs of theemployee.

    State of U.P. vs. Smt. AnwariBegum and
    Another. 2011 (129) FLR 195 (All.HC)


    Service of Badli worker duringthe years
    in which he did not complete 240days,
    could not be considered forgratuity.

    Vasantbhai Bhudarbhai vs.Manager, Arvind
    Intex. LLJ II 2011 P. 145 (Guj.HC)


    Business Manager


    February 2012
    39



    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    The pendency of chargesheetagainst the
    employee cannot constitute asufficient
    cause for non payment of intereston
    delayed payment of gratuity bythe
    employer.

    Vishal Singh Shekhawat vs.Rajasthan State
    Ganganagar Sugar Mills Ltd. 2011II 445
    (Raj. HC)

    Controlling Authority under the
    Payment of Gratuity Act and notthe High
    Court will be the appropriateforum when
    a person seeks to have Rs. 10lakh after
    receiving Rs. 3.5 lakh asgratuity.

    P. S. Gupta vs. Union of India& Ors. 2011-II
    CLR 70 (Del. HC)
    Bank employee dismissed forfinancial
    irregularities will not beentitled to
    Gratuity.

    Sabarkantha Dist. Central Co-op.Bank vs.
    Ramanbhai M. Patel & Ors.2011 CLR I P. 871
    (Guj. HC)

    Gratuity can be forfeited forviolent and
    riotous conduct of the employee.

    Jaya Hind Industries Ltd. vs.Vilas V. Takale.
    2011 CLR II P. 229 (Bom. HC)

    Even if the workman retained the
    company house illegally afterretirement,
    employer cannot withhold thegratuity on
    this account. Gratuity cannot beattached
    in execution of a decree of thecourt.

    Binny Limited vs. The Asstt.Commissioner of
    Labour (Authority under PG Act)& Ors. 2011
    LLR 834 (Mad. HC)


    In the absence of finding ofquantified
    loss caused due to the employee's
    misconduct, gratuity cannot beforfeited
    under sec. 4(6) of the Act.

    Vinod Vinayak Jinturkar vs. Stateof
    Maharashtra & Ors. 2011 LLJII P. 659 (Bom. HC)

    Employee of a registered society
    appointed prior to the date ofNotification
    extending Payment of GratuityAct, 1972,
    will be entitled to Gratuityunder the Act.

    Indian Environmental Society vs.Dr. L.M.
    Saxena. 2011 LLJ II P. 790. (Del.HC)

    When official accomodation wasnot
    vacated after retirement, it wasproper to
    adjust penal rent from retirementdues.

    Smt. Asha Saxena (Dead) by LRs.vs. U.P. State
    Electricity Board and Others.2011 LLR 924
    (Allahabad HC)

    Teachers are entitled to getgratuity
    under the Act.

    Mahendra Singh Chhabra vs.Appellate
    Authority, Payment of GratuityAct, Indore and
    Another. 2011 LLR 980 (MP HC)


    Teachers will be entitled togratuity
    from the date of joining and notfrom the
    date of the amendment effected inthe Act

    i.e. 3.4.97.
    Ananta Vishwanathan (Mrs.) vs.Shri
    Narayana Guru High School &Ors. 2011 LLR
    995 (Bom. HC)

    Employer can't be allowed tostall the
    claim of gratuity by indulging in
    litigation. Employer liable topay gratuity
    with 15% compound interest.

    Hindustan Steel WorksConstruction Ltd. vs.
    Suresh Kumar Chetal and Others.2011 (3) LLN
    163 (Chhattisgarh HC)

    Gratuity claim after 5 years ofVRS that
    too on fixed personal andcompensatory
    allowance was not maintainable.

    State Bank of India vs. ShriLaxmikant Vithal
    Palekar. 2011 (3) LLN 139 (Bom.HC)

    Gratuity can’t be claimed underID Act.

    VST Industries Ltd. vs. PresidingOfficer,
    Industrial Tribunal-cum-LabourCourt,
    Godavarikhani, KarimnagarDistrict and
    Others. 2011 LLR 1170 (AP HC)


    An order of the ControllingAuthority
    under the Payment of Gratuity Actallowing
    claim for gratuity cannot bechallenged
    and/or decided in a writpetition.

    M/s. Ranbeer Automobiles andAnother vs.
    State of West Bengal. 2011 LLR1188 (Cal. HC)

    Appeal against the order ofcontrolling
    authority after maximum limit of120 days
    will not be maintenable.

    Bhavnagar Municipal Corporationvs. Sunderben
    Chhanabhai Baraiya Legal heirs oflate
    Chhanabhai & 2 Ors. 2011 LLR1250 (Guj. HC)



    No Work-No Pay
    If the workmen are not allowed towork
    by the employer, the principle"no work no
    pay" will not apply.
    Panipat Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd.vs. Presiding
    Officer, Labour Court & Ors.CLR II 2011 P. 292
    (P&H HC)
    Over time
    When a worker is provided with
    accommodation, travellingallowance and
    city compensatory allowance arenot
    universally paid to each andevery
    employee, such allowances are notrequired
    U.P. State Road TransportCorporation vs.
    Appellate Authority under Paymentof Wages
    Act, Mau and Others. 2011 LLR 629(All. HC)
    Construction of residential house
    activity will be covered underthe Payment
    of Wages Act.
    Smt. Shashi Sharma vs. TheLabour-cum-
    Conciliation Officer & Anr.2011 LLR 841
    (P&H HC)
    Challenging order of the employer
    proposing to make deduction of 8days'
    wages of the striking workersunder
    article 226 of Constitution ofIndia will
    not be appropriate since theappropriate
    forum has been provided under the
    Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
    Hind Khadan Mazdoor Federationvs. Coal India
    Ltd. and Others. 2011 (130) FLR125 (MP HC)
    Five times penalty instead of tentimes
    for non payment of leave wageswould be
    proper keeping in view thefinancial
    difficulties of the organization.
    Akola Zillah Dudh Utpadak SanghSahakari
    Sansthanacha Sangh Ltd., Akolavs. Sheshrao
    Ramchandra Mhasaye. 2011 LLR 1018(Bom. HC)
    No writ against order ofauthority under
    Payment of Wages Act.
    Ramala Sahkari Chini MillsLimited, Meerut
    vs. Authority under Payment ofWages Act and
    Others. 2011 LLR 1102 (All. HC)
    Denial of wages to data entryoperators
    reverted to the post ofconductors for the
    period from the date of reversionto date
    on which the workmen wererestored to
    their original position will beillegal.
    From The Court Room ImportantLabour Judgments 2011
    to be included for the purpose ofover time
    payment under ‘ordinary rate ofwages’ as
    per sec. 59(1) and (2) ofFactories Act.

    Jossie vs. Flag OfficersCommanding-in-Chief.
    2011 LLR 1168 (Kerala HC)

    Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More