Labour Law Judgements-April 2016

  • Casual employees to be covered under ESI.   Supreme Court 437
  • Chairman not managing day-to-day affairs can’t be prosecuted for violation of Minimum Wages Act. Guj. HC 349
  • If residential accommodation is not a condition of service, employees have no right to continue.Supreme Court 425
  • Continuous unauthorized absenteeism will justify termination. P&H HC 353
  • Court cannot reject the reference of dispute. Supreme Court 338
  • Workman can choose the Court/Forum to sue the employer. Supreme Court 337
  • Dismissal justified for negligence resulting into loss to employer. Gau. HC 403
  • No perversity in directing Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for identification of workers.Guj. HC 375
  • Gratuity cannot be denied even if employee does not claim for past service.
    Mad. HC 370
  • Reinstatement of a Dy. Manager (Security) holding managerial position to be quashed. Jhar. HC 372
  • Reviewing authority under Provident Fund Act must pass speaking order. Ori. HC 413
  • Plea not taken before EPF Tribunal not tenable in Writ Court. P&H HC 409
  • Dismissal of conductor for receiving fare and not issuing tickets is justified.
    Del. HC 429
  • An employee empowered to select/ appoint persons, not a ‘workman’. Del. HC 431
  • Ex-parte   enquiry is justified on failure of delinquent to participate. P&H HC 353
  • Getting extensions without murmur, the probationer can’t justify performance.
    Del. HC 340
  • Clubbing of Samithi and Trust for coverage under Provident Fund Act is proper.
    Ker. HC 387
  • Penalty not justified when enquiry is biased.  Gau. HC 398
  • Misconduct being foundation, termination of probationer will be illegal. Guj. HC 385
  • Preliminary finding of enquiry not to be challenged in Writ Petition. P&H HC 355
  • A Company is responsible through its officer, having ultimate control over its affairs. Karn. HC 362
  • Termination of probationer on overall performance does not amount to removal as punishment.Del. HC 340
  • Reinstatement justified on termination sans compensation. Karn. HC 360
  • In domestic enquiry, charges are to be proved on preponderance of probabilities.
    Gau. HC 403
  • An enquiry sticking to natural justice, not to be interfered. Gau. HC 403
  • Enquiry to be dispensed if false certificate is not controverted. Bom. HC 378
  • Gratuity can be forfeited only on termination for specified misconducts. Mad. HC 370
  • Govt. can transfer industrial dispute from one Court to another. P&H HC 365
  • Unless 240 days working is proved by a workman, compliance of section 25F of I.D. Act is not needed. P&H HC 364
  • Denial of approval for dismissal of bus conductor not proper since standard is not rigid in enquiries.  Raj. HC 394
  • Fairness of enquiry depends upon procedure followed in enquiry. Del. HC 406
  • Official car driven by driver, creates presumption of his doing official work.
    Bom. HC 419
  • Nature of Duty determines whether employee is a ‘workman’ or not. Del. HC 431 
  • Court can’t direct government to refer a dispute for adjudication. Supreme Court 338
  • Monetary claim on existing right is tenable u/s 33C (2) of the I.D. Act. P&H HC 358
  • Plea of illness without a medical record is not tenable. P&H HC 353
  • Order of reference to be adjudicated even if parties don’t appear. P&H HC 356
  • Lump sum amount paid towards ‘basic wages’ would attract Provident Fund contributions. Del. HC 345
  • ESI Act is to be interpreted for benefits of employees. Supreme Court 437
  • School will be an ‘industry’ under Industrial Disputes Act.  Karn. HC 360
  • Payment of gratuity is employer’s responsibility. Mad. HC 370
  • Inconvenience is not a decisive factor while interpreting a statute. Pat. HC 367
  • Labour Court is to consider only whether procedure of enquiry was proper or not.
    Del. HC 406
  • Employer must obtain approval from competent authority stipulated by Industrial Disputes Act.Mad. HC 411
  • Interference by writ jurisdiction permissible if inference of Labour Court is perverse.
    Bom. HC 419
  • In case of violation of terms of lease, lessee will have  locus standi  to protest.
    Supreme Court 425