Latest Labour Judgments of Supreme Court & High Courts-April 2015

  • Arbitrary retrenchment amounts to unfair labour practice.  Supreme Court 337 
  • Confirmation of probationer not to be presumed even when annual increment is given.  Del. HC 405
  • Provident Fund Authorities not to initiate recovery until the limitation period for filing appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Ker. HC 427
  • Termination for misappropriation, after proving charges in enquiry, would be justified.  Del. HC 437
  • Reinstatement with back-wages would be appropriate relief when termination is illegal. Del. HC 367
  • Apex Court will exercise its extra-ordinary jurisdiction to avoid technicalities.  Supreme Court 352
  • Limitation Act not applicable for filing appeal under the Payment of Gratuity Act. Del. HC 356
  • A contractor can deposit EPF contributions in the code of principal employer. Guj. HC 390
  • Home workers through contractors for rolling beedis would be covered by Provident Fund Scheme. Pat. HC 382
  • Pendency of criminal case is no bar to continue with disciplinary enquiry. Del. HC 431
  • Seniority list has to be displayed while effecting retrenchment by an employer.Supreme Court 337
  • While holding proceeding under section 7A of the Provident Fund Act, the Enquiry Officer will function as a Court.  Jhar. HC 395
  • No prejudice to be caused to delinquent when his past record is not disclosed in the order of punishment. Del. HC 431
  • Mere directions about ‘continuity of service’ would not construe entitlement of back-wages on reinstatement.  Del. HC 411
  • Gratuity can’t be forfeited in the absence of prescribed procedure. Jhar. HC 445
  • Non-issuing of retrenchment notice and non-payment of compensation would justify reinstatement. Supreme Court 337
  • Mere admission of accident by a driver would not justify punishment. Karn. HC 401
  • Industrial adjudicator is empowered to direct the employer to produce additional evidence. Del. HC 367
  • Before intending closure, the two months’ notice under section 25FFA of the ID Act is required.Supreme Court 337
  • No deemed confirmation is applicable for probationer in the absence of specific order.  Del. HC 405
  • Domestic enquiry would not be affected due to acquittal of delinquent employee from Criminal Court. Del. HC 431
  • Weaker section of society should be preferred for beneficial legislation. Supreme Court 352
  • In disciplinary proceeding, a misconduct not to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  Del. HC 367
  • Back-wages on reinstatement would be payable when termination is illegal. Supreme Court 337 
  • Prosecuting the employer for provident fund default after one year would be quashed. Guj. HC 391
  • Laws of drawn wages during pendency of proceeding in higher court not payable on closure of establishment. Ker. HC 378
  • Damages and penalty would be attracted for non-payment of provident fund contributions by employer. Guj. HC 390
  • Objection about territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is to be taken at earliest possible. Jhar. HC 395
  • Non-speaking order for levying damages for late deposit of PF contributions would not be tenable. Del. HC 361
  • Termination without enquiry even for long unauthorized absence would be illegal.Ker. HC 376
  • Claim for money under section 33C(2) of ID Act lies only when it is based on existing right. Karn. HC 403
  • Past record of an employee, even if it is unblemished, is not always relevant for imposing punishment. Karn. HC 401
  • Failure to lead evidence before Labour Court in support of charges would vitiate the enquiry.Del. HC 367
  • Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in domestic enquiries. Del. HC 367
  • Findings of facts will not be interfered by the High Court.  Del. HC 367
  • Abandonment of employment by an employee cannot be presumed merely by his unauthorised absence. Ker. HC 376
  • Last drawn wages payable when an employer challenges reinstatement of workman in the higher court. Ker. HC 378 
  • On delayed deposit of EPF contributions, penalty and damages would depend upon the circumstances but interest will be mandatory.  Guj. HC 390
  • Appeal by employer before EPF Appellate Tribunal without impleading employees/union would not be tenable.  Cal. HC 387