*Latest Labour Law Judgments for the Month of July, 2017*
? Reinstatement is not a rule even on illegal termination. *Supreme court 673*
? Embezzlement, even temporary, is a serious misconduct. *P & H HC 708*
? Contract labour will be sham when the work of contractors’ workers was of perennial nature. *Cal HC 716*
? Enquiry to be deemed as fair if not challenged by the workman. *Del HC 680*
? Medical certificate when not questioned by employer, will not be deemed false. *Del HC 675*
? No relief can be granted if terminated workman falls to prove to have worked for 240 days. *Del HC 684*
? Repayment of misappropriated money would not absolve a person from punishment. *Gau HC 691*
? Only appropriate government can decide for abolition of contract labour. *Cal HC 716*
? Past record is important for imposition of punishment. *Del HC 678*
? Labour court not to interfere in dismissal when charges of serious nature have been proved. *MP HC 699*
? Damages for delayed payment of ESI dues to be reduced because of financial crises. *Ker. HC 695*
? Appropriate government for Gratuity Act will be central if establishments are located in different states. *Karn. HC 714*
? No relief to a terminated bank employee guilty for the breach of trust. *MP HC 699*
? Contractors workers when controlled by principal employer, can claim absorption by latter. *Cal HC 716*
? Modification of punishment by the Court/Tribunal only when enquiry is not held or found to be defective. *P&H HC 708*
? Employer to pay compensation when injuries were caused during course of employment. *Mad HC 703*
? Illegal termination to be challenged within three years but after 45 days of conciliation proceedings. *Mad HC 704*
? Non-production of attendance/wages register would establish that workman was in the employment. *Cal. HC 636*
# Non-participation in the enquiry by workman despite intimation would not be violation of natural justice. *Del. HC 678*
? Dismissal justified when charge of misappropriation is established. *Del. HC 680*
? Transfer not to be stalled merely because the union election process would be affected. *Del. HC 682*
? Industrial adjudicator to interfere with punishment only when so requested by the workman. *P & H. HC 708*
? Courts not to be interfere with punishment when employer has lost confidence in workman. *Gau. HC 691*
*Employee’s Provident Funds & Miscellaneous provisions Act*
? Financial stringency alone can’t be a ground to reduce the damages for delayed deposits. *Del HC 728*
? While reducing the rate of damages, concerned authority must give reasons in an order. *Del. HC 729*
? Determination of amount by EPF authority based on report of Enforcement Officer not sustainable. *P&H HC 762*
? Appeal is to be filled within 60days but Tribunal can extend it for another 60days on reasons. Pat. HC 738
? Any retrospective amendment in the schemes is not illegal. *Mad. HC 758*
? Time spent in writ proceedings may be excluded for calculation of limitation period for filling appeal. *Pat. HC 738*
? Purchaser of part of establishment in auction not liable to pay PF dues by the transfer. *Hyd. HC 744*
? Anything accrued over and above the “Face-value” Will go to beneficiaries. *Ker. HC 730*
? Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant not liable to pay provident fund dues of the employees of the Malaria Workers Welfare Association. Hyd HC 746
? Writ against order of RPFC not tenable when the appropriate forum is filling appeal. *Ker. HC 749*
? Determined amount can be recovered from the employer even before expiry of stipulated period of filling appeal. *MP HC 751*
? EPFO entitled to have administration charges in respect to transaction. *Pat. HC 746*
? Absence of mens rea would justify reduction of rate of damages. *Del. HC 729*
? Refund of money by EPFO to the employer will be with interest. *Ker. HC 730*
? Damages to be reduced in the absence of actus reus and financial crises faced by the employer. *Bom. HC 742*
? Provident Fund Act Aims to promoting welfare of weaker section on the society. *MP HC 751*
? Limitation Act does not apply for filling appeal before EPF Tribunal. *Pat. HC 738*
? No premium is to be refunded to employees who have left them services. *Ker. HC 730*
? The EPF Appellate Tribunal is empowered to condone the delay maximum of 120days. *Pat. HC 738*
? Employer is responsible to recover the employees share of contribution. *Pat. HC 761*
? Amendment in any of the Schemes even with retrospective effect not illegal. *Pat. HC 760*
? Exemption by bank with branches in various States will be effective from the date of application. , *Ker HC730*
