- It is for the employer and not the employee to decide as to what work is to be done by the latter.
Ganapathy Subramaniam v. Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank, Madras, 2000 LLR 392 (Mad HC). - Merely because a temporary employee continued to serve beyond prescribed period, he cannot claim permanency.
Executive Engineer, Rehabilitation Division, Pune v. Ramchandra Baban Jadhav, (2006) 4 Mah LJ 517: 2006 LLR 1013 (Bom HC). - Transfer of an employee without his consent and in the absence of such condition of service to this effect will not be tenable.
Ranjit Chaudhury v. India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., 2003 LLR 58 (Karn HC) - An agreement prohibiting an employee from joining competitive concern for a specified period after cessation of employment will be violative of public policy.
Babu v. TTK LIG Ltd., formerly London Rubber Company (I) Ltd., Chennai, 2005 LLR 71 (Mad HC). - An employee cannot be forced to accept a promotion since he can always forego the same.
Hotel Ambassador Pallava, Chennai v. Presiding Officer, 2nd Additional Labour Court, City Civil Court Buildings, 2005 LLR 1204 (Mad HC). - Ad hoc employees are the one who have been appointed on contractual basis and have no right to the post.
Kamla Nehru Memorial Hospital v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Allahabad, 2006 LLR 5 (All HC). - When the terms and conditions of service in appointment letter are inconsistent with standing orders, the latter will prevail.
R.P. Garg v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., 2007 LLR 247 (All HC). - Misappropriation of even Re. 1.10 by a bus conductor will justify his dismissal.
Management of Marudhupandiyar Transport Corporation, Marudhapathi, Karaikudi, rep. by its Managing Director (now known as Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam Division III) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai, 2008 LLR 414 (Mad HC). - If a contractor fails to make payment to its workers, the principal employer would be liable to make payment.
Uttaranchal Jal Vidyut Nigam Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Labour Court, Dehradun, (2004) III LLJ 533: 2004 LLR 1084 (Uttr HC). - When the contract between the so-called contractor(s) has been a camouflage, the workers of contractor will be treated as employees of principal employer.
Triveni Sheet Glass Works Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2006 LLR 339 (All HC). - Non-registration of employer under Contract Labour (R&A) Act, can attract penalty but not regularisation of workers of contractors.
Food Corporation of India v. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh, 2008 LLR 391 (P&H HC). - Discharge of an employee for loss of confidence without an enquiry will not be justified.
Selvamary v. Jawahar Higher Secondary School, Neyveli, (1998) 1 LLJ 501: 1998 LLR 148 (Mad HC). - When a conductor drives a bus endangering the passengers’ life, it will be a serious misconduct justifying his dismissal from service.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mahendra Nath Tiwari, (2006) 1 SCC 118: AIR 2006 SC 405: (2006) 1 LLN 114: (2006) 1 All LJ 345: (2006) 1 SLR 536: 2006 LLR 168 (SC). - Even if a single passenger is allowed without ticket, dismissal of a bus conductor will be reasonable punishment.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Kanpur v. Om Prakash Singh, 2007 LLR 1207 (All HC). - Unauthorized absence of over 88 days in two and half years will justify dismissal.
Mahender Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2007 LLR 1170 (Del HC). - Stoppage of work and gheraoing the senior executives will justify dismissal.
Informedia India Ltd. v. Tata Press Employees’ Union, 2008 LLR 704 (Bom HC). - Dismissal for theft of Company’s property will not be disproportionate.
Niranjan Singh v. State of Jharkhand, 2008 LLR 741 (Jhar HC). - Dismissal of a worker will not be set aside on the ground of discrimination when the other workers, as let off, have tendered apology.
Obettee Pvt. Ltd. v. Mohd. Shafiq Khan, (2005) 8 SCC 46: AIR 2005 SC 3510: (2005) 107 FLR 405: (2005) 3 LLR 569: 2005 LLR 1167 (SC). - Punishment of dismissal for remaining absent for 38 days will be disproportionate to the misconduct.
Rajendra B. Oza v. Air India, (2003) 1 LLN 705: (2002) 3 LLR 517: (2003) 1 Mah LJ 19: 2003 LLR 6 (Bom HC). - Non-registration of employer under Contract Labour (R&A) Act, can attract penalty but not regularisation of workers of contractors.
Food Corporation of India vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh, 2008 LLR 391 (P&H HC). - Merely because the principal employer has been depositing EPF/ESI contributions of contract workers, will not be construed that the contract was camouflage.
Cement Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Presiding OFficer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal Hissar, 2010 LLR 704 9P&H HC). - Promotion of employees is to be decided by the employer as a prerogative.
Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Ltd. v. Delhi Nagrik Sehkari Bank Officers Association, 2007 LLR 493 (Del HC). - An employee provided with accommodation by employer will be a licensee and not a tenant.
Emmanuel Prem Masih v. Delhi Diocesan Trust Association, 2000 LLR 1028 (Del HC). - Writ petition against order of the P.F. Commissioner, Levying damages, will not be tenable when appropriate remedy for filing appeal is available.
Vatan Press, ‘Sudarma’, Jaipur v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Jaipur, 2009 LLR 780 (Raj. HC).
