Arghaa HR Technologies flagship division of Arghaa HR Solutions LLP is a Management Business Process Organization managed by highly stupendous professionals from across industries, is bound towards facilitating Organizational Renovation, Managing Human Side Changes eventually creating.
Arghaa Hr Technologies, Flat no1, shreenath apartment, sevilimedu

Labour Law Judgements for the Month of August 2017

*Labour Law Judgements for the Month of August 2017*

?Union leader has no impunity from his transfer   *Mad HC 849*

?Contractors worker will entitled to same wages as regular employees. *Supreme Court 785*

?Termination for unauthorized absence too harsh. *Gau HC 811*

?Fixed Term employee can’t be reinstated. *MP HC 808*

?Civil courts should stay away from claim for Gratuity. *Mad HC 861*

?Greed of dishonest bus conductor is to cost his job. *Karn HC 840*

?Daily allowance forms part of wages for calculating accident compensation. *Gau HC 813*

?Compensation for accident only when it occurred during employment. *Del HC 793*

?ESI Act applicable even when an establishment is covered by BO & CW Act. *MP HC 799*

?Gratuity Can’t be withheld on non-vacating of employers accommodation. *MP HC 803*

?Settlement u/s 18(3) (b) of the ID Act will be binding on all employees. *Mad HC 846*

?Dismissal justified when job obtained on forged education certificate. *Karn HC 844*

?Legal notice can’t improve the deficiencies in FIR for claiming accident compensation. *Del HC 793*

?Compensation is appropriate when employment was for short duration. *Bom HC 796*

?Notice is imperative for the termination of employment. *HP HC 827*

?Misrepresentation for obtaining job amounts to moral turpitude. *All. HC 816*

?Clean service record will mitigate punishment of bank employee for disproportionate assets. *Del HC 792*

?Government Can’t delve on merits of a dispute to refer for adjudication. *Bom HC 798*

?Excess working hours to be compensated by overtime. *MP HC 806*

?Deposit of renewal fee to justify holding of valid driving license. *Del HC 787*

?Coverage of an establishment under ESI merely on inspector report not tenable. *Bom HC 854*

?Employer-employee relationship proved when averment of employee is not rebutted. *Del HC 789*

?Evidence Act not applicable to Employees Compensation Act. *Del HC 789*

?Contractor’s employees also to be covered under ESI. *Bom. HC 855*

?Insured employees are entitled to medical benefits from ESIC. *Karn. HC 842*

?On approval application, adjudicator to confine about compliance of condition u/s of 33 of the ID Act. *Guj HC 831*

?Notice for Accident compensation is mandatory. *Gau HC 831*

?Interest will be payable for delay in payment of awarded amount. *Supreme court 785

    *Employees Provident Funds & MP Act*

?An apprentice under Apprentice Act not to be covered under the EPF Act. *MP HC 879*

?EPF Authority empowered to enforce attendance of any person. *MP HC 879*

?Writ petition filed after 5 years challenging the order of Appellate Tribunal will not be dismissed when delay is justified. *Pat HC 870*

?The EPF & MP Act are not empowered to direct employer for compliance of Bonus, Apprentices or Minimum Wages Acts. *MP HC 879*

?Exercise of the option under Pension Scheme, would not foreclose the exercise of further option. *Supreme Court 866*

?A trainee under standing orders not “employee” to be covered under the Act. *MP HC 879*

?Proviso to clause of pension scheme permits an option to employer and employee from contribution beyond salary ceiling. *Supreme Court 866*

?While holding proceedings under section 7A the EPF Authority is vested with the powers of the Civil court. *MP HC 879*

?Without supporting Evidence of financial loss, levy of damages not to be reduced in appeal. *Del HC 871*

?Frequency of number of defaults is relevant for reducing the damages for delayed deposit of contributions. *Bom HC 875*

?Identification of beneficiaries is imperative for determination of liability of an employer. *MP HC 879*

?No limitation for initiating action for recovery of damages for delayed payment. *Bom HC 875*

?Appeal beyond expiry of prescribed period would not debar when no notice was served upon the appellant. *Raj. HC 868*

?Authority must determine actual concrete difference in payment of contribution. *MP HC 879*