IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS August 2025- Reported Judgments at Glance
There cannot be monthly disbursements in lieu of gratuity. 2025 LLR 875 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Making comments about the knowledge levels of a lady employee is not 'sexual harassment'. 2025 LLR 882 TELANGANA HIGH COURT
A Trade Fair organized every year is an 'industry' under section 2(j) of the ID Act. 2025 LLR 867 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Employee can't be prevented from joining another employer merely on the apprehension of him disclosing confidential information. 2025 LLR 853 DELHI HIGH COURT
If a person is absent beyond prescribed period for which leave can be granted, he is said to have resigned. 2025 LLR 832 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Factory Inspector must consider employer's reply to show cause notice before filing complaint. 2025 LLR 843
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Cess not to be paid on the total cost of project but only on the cost incurred in civil construction work. 2025 LLR 891 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Establishment, under the control of Central Govt. can't be forced to obtain CLRA registration by State Govt. 2025 LLR 864 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
A person would still be a 'workman' even when incidental duties were supervisory in nature. 2025 LLR 850
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
No enquiry when workman voluntarily abandoned services and didn't respond to repeated notices. 2025 LLR 832 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Police cannot refuse to control agitation by asking the employer to negotiate with the workers. 2025 LLR 847
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
No prosecution under CLRA Act when complaint was made after 3 months from incident's knowledge. 2025 LLR 864 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Employee can't be said to have withdrawn resignation when withdrawal letter never reached employer. 2025 LLR 889 RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
A pension scheme cannot be a substitute for payment of statutory gratuity. 2025 LLR 875 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accidental murder will be said to have occurred in course of employment when couldn't be anticipated. 2025 LLR 827 DELHI HIGH COURT
Principal employer cannot unilaterally change service conditions of contractor's workers. 2025 LLR 879 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Unless there is commencement of manufacturing work, employer is not liable to pay ESI contributions.
2025 LLR 840 GUJARAT HIGH COURT
No complaint under POSH Act on mere humiliation of woman employee in group discussion. 2025 LLR 882
TELANGANA HIGH COURT
EPF
Site allowance, not being paid to all employees universally, is not 'basic wages'. 2025 LLR 896 KERALA HIGH COURT
There is no requirement under the EPF Scheme providing for mandatory KYC on the part of the employer.
2025 LLR 936 HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
No recovery notice can be issued by EPFO during pendency of appeal before the CGIT. 2025 LLR 942 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
For any delay in payment of contribution during lock down, no proceedings for damages should be initiated. 2025 LLR 915 PATNA HIGH COURT
There is nothing under the EPF Act to consider an employee to be present on duty when he was absent due to unavoidable situations. 2025 LLR 932 GAUHATI HIGH COURT
When there was a common recovery for damages an interest, orders u/s. 14B & 7Q will be composite. 2025 LLR 894 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
EPF authorities have to specifically mention the period of default while passing order of damages. 2025 LLR 898 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Matter is to be remanded back to the EPF Authorities when contractors were not impleaded. 2025 LLR 906
KERALA HIGH COURT
The liability to pay contribution arises from due date and not from the date of passing of 7A order. 2025 LLR 940 MADRAS HIGH COURT
For an allowance to be a part of 'basic wages', it has to be paid to all employees in a particular category. 2025 LLR 896 KERALA HIGH COURT
Clubbing of establishments is proper when owned by family members and operations are integrated. 2025 LLR 899 CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Employees' demand to pay their contribution on actual wages can be considered by employer on merits. 2025 LLR 931 MADRAS HIGH COURT
EPFO cannot hold trainees to be employees merely because they were employed in large numbers. 2025 LLR 929 KERALA HIGH COURT
Mens rea is relevant only for criminal prosecution but not for imposition of damages u/s.14B. 2025 LLR 926
MADRAS HIGH COURT
There is no discretion in reducing levy of interest u/s 7Q as it is mandatory nature. 2025 LLR 915 PATNA HIGH COURT
Prohibition on the EPFO to initiate recovery is for 60 days after passing the order and not 120 days. 2025 LLR 907 MADRAS HIGH COURT
No prosecution against the employer when the contributions were deposited after the complaint.2025 LLR 909 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Establishment has to pay interest regardless of the 7A order being passed belatedly and its compliance. 2025 LLR 940 MADRAS HIGH COURT
