IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS October 2025- Reported Judgments at Glance
Employer cannot avoid payment of minimum bonus @8.33% of the wages earned by the employee. 2025 LLR 1126 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Employer is not required to record reasons in detail if report of inquiry officer is accepted.2025 LLR 1063 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A Senior Engineer, drawing monthly salary of Rs.30,000, is not a ''workman''.2025 LLR 1079 GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Gratuity cannot be forfeited merely because the employee was looking for a job with the rival company 2025 LLR 1115 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Facing language problems is not a ground for setting aside of transfer order. 2025 LLR 1100 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bonus, ex-gratia payments and material costs are not ''wages'' under the ESI Act. 2025 LLR 1111 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
For raising an industrial dispute, making a demand is a pre-condition. 2025 LLR 1075 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The IC report will constitute an inquiry report and the employer can take the final decision.2025 LLR 1067 DELHI HIGH COURT
Mass resignations on the same day with similar language are invalid.2025 LLR 1096 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Manhandling and beating senior officials is a grave misconduct justifying dismissal.2025 LLR 1083 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Establishment to declare lay off in situations involving operational challenges instead of issuing suspension notice.2025 LLR 1107 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Employer can disagree with the report of the enquiry officer and initiate a new enquiry. 2025 LLR 1091 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
It is mandatory for employers to frame a policy for recruiting apprentices. 2025 LLR 1104 MADRAS HIGH COURT
A simple discharge of a non-workman under the terms of the appointment letter is not 'retrenchment'. 2025 LLR 1079 GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Resignation would be involuntary when employer created an atmosphere of terror. 2025 LLR 1096 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Recovery order issued to bank authorities without issuing notice to the establishment by ESIC is illegal. 2025 LLR 1094 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Enquiry cannot be challenged when there were no violations of the principles of natural justice. 2025 LLR 1063 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
240 days of continuous service not required when workman was injured during employment. 2025 LLR 1128 CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
EPF
Maintenance of separate accounts and financial statements not enough to avoid clubbing of units.2025 LLR 1132 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EPF authority cannot impose liability w.r.t. excluded employees. 2025 LLR 1161 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
EPF Authorities cannot recover any amount beyond the pre-deposit amount as directed by the Tribunal. 2025 LLR 1174 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Employer can't deny relationship with establishment when his signatures were present on the EPF returns. 2025 LLR 1150 CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Liability u/s 7Q would depend upon the outcome of the appeal filed against the order u/s 14B when both the orders were passed together. 2025 LLR 1179 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Matter will not be remanded back to the EPF authority when the imposition of penalty was it-self illegal. 2025 LLR 1170 KERALA HIGH COURT
PF benefits cannot be denied merely because the employees were engaged for a short period. 2025 LLR 1158 MADRAS HIGH COURT
No liability in case of transfer of establishment when it was by operation of law and not voluntary. 2025 LLR 1154 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Plea of no opportunity before recovery is not legal when proceedings u/s 7Q/14B were unattended.2025 LLR 1150 CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Tribunal cannot prohibit PF authority from levying interest after order imposing damages was upheld. 2025 LLR 1169 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
No order u/s 7A or 7Q can be passed by the EPFO when the resolution plan under IBC was approved. 2025 LLR 1165 MADRAS HIGH COURT
When order of damages and interest is passed together, the interest part cannot be read in isolation. 2025 LLR 1148 UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Review u/s 7B of the EPF Act can't be rejected without examining legal position and relevant documents. 2025 LLR 1161 CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Mobile and medical allowances, not paid across the board, are not 'basic wages' un-der the EPF Act.2025 LLR 1153 MADRAS HIGH COURT
The appellate Tribunal can reduce, modify or set aside the order of the EPF Authority. 2025 LLR 1144 MADRAS HIGH COURT
No retrospective liability when certain allowances were merged into basic pay pursuant to a settlement.2025 LLR 1170 KERALA HIGH COURT
The test of functional integrality is not the only test for clubbing of units. 2025 LLR 1132 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
In the absence of mens rea, liability under the EPF Act is proper instead of initiating criminal proceedings. 2025 LLR 1176 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Courtesy: Labour Law Reporter
