Reported Labour Law Judgments at a Glance Jan 2020
Rs.25 lakh as compensation to complainant for sexual harassment, loss of reputation & emotional distress etc.MP HC 40
A worker guilty of theft loses confidence of employer hence; dismissal is justified. Jhar. HC 26
Reinstatement with back wages appropriate when the enquiry is set aside. Supreme Court 1
Owner of house liable, if contractor fails, to pay accident compensation. Del. HC 9
Complaint for violation of Contract Labour (CLR&A) Act can be filed within three months. Karn. HC 37
Back wages on reinstatement can be denied if the employment of workman is established. MP HC 24
An exempted establishment cannot be burdened with the payment of gratuity. Mad. HC 17
Running a factory without a licence is criminal offence. Supreme Court 6
No relief on termination if the workman has not served for 240 days. Guj. HC 11
Conviction by Court for involvement in moral turpitude would justify the forfeiture of gratuity. Jhar. HC 31
Reasons must be given, when disciplinary authority disagrees with findings of enquiry officer. Supreme Court 1
Limited scope for interference by Labour Court when the enquiry is held to be fair and proper. Jhar. HC 26
Awarding back wages on reinstatement is not automatic. MP HC 22
Unauthorised absence of over two years without reason would justify dismissal. Del. HC 7
Appropriate government can’t delve into merits of a dispute by a workman. Karn. HC 35
Mere pendency of criminal case could not justify denial of gratuity. Jhar. HC 29
Documents of an employer when not denied by workman will be admitted in evidence. Guj. HC 11
No gratuity payable to a corrupt and immoral employee. Jhar. HC 31
Misappropriation for employer’s money amounts to moral turpitude for forfeiture of gratuity. Jhar. HC 31
Medical expert, not the compensation commissioner, can determine the loss of earning capacity on accident of an employee. Gau. HC 15
Denial of back wages on illegal termination will be construed as rewarding the employer. MP HC 24
Reinstatement with back wages appropriate relief on wrongful dismissal. MP HC 22
Rs.50,000 as penalty imposed upon a hospital for non-constituting of internal complaint committee under POSH Act. MP HC 40
Compliance of section 25F of ID Act only when worker has worked for 240 days. Guj. HC 11
EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS & MP ACT
Over Rs.79 crore to be deposited by EPF authority to settle claims of eligible employees. Mad. HC 96
Determination of EPF dues sans identification of beneficiaries not tenable. Pat. HC 77
Full-fledged enquiry under section 7A of the Act is to be conducted for the determination of money due from the employer.Mad. HC 96
Delayed deposit of EPF dues would attract damages and interest. Del. HC 71
Principal employer not liable for contractor’s employees, if also working for other employers. Del. HC 67
Special allowance without any speciality would attract EPF contributions. Mad. HC 110
Installment can be allowed when an employer is facing crises. Mad. HC 79, 92, 117
Damages/interest for delayed deposit of EPF dues can be waived/reduced only when an establishment is declared as a sick unit. Mad. HC 80, 82
No condonation of delay for filing appeal beyond the prescribed period is permissible. Mad. HC 82
Emoluments, necessarily and ordinarily paid to all employees, will attract EPF contributions. Mad. HC 110
Levy of damages not justified in the absence of mens rea on the part of employer. Mad. HC 90
Tribunal is empowered to waive completely or partially the pre-deposit determined the amount. Del. HC 67
Order for reduction of damages without any reason is liable to be quashed. Mad. HC 93
High Court can condone delay for filing an appeal due to severe personal difficulties. Del. HC 69
Employer be provided an opportunity for representation in proceedings under section 7A of Act. Mad. HC 96
Damages and interest to be attracted for belated payment without sufficient cause. Mad. HC 83
Appeal not writ petition tenable to challenge the order under section 7A of the Act. Mad. HC 108
Damages can’t be reduced unless proof of sickness of the unit is furnished. Mad. HC 93
Variable payments to employees like encashment of leave not to be treated as ‘basic wages. Mad. HC 110
Apprentices under Apprenticeship Act not ‘employees’ to be covered under the Act. Ker. HC 114
Violation of the Act will attract criminal action. P&H HC 113
A principal employer cannot shift the responsibility of EPF dues upon the contractor. Mad. HC 108
Courtesy: Labour law reporter
