Reported Labour Law Judgments June, July, August 2020.
An experience certificate, by an unauthorized officer, does not create an employer-employee relationship. 2020 LLR 606 MADRAS HIGH COURT
A workman is not a trainee when no training scheme existed. 2020 LLR 744 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Dismissal from service not disproportionate for repeated misappropriation of public money. 2020 LLR 704 MADRAS HIGH COURT
An employer not obliged to reemploy any of its employees after retirement. 2020 LLR 612 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Punishment of dismissal for absenteeism is too harsh for an employee with 20 years. 2020 LLR 613 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Punishment of dismissal for absenteeism is too harsh for an employee with 20 years. 2020 LLR 725 JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Dismissal not justified for misconduct unenumerated in the standing order. 2020 LLR 613 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dismissal not justified for misconduct unenumerated in the standing order. 2020 LLR 600 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Amputation of one leg of a driver justifies 100% loss of earning capacity for accident compensation. 2020 LLR 593 GAUHATI HIGH COURT
A transferred employee can submit his representation for mala fide after joining the transferred place. 2020 LLR 636 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Denial of opportunity for leading evidence by the management when enquiry vitiated would quash the reinstatement. 2020 LLR 629 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Compensation instead of reinstatement appropriate relief when the concerned workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. 2020 LLR 586 DELHI HIGH COURT
Compensation instead of reinstatement appropriate relief when the concerned workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. 2020 LLR 597 GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Compensation instead of reinstatement appropriate relief when the concerned workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. 2020 LLR 682 GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Compensation instead of reinstatement appropriate relief when the concerned workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. 2020 LLR 674 GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Compensation instead of reinstatement appropriate relief when the concerned workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. 2020 LLR 600 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Compensation instead of reinstatement appropriate relief when the concerned workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. 2020 LLR 734 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Compensation instead of reinstatement appropriate relief when the concerned workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. 2020 LLR 725 JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
An employer is under obligation to pay wages without any deduction in respect of the lockdown period. 2020 LLR 579 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Industrial dispute can't be raised by a workman who has not completed 240 working days in the preceding 12 months. 2020 LLR 682 GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Industrial dispute can't be raised by a workman who has not completed 240 working days in the preceding 12 months. 2020 LLR 674 GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Authority can direct an employer to pay differential amount of minimum wages along with 10 times compensation. 2020 LLR 657 DELHI HIGH COURT
Merely the employee feels difficulty in climbing stairs is not sufficient to establish partial permanent disability for accident compensation. 2020 LLR 741 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Strike by employees in public utility services will be illegal when conciliation proceedings are pending. 2020 LLR 667 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Staying termination of services of an employee by the Industrial Tribunal is not appropriate. 2020 LLR 687 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Denial of back wages would amount to punish the workman and rewarding the employer. 2020 LLR 725 JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Extending ESI clubbing of two establishments is justified when partners of both the firms are common, the place of work is in the same. 2020 LLR 659 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
No employer-employee relationship if the deceased cleaner was engaged on a truck, belonging to the third party. 2020 LLR 737 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Financial crisis is not sufficient to justify default in payment of wages on the part of the employer is not tenable. 2020 LLR 657 DELHI HIGH COURT
When the Labour Court held the enquiry fair and proper altering punishment of termination from service, not proper. 2020 LLR 720 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Moral turpitude when not proved gratuity of an employee could not be forfeited. 2020 LLR 664 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Civil Court or High Court can restrain the strike in public utility services. 2020 LLR 667 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Any sympathy towards an employee guilty of misappropriation of public funds will be misplaced. 2020 LLR 704 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Where the employer wants to deny back wages, he has to plead and prove that workman was gainfully employed during the interregnum. 2020 LLR 725 JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Labelling the employees as trainees depriving the privileges and benefits legally entitled would be Unfair Labour practice. 2020 LLR 744 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Proper enquiry justifies approval for dismissal of a workman. 2020 LLR 762 KERALA HIGH COURT
Denial or forfeiture of gratuity in the absence of a specific order of termination coupled with an order of forfeiture of gratuity is unjustified. 2020 LLR 759 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Headmaster of the School or President of the Society can be prosecuted for non-compliance of ESI Act. 2020 LLR 722 MADRAS IGH COURT
Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is justified to a daily ager worked for a short period. 2020 LLR 617 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Disciplinary Authority is empowered to reject the enquiry report. 2020 LLR 613 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Claimants to prove that the accident had a casual connection with the employment of the deceased. 2020 LLR 608 KERALA HIGH COURT
Reinstatement with back wages appropriate when the dismissal of workman quashed. 2020 LLR 600 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A show-cause notice can't be challenged under writ jurisdiction. 2020 LLR 637 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Employer may afford a personal hearing to a transferred employee for his grievance. 2020 LLR 636 MADRAS HIGH COURT
When an enquiry is held to be unfair, the Labour Court shall give an opportunity to the employer to leads supporting evidence. 2020 LLR 629 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Compensation instead of reinstatement appropriate relief when the concerned workman was not paid retrenchment compensation. 2020 LLR 754 DELHI HIGH COURT
Having worked for 11 years, can't be treated as a temporary employee. 2020 LLR 577 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
For compensation entitlement, the injured has to establish that he is unable to do all work that he was doing. 2020 LLR 741 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Going on strike by violating the provisions of law is a criminal offence. 2020 LLR 667 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Unauthorized absence could not be a ground for termination when leave was sanctioned by an employer. 2020 LLR 577 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Payment of full back wages is a rule when workman proves his unemployment. 2020 LLR 716 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be quashed since the truck involved in the accident does not belong to him. 2020 LLR 737 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Strict proof of employer-employee relationship for claiming accident compensation is imperative. 2020 LLR 665 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
When the retrenchment is held illegal, denial of back wages would amount to indirectly punishing the employee and rewarding the employer. 2020 LLR 732 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Non-payment of ESI contributions by the employer is a criminal offence. 2020 LLR 722 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Gratuity payable to an employee is not liable to attachment in execution of any decree. 2020 LLR 759 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Educational, scientific research or training institutes are not exempted from the definition of 'industry'. 2020 LLR 761 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Mere heart attack does not raise a presumption of an 'accident' entitling the claimants for Compensation. 2020 LLR 608 KERALA HIGH COURT
No back wages if the workman has not made any effort for the searching job after his termination. 2020 LLR 600 BOMBAY HIGH COURT
ESI Act is applicable upon educational institutions. 2020 LLR 722 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appointing any driver with prior approval of principal employer is not sufficient to establish an Employer - employee relationship. 2020 LLR 642DELHI HIGH COURT
Writ petition is not maintainable until the statutory remedy is available. 2020 LLR 637 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Speedy justice is one of the fundamental rights of a person. 2020 LLR 619 UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
When workman was not allowed to punch-in his card establishes that he did not abandon his job on his own. 2020 LLR 654 DELHI HIGH COURT
Discretionary power under section 11-A of the ID Act cannot be exercised mechanically 2020 LLR 704 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Forum for challenging the order passed by the ESI Authority is the place from the order was passed. 2020 LLR 702 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reinstatement without back wages not proper when an enquiry is held to be proper. 2020 LLR 720 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Disaster Management Act is a self-contained code and no reliance can be placed on any other law. 2020 LLR 579 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
The principal employer is pay ESI contributions in respect of employees of a contractor working outside the premises. 2020 LLR 711 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal Committee against the recommendations of the Internal Committee under POSH Act has to hear the parties. 2020 LLR 651 DELHI HIGH COURT
No prohibition for termination of a workman during the pendency of an industrial dispute. 2020 LLR 687 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal tenable against recovery of ESI dues. 2020 LLR 637 MADRAS HIGH COURT
The claim of any benefit under section 33-C(2) which is not based on any statutory support or as pre-existing right, is not maintainable. 2020 LLR 596 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Unquantified amount payable by an employee under Public Premises (EUO) Act, 1971 can't be adjusted against gratuity. 2020 LLR 639 JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Right to wages is a pre-existing flowing from the contract of employment. 2020 LLR 579 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Deciding a preliminary issue will delay in disposal of the cases. 2020 LLR 619 UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Non-rebutted by the employer about gainful employment would justify full back-wages to the workman. 2020 LLR 716 MADRAS HIGH COURT
A long period in litigation due to lack of infrastructure is not justified to put the workman to suffer by denying him full back wages. 2020 LLR 716 MADRAS HIGH COURT
A contract between the contractor and the principal employer cannot defeat the purpose of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. 2020 LLR 712 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principal employer has to ensure ESI contributions to be remitted contractor of its employees. 2020 LLR 711 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Power under section 11-A of ID Act modifying dismissal could be exercised exceptionally and not in a routine manner. 2020 LLR 720 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Allowing recovery of EPF dues, in installments considering pandemic situation/Covid-19, is justified. 2020 LLR 795 MADRAS HIGH COURT
EPF Authority should avoid recovery process before the expiry of the limitation period for filing an appeal. 2020 LLR 796 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Employer liable to pay EPF contributions on back wages awarded by Industrial Adjudicator2020 LLR 777 KERALA HIGH COURT
Special allowance or special incentive is not 'basic wages' if paid to only selective employees for performing any extra special work. 2020 LLR 803 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Basic wages means all emoluments which are earned by an employee while on duty or on leave with wages. 2020 LLR 777 KERALA HIGH COURT
City and Industrial Development Corporation is not covered under the Act. 2020 LLR 790 Bombay High Court
Writ petition filed within prescribed limitation for filing of the appeal, exclusion of time spent in writ proceedings would be proper.2020 LLR 798 MADRAS HIGH COURT
75% of the determined amount is to be deposited as a precondition for filing the appeal. 2020 LLR 773 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Quantum of damages for delayed deposit of EPF dues should be compensatory in nature. 2020 LLR 774 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty for failure to perform the statutory obligation is at the discretion of the authority. 2020 LLR 774 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Levy of interest under section 7-Q of the Act cannot be assailed in the review petition. 2020 LLR 794 MADRAS HIGH COURT
When the petitioner has agreed to deposit the amount determined, allowing review petition only against damages is proper. 2020 LLR 794 MADRAS HIGH COURT
When an employer has remitted the partial sum of the recoverable EPF dues, taking any coercive action against an employer is not called for.2020 LLR 797 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exclusion of Writ jurisdiction by availing of an alternative remedy is of discretion and not compulsion. 2020 LLR 798 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Allowing recovery of EPF dues, in instalments considering financial hardship by an employer, is justified. 2020 LLR 799 KERALA HIGH COURT
EPF members are to seek redressal of their grievance before the proper forum. 2020 LLR 796 MADRAS HIGH COURT
An employee is also entitled to pensionary benefits on account of revision in his salary. 2020 LLR 784 KERALA HIGH COURT
While reducing or waiving pre deposit appeal the Tribunal has to record reasons. 2020 LLR 781 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
No contribution on the cash value of any food concession, house rent allowance, commission, or any other variable earning or allowance. 2020 LLR 803 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
No appeal shall be entertained by Tribunal unless the employer has deposited 75% of the amount. 2020 LLR 781 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
EPF Authority has to decide grievance of the members, in respect of the release of their EPF dues expeditiously. 2020 LLR 796 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Payment made to those employees who avail the opportunity more than others would not be 'basic wages'. 2020 LLR 803 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Though dearness allowance is excluded from the term 'basic wages' but it finds inclusion in section 6 of the Act.2020 LLR 803 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
EPF Appellate Tribunal is empowered to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited by recording reasons thereto. 2020 LLR 781 KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
When the employer makes higher contribution such amount will flow into the pension fund. 2020 LLR 785 Tripura High Court
Recovery before the expiry of the limitation period shall deprive the employer right of appeal. 2020 LLR 796 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Review against an order under S.7A is to be filed within 45 days from the order. 2020 LLR 773 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Employer has to deposit the EPF dues every month within the stipulated time. 2020 LLR 774 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Filing writ petition is not maintainable when the remedy of appeal, as provided, is available. 2020 LLR 798 MADRAS HIGH COURT
The liquidator should make all efforts to get released EPF dues to the workers. 2020 LLR 800 DELHI HIGH COURT
An appeal can be filed within a maximum period of limitation i.e. 60+60=120 days, before the Tribunal. 2020 LLR 802 MADRAS HIGH COURT
When there is no intentional delay in remitting of EPF dues, damages may be reduced by Tribunal. 2020 LLR 774 PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Emoluments, paid universally, necessarily and ordinarily across the board, falls under the term 'basic wages'. 2020 LLR 803 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Non-appearance despite service of notice, an employer cannot take advantage of his own wrong. 2020 LLR 802 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Overtime, leave encashment, bonus or an extra bonus for extra work are excluded from the term 'basic wages'. 2020 LLR 803 MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Form-19 will be appropriate on the assurance that the same is justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2020 LLR 800 DELHI HIGH COURT
Bankers of a company having possession of certain securities are to sell off and transfer the funds to EPFO expeditiously. 2020 LLR 800 DELHI HIGH COURT
Writ petition is not maintainable if impugned order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 2020 LLR 802 MADRAS HIGH COURT
Recovery of EPF dues may be allowed in installments considering facts in each case. 2020 LLR 795 MADRAS HIGH COURT
If the employer is not willing to raise such limit for which there is no legal obligation, no recovery can be made by EPFO. 2020 LLR 785 Tripura High Court
EPFO should release the EPF dues to the individual worker without waiting for the entire exercise to be completed by all workers. 2020 LLR 800 DELHI HIGH COURT
Courtesy Labour Law Reporter
