Workers of contractor can’t be thrusted on principal employer in the absence of control and supervision.
LLR Supreme Court 113

High Court can’t substitute punishment of an employee.
LLR Supreme Court 117

Termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory performance can never be treated as ‘penal’.
LLR Supreme Court 116

50% wages payable, when interim relief granted without opportunity given by the Management. 
LLR Supreme Court 192

Conciliation Officer can’t stay the transfer of employees.
LLR Bom. HC 193

Compensation, instead of reinstatement, is appropriate when termination is without retrenchment compensation. 
LLR All. HC 167

Abandonment by a workman will not be presumed in the absence of evidence. 
LLR Ori. HC 181

Back-wages appropriate when termination of workman, on medical ground, is set aside.
LLR Pat.HC 185

Dependants of driver will get compensation when he died sitting in a cabin.
LLR Karn. HC 178

Establishment admittedly employing 65 employees is rightly covered by ESI Act.
LLR Del. HC 121

Principal employer not to pay 10 times difference of wages to employees of contractor.
LLR All. HC 172

‘Personal allowance’ and ‘special compensatory allowance’ are not wages for calculation of gratuity. 
LLR Bom. HC 133

Casual worker completing 5 years’ service will also be entitled to gratuity.
LLR Mad. HC 151

A person engaged through contractor, dying due to lack of safety measure, will be a factory worker. 
LLR Jhar. HC 143

Reinstatement of a cashier, who credited bank money in his personal accounts, is not proper. 
LLR Karn. HC 189

An employee, even engaged on contract basis, is rightly entitled to gratuity.
LLR All. HC 164

Termination of contractual employee is not retrenchment.
LLR Guj. HC 161

Gratuity can’t be withheld merely that the employee has not vacated the quarters.
LLR Guj. HC 159

Reduction of pay with notice u/s. 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act is not legal.
LLR P&H HC 159

Personal Financial Consultant of a bank is not a 'workman’. 
LLR Bom. HC 126

Reinstatement is not proper in the absence of 240 days’ working.
LLR Bom. HC 126

Courts below erred in holding that even in the absence of evidence; the contract labour system was sham. 
LLR Supreme Court 113

An unsuitable workman would not be thrusted upon the employer.
LLR All. HC 167

Termination rightly set aside when no charge was proved against workman.
LLR P&H HC 155

Compensation rightly paid to dependants of deceased who died while cutting trees.
LLR Karn. HC 180

Reinstatement of driver is proper when termination was for single incident.
LLR Mad. HC 148

Authority not bound to decide preliminary issue of applicability of Payment of Wages Act. 
LLR All. HC 170

Gratuity can’t be withheld without complying with the principles of natural justice.

Denial of back wages on reinstatement is not arbitrary when the driver’s accident was negligent. 
LLR Mad. HC 154

Unwilling employee can’t be retained by not accepting his resignation.
LLR Cal. HC 174

Vacancies in employment in public sector establishment are to be notified under Employment Exchanges Act.

For invoking section 33C(2) of the I.D. Act, there must be existing right.
LLR All. HC 171

Designation is not the criteria for determining the status of ‘workman’.
LLR Bom. HC 126

Delay for claiming gratuity will not be condoned in absence of sufficient cause.
LLR Bom. HC 133

Remedial forum for grievance is EPF Appellate Tribunal and not the writ petition.
LLR Mad. HC 152

Dismissal of a workman for abusing and assaulting a co-worker is justified.
LLR Del. HC 118

Resignation by an employee can be withdrawn before its acceptance.

In public sector establishments, vacancies shall be notified on notice board also.

Modification of dismissal of workman for habitual absence is rightly declined.
LLR Mad. HC 144

Dismissal of watchman, guilty of insubordination, is rightly upheld.
LLR Bom. HC 125

A cashier in a bank has to discharge his duties with utmost caution.
LLR Karn. HC 189

No compassionate appointment for the legal heir of the deceased employee who has been dismissed for misappropriation.
LLR Karn. HC 189

Refusal of the workman to work on the site alongwith the team will amount to abandonment of service.
LLR Guj. HC 197

Forfeiture of gratuity without termination for the specified misconduct rightly declined.
LLR Jhar. HC 203

Death of a diesel assistant, by quarrelling with colleague while on duty, will be an accident.
LLR All. HC 200

If systematic economic or commercial activity is carried on a place, that will be a ‘shop’ for coverage under ESI Act.
LLR Del. HC 204

When muster rolls not produced by the employer, the Court would be justified to draw adverse inference. 
LLR P&H HC 206

Compensation instead of reinstatement is appropriate if termination was due to temporary embezzlement. 
LLR (SN) Del. HC 211

Once it had been held that the accident had not occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of driver; it is only logical to impose a reduced punishment. 
LLR (SN) Mad. HC 212

Under section 25-O (5) of the Industrial Disputes Act when only reference was made by the concerned authority to Tribunal, no reasons would be required to be stated. 
LLR (SN) Guj. HC 212

When a bank employee was not guilty of misconduct for which he was dismissed, reinstatement with full back-wages would be appropriate relief.
LLR (SN) Cal. HC 212

An ex-parte order by the Labour Court, if not a speaking one, is liable to be quashed.
LLR (SN) Mad. HC 210

Decision of the Central Government not to prohibit the contract labour without due consultation with the Central Advisory Board would be liable to be quashed.
LLR (SN) Del. HC 210

Different treatment, per se, will not be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India if it denies equal protection; when there is no reasonable basis for differentiation. 
LLR (SN) Supreme Court 213

Writ jurisdiction is discretionary, which should not ordinarily be exercised if an alternative remedy available to the appellant. 
LLR (SN) Supreme Court 213

Production incentive paid to the employees within a span of two months will be deemed as ‘wages’ for ESI contributions. 
LLR (SN) Ker. HC 217

When an employer denies applicability of the ESI Act, the worker has to be heard before pronouncing an order for or against the employer. 
LLR (SN) Ker. HC 214

The Employees’ State Insurance Act makes it clear that the petition, under section 76(1) is to be filed in a Court where the interest of the worker is involved. 
LLR (SN) Ker. HC 214

Awarding reinstatement with 25% back wages is right as the Labour Court can re-appraise the evidence and modify the punishment. 
LLR (SN) Jhar. HC 214

Reinstatement with 25% back-wages as awarded by the Labour Court is not arbitrary.
LLR (SN) Jhar. HC 214

Awarding back-wages to be paid to the legal representatives i.e. his widow and son of the deceased workman is justified.
LLR (SN) Bom. HC 215

Findings based on appreciation of evidence cannot be said to be perverse or illegal.
LLR (SN) All. HC 215

Even when the application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is belated, it is acceptable as there is no limitation provided under the Act.
LLR (SN) P&H HC 216

Even if production had gone down and the workers had not achieved the productivity level, that would not disentitle them to claim as per the settlement
LLR (SN) P&H HC 216

No illegality or perversity is found in termination if the workman has failed to prove that he has worked for 240 days in preceding one year of his termination.
LLR (SN) Del. HC 216

In a complaint filed under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the MRTU & PULP Act all that the Labour Court is required to consider is whether services of the workman have been terminated by indulging in unfair labour practices. 
LLR (SN) Bom. HC 217

When the Authority to punish has differed from the findings of the enquiry officer, he should record reasons otherwise the dismissal could not be sustained. 
LLR (SN) Uttr. HC 224

Industrial Court should not have reappraised the evidence as produced before the Labour Court, reinstatement with 25% back-wages to the bus conductor is justified.
LLR (SN) Bom. HC 223

Labour Court erred in setting aside dismissal of bus conductor when the charges for taking back sold tickets, attacking the checking inspector etc. have been proved.
LLR (SN) Mad. HC 218

If an enquiry has been held to be fair and proper, the Labour Court should interfere only when the punishment under section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act is disturbing the conscience and it is highly disproportionate to the misconduct. 
LLR (SN) Mad. HC 218

Merely for technical error i.e. non payment of retrenchment compensation at the time of termination of service of the workman but asking him to collect the same, employer was rightly asked to pay Rs.2,01,702 in addition to Rs.40,000. 
LLR (SN) Del. HC 223

Criminal complaints against the employer made by the authority under Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act would be quashed out of vengeance since a complaint was lodged with police against the provident fund Inspector demanding bribe.
LLR (SN) Cal. HC 222

In the absence of intentional delay for deposit of employees’ provident fund contributions by the employer; no damages could be levied on him. 
LLR (SN) Mad. HC 222

Employees’ State Insurance Act will be applicable upon a firm running bus transport when its partners engaged the employees and their total number exceeded 20. 
LLR (SN) P&H HC 221

Employer (respondent), after having received the show-cause notice on 17 February, 1999, did not choose to reply but only after having received the order of determination produced the register before the EI court, the same cannot be justified. 
LLR (SN) Karn. HC 220

Reference of dispute by State government will not be tenable when the appropriate government is the Central government. 
LLR (SN) All. HC 220

Grievance against the legality of the Award passed by the Compensation Commissioner could be questioned in appeal under section 30 of the Employees’ Compensation Act since the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred. 
LLR (SN) Karn. HC 221

Industrial Tribunal has rightly held that the Company was committing unfair labour practice by not giving appointment letters etc. to workers.
LLR (SN) Bom. HC 219

Industrial Disputes Act prohibits an employer from engaging the workmen as “badlis”, “casuals” or “temporaries” and to continue them, as such, for years together would amount to unfair labour practice. 
LLR (SN) Mad. HC 219
Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More