No reinstatement of employee whose employment contract was not renewed.
New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Shri Dori Lal. 2010 LLR 303 (Del. HC)

Petitioner was entitled to one month's notice of termination even though his appointment was for a specific period.
Dinkar Baliramji Bundale vs. Presiding Officer, School Tribunal, Amravati. LLN(1) 2010 P. 418 (Bom. HC)

Even when the workman was not given contractual appointment but in view of the fact that he was working on the contract and it came to an end, his termination will not be treated as retrenchment.
Sumer Singh vs. The Chief Conservator of Forest, Haryana and Others. 2010 LLR 482 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

When the post is of permanent nature, fixed term contract of three months and its repeated renewals for years together, will not attract sec. 2(oo)(bb) of ID Act in case of termination. Worker will be entitled to compensation.
Pappu vs. Management of M/s Rajiv Automobiles Workshop and Show Room and Another. 2010 LLR 787 (Del. HC) 

Discharge of service of workman due to expiry of the term of the employment contract even pending conciliation proceedings will not attract sec. 33 of the ID Act.
The controlling Authority can lay down its own procedure for determining the gratuity of an employee and can decide all the issues together instead of deciding the preliminary issue at the first instance.
Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs. Rukhmani S. Awale (Smt.) and Anr. 2010 LLR 314 (Bom. HC)

Gratuity of an employee can be forfeited only when he is dismissed from service for the misconducts as prescribed under the Gratuity Act.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Appellate Authority and Ors. 2010 LLR 259 (Uttarakhand HC)

Even when a guarantor for loan has agreed that the amount of loan, if not paid can be recovered from terminal benefit, it cannot be recovered from gratuity and provident fund.
Kunju Mohammed vs. Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd. 2010(1) KLT 56 (Kerala HC)

Casual workers are also entitled for Gratuity.
Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palghat vs. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Ors. 2010 LLR 414 : CLR 1 2010 P. 677 (Madras HC)

Employee in seasonal establishment could get gratuity at the rate of 7 days wages for each season.
Maliana Co-operatvie Cane Development Union Ltd. Meerut vs. Tejram Sharma & Ors. LLJ I 2010 P. 738 (All. HC)

PG school of advance teaching being establishment under shop act will be covered by the payment of Gratuity Act.
Institute of Economic Growth vs. Controlling Officer under the Payment of Gratuity Act & Anr. 2010 LLR 536 (Del. HC)

No forfeiture of gratuity can be made on the ground of employee's unauthorized absence.
Uttar Pradesh S.R.T. Corporation vs. Appellate Authority & Ors. LLN (1) 2010 P. 685 (UP HC)

Institute of economic growth even though a society, would be covered under Delhi Shops Act by the definition of commercial establishment and consequently payment of gratuity act would also apply.
Institute of Economic Growth vs. Controlling Officer, Payment of Gratuities Act and another. 2010(125) FLR 560 (Del. HC)

Any person having ultimate control over the affairs of the mine would be employer for the purpose of payment of gratuity act irrespective of any designation.
J. Kumar And Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another. 2010 LLR 668 (Jharkhand HC)
BA Security Agents Employees Union vs. Regional Labour Commissioner & Ors. 2010 LLR 1083 (Del. HC)

Fixed term appointment of 3 years when not renewed would not be retrenchment.
Ram Kishan vs. Management of M/s. American Express Banking Corporation & Anr. 2010 LLR 247 (Del. HC)

Compliance of Sec. 25F of ID Act is not required in the case of termination when appointment was for a limited period.
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Anr. vs. Bipinchandra N. Ramanuj. 2010 LLR 1167 (Guj. HC)

Termination due to non renewal of contract does not come within the purview of retrenchment.
Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. vs. K. Daglas and Another. 2010 LLR 1023 (Kerala HC)


Employees of seasonal establishment are also entitled to gratuity and it is for the employer to prove their non continous working.
M/s. Maliana Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd., Meerut vs. Tej Ram Sharma and Others. 2010 LLR 26 (All. HC)

If higher gratuity is available by virtue of settlement between union and management, it can’t be overruled by Payment of Gratuity Act.
SAIL Ex-Employees' Association vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd and Anr. 2009 LLR 1312 (Delhi HC)

No amount of gratuity can be adjusted / forfeited against the dues of the employee except on the grounds available under sec. 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd. vs. Balan. 2009 (123) FLR 862 (Kerala HC)

An employee will be entitled to gratuity for the intervening period of dismissal and his reinstatement.
Mohd. Shareefuddin vs. Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C., Secunderabad City Region. 2010 LLR 255 (AP HC)

Recovery of penalty from gratuity without holding enquiry would be illegal.
Dhanaykumar Chitriappa Bodale vs. Managing Director, Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors. 2010 LLR 311 (Bom. HC)

Daily wagers and break in service workers will also be entitled to Gratuity.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Kantibai Hirabhai & 2 Ors. 2010 LLR 712 (Guj. HC)

Payment of Gratuity Act is applicable to Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation.
Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation, Gandhinagar vs. Pranjivan H. Chavda. 2010 (125) FLR 759 (Guj. HC)

Interest @ 12% will be payable on delayed payment of gratuity by the employer even when the employee has not made a claim for the same.
U.P.S.R.T.C. Through Its Managing Director and Others vs. Mohd. Rais Khan. 2010 LLR 887 (All. HC)

Gratuity can’t be withheld on the basis of an enquiry sought to be initiated for some misconduct.
Dhairyasheel A. Jadhav vs. Maharashtra Agro. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. 2010 LLR 792 (Bom. HC)

Withholding Gratuity because CBI case is pending against employee will be contrary to the provisions of gratuity Act.
Rajnagar Textile Mills vs. Gunvant Lalchanddas Kayastha. 2010 LLR 869 (Guj. HC)

'Trust' or 'society' would be covered under Payment of Gratuity Act.
Amravati Nagar Vachanalaya, Amravati vs. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Mumbai
(Mantralaya) & Ors. 2010 II CLR 942 (Bom. HC)

Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act (SICA) will not debar when the gratuity has not been paid by the employer.
Akshaya Textiles Ltd., Coimbatore vs. Tahsildar, Coimbatore North Taluk, Coimbatore and Others. 2010 LLR 1024 (Mad. HC)

Gram Panchayat being an establishment, would be convered under Payment of Gratuity Act.
Gram Panchayat, Shivad vs. Rang Lal and others. 2010 II CLR 844 (Raj. HC)

Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act has an over-riding effect over other enactments.
M.D./Member Secretary, U.P. Co-Operative Union vs. Appellate Authority (Payment of Gratuity Act) and Others. 2010 LLR 1119 (All. HC)

Principal employer is not liable to pay gratuity to the contractor workman.
Sailen Seth vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Ors. 2010 LLR 1070 (Cal. HC)

Delhi Development authority is an establishment under Payment of Gratuity Act.
Delhi Development Authority vs. Kundan & Ors. 2010-II LLR 961 (Del. HC)

When employee claim for gratuity not entertained under central civil services (pension) rules 1972, he will be entitled for gratuity under Gratuity Act being served the post office as chowkidar for 18 years. Post office held as establishment.
Union of India and Anr. vs. Bhagat Ram. 2010 LLR 1091 (Himachal Prades HC)

Gratuity can’t be forfeited without determining the loss caused by the misconduct of the employee.
Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd., Bangalore vs. N.S.S. Bhagavat and Ors. 2010 LLR 1170 (Karn. HC)

In case of conflict, provisions of Gratuity Act would prevail over any other enactment, regulations or Act.
Shambhu Sharan Singh S/o. Late Jagdish Narayan Singh vs. Chairman and Managing Director UCO Bank and Ors. 2010 III CLR 616 (Patna HC)

Payment of Gratuity Act does not allow any employer to curtail the rights of employee.
Steel Authority of India Limited vs. Taraknath Sengupta and Others. 2010 LLR 1017 (Cal. HC)

In the absence of any proof of misappropriation, retiral benefits can’t be with-held.
Rishi Kumar Ekka vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others. 2010 LLR 1169

Gratuity rightly forfeited of Bank employee who caused losses to Bank to an extent of Rs. 149/- lakhs.
Ramchandra S. Joshi vs. Bank of Baroda. 2010 LLR 1255 (Bom. HC)

Notification exempting Local Body from payment of Gratuity Act will be effective prospective and employees appointed before will be entitled for gratuity.
Krishna Lal Agarwal vs. State of Punjab. 2010 LLR 1268 (P& H HC)

No deemed exemption from payment of Gratuity Act unless clearly notified under Sec. 5 of the Act.
Municipal Council, Udaipur vs. Mohd. Safi. 2010 LLR 1269 (Raj. HC)

Disputes Act since it will be violative of mandatory provisions.
Y.K. Kumaraswamy vs. Secretary to Government, Department of Labour, Bangalore and Another. 2010 LLR 1022 (Karn. HC)

Closure will be inoperative when prior permission from Govt. not obtained under sec. 25 (o) of the ID Act.
Sri Arunachaleswarar Mills vs. Joint Secretary, Department of Industries and Labour Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai & Ors. 2010 LLR 641, 2010 (125) FLR 436 (Mad. HC)

Introduction of computerised Attendance System does not require compliance of sec. 9-A of I.D. Act.
Hindustan Unilever Employees Union, Pondicherry vs. Inspector of Factories, Pondicherry and Ors. 2010 II CLR 756 (Mad. HC)

ID Act does not provide any method to recover the excess amount paid to employee from him.
Haryana State Co-Operative Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. Labour Court, Union Territory,
Chandigarh. 2010 LLR 889 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

When an industrial establishment has been closed, the relationship of employer and employee comes to an end hence section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act, providing for re-employment of retrenched workmen, has no application.
Somayya S. Bhandari & Ors. vs. Oriental Rubber Industries Ltd. 2010-II CLR 934 (Bom. HC)

Since head office of National Seeds Corporation exercises administrative control over the workman, his dispute is to be adjudicated by tribunal at Delhi, no matter the casual workman was engaged at Bareilly or Bhopal.
Mahipal Singh (Sh.) vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-III & Ors. 2010 LLR 1054 (Del. HC)

When workman proved of his working for more than 240 days, it is for employer to rebut. In case of failure, adversed inference will be drawn against employer.
Sanjay Kumar S/o Surendra Kumar Sharma vs. Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Ratlam. 2010 LLR 1065 (MP HC)

Giving notice for increasing work hours under Factories Act will not absolve the employer from giving notice under Sec. 9A of the ID Act. Without this compliance change in service conditions would be illegal.
Union of India through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Deptt. of Economic Affairs, New Delhi & Ors. vs. Workmen through the General Secretary of the India Security Press and Currency Note Press Staff Union & Anr. 2010 LLR 1183 (Bom. HC)

I.D. ACT :

Ex-parte proceedings against employer under ID Act would not be proper simply because he refused to take delivery of the notice sent under Reg. AD post. ID rules also require posting of notice under UPC.
Sri Sathya Sai Vidya Vihar vs. Rati Ram. 2010 LLR 85 (Delhi HC)

When extension of employment was on specific stipulation of being reengaged till regular employee was appointed, no right under sec. 25-H of ID Act created for the workman.
Tarsem Lal vs. Haryana Land Reclamation And Development Corporation Ltd. and Others. 2010(124) FLR 100 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

A daily wager can’t be said to be working on holidays for the purpose of 240 days calculation.
Sh. Ram Gopal vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court-I, Faridabad and Others. 2010 (124) FLR 276 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Doing own business is not covered by the term of gainful employment.
State of Rajasthan vs. Rajendra Prasad & Anr. LLN (4) 2009 P. 781 (Raj. HC)

When the Union has submitted that the General Secretary be declared a 'protected workman', the
employer has a mandatory obligation to do so.
HLL Life Care Ltd. vs. Hindustan Latex Labour Union (AITUC) & Anr. 2010 LLR 544 (Kerala HC) 

Effecting change in working hours from 6 to 8 for new recruits after taking their consent will not attract sec. 9A of the ID Act.
Transport and Dock Workers Union and Others vs. Mumbai Port Trust and Another. 2010(125) FLR 507 (Bom. HC)

Where workman has two remedies- one in Delhi School Act and other in ID Act to challenge his
termination, he can invoke any one.
Apeejay School vs. Sh. Darbari Lal & Ors. 2010 LLR 1015 (summary) (Del. HC)

Conciliation Officer, on failure of the negotiations, is not empowered to direct the appellant to approach Labour Court under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Without proving 240 days working in a preceding year before termination, Industrial Disputes Act is not attracted.
Divisional Railway Manager, Western Railway, Kota vs. Judge, Industrial Tribunal (Central), Kota & Anr. 2010 LLR 953 (Raj. HC)

While calculating 240 days for continuous service, the training period of a workman will also be counted when the service was uninterrupted inclusive of training.
Smt. Neelam vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, Faridabad and Another. 2010 LLR 510 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Labour Court has to first decide about the fairness of the enquiry as preliminary issue.
Superintending Engineer vs. M.K. Vasu. 2010 LLR 1265 (Mad. HC)

Employer to pay last drawn wages as interim relief to workman, when his reinstatement award is challenged in HC.
J.K. Industries v. Upendra Chaudhry. 2010 LLR 1270 (Cal. HC)

High Court not to interfere when Labour Court allowed regularisation of 113 ad-hoc employees.
Bhuvaneshwar Development Authority vs. B.D.A. workers union. 2010 LLR 1276 (Orissa HC)

It is not the court but for the employer to create a permanent post.
State of UP vs. Industrial Tribunal IV, Agra. 2010 LLR 1285 (All. HC)

No approval for dismissal under Sec.33(2)(b) of I.D. Act on account of unauthorised absence, when workman submitted leave applications with medical certificates from time to time.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sh. Bhanwar Lal. 2010 LLR 1289 (Del. HC)

For reference, Govt. has not examine where industrial dispute subsists. Rejecting reference on the ground that worker did not participate in the enquiry will be illegal.
Bhanwar Singh v. Govt. of India. 2010 LLR 1293. (Raj. HC) 


When forest department is not ‘industry’, labour court order of reinstatement will be ex facie illegal.
State of Uttarakhand and Anr. vs. Jagat Singh Sirola and Anr. 2010 LLR 125 (Uttarakhand HC)

Army auditorium would be industry under ID Act.
Field Marshal Manekshaw Auditorium and Another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala and Another. 2010 LLR 258 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Diocese of Amritsar of the Church of North India will not be an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Diocese of Amritsar of the Church of North India and Ors. vs. Buta Anayat Masih and Ors. 2010 LLR 407 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Production of quality seeds activity by the management will be sufficient to bring it within the
definition of industrial establishment under the provisions of ID Act.
Lal Bahadur vs. State of Haryana and Others. 2010 LLR 484 (Punjab & Haryana HC)


Approval for dismissal must be given when enquiry is found to be fair and proper.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Shri Gajender Pal Singh. 2009 LLR 1287 (Delhi HC)

When there exists an industrial dispute, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour is bound to admit it in conciliation.
Navbharat Press Employees Union vs. State of Maharashtra, Labour Industries & Energy Department. CLR III 2009 P. 782 (Bom. HC)

When workman says that he was refused to take on duty and employer says that there was no relationship of employer and employee, Industrial Dispute will come in to existence and reference can be made.
Jagadamba Motors and Anr. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2010 LLR 23 (Cal. HC)

When after retrenchment employer enters into a settlement with retrenched employee that they will gradully absorbed, violation of such settlement would be a subject matter of industrial dispute.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others. 2009 (123) FLR 1088 (Cal. HC)

The object of Industrial Disputes Act is to ensure harmony between the employer and employees.
Chemplast Employees' Union vs. Government of Tamil Nadu. CLR III 2009 P. 926 (Mad. HC)

Withdrawal of VRS application does not come under Industrial Dispute.
Employer in Relation to the Management of Jamadoba Colliery of M/s. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad and Another. 2010 (124) FLR 327 (Jharkhand HC)

High Court should not entertain an industrial dispute directly since appropriate remedy is available under ID Act.
Ashoke Kumar Mukherjee vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors. 2010 LLR 426 (Cal. HC)

Industrial dispute can be raised when settlement about reinstatement is not implemented by employer.
Valliammal vs. Block Development Officer, (Village Panchayat) and Ors. 2010 LLR 402 (Madras HC)

Reducing leave from 32 to 18 will attract notice under sec. 9A of the ID Act. Mere display of notice will not be sufficient compliance of the section.
Management of Salem District Coop. Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai & Anr. 2010 LLR 435 (Madras HC)

Conciliation Officer u/s. 12 of the I.D. Act has no power to adjudicate and decide on merits of dispute.
Ramesh S. & Ors. vs. Commissioner of Labour, Chennai. LLJ I 2010 P. 348 (Madras HC)

Over Time can’t be claimed under sec. 6H(2) of UP ID Act when claim is disputed.
Rana Pratap Singh vs. Labour Court & Others. 2010-I CLR 916 (All. HC)

Issue of recognition of union by employer can’t be a subject matter of Industrial Dispute under ID Act.
Puducherry Shasun Chemicals and Drugs Niruvana Thozhilalargal Muneerta Sangam and Another vs. Labour
Officer and Others. 2010 LLR 498 (Madras HC)

Dispute raised after 16 years rightly assumed as no dispute by conciliation officer.
Deena Nath vs. Regional Conciliation Officer (Labour Department) Police Lines, Gorakhpur And Others. 2010(126)
FLR 680 (All. HC) 

Govt’s reference under 36A of the ID Act to remove doubt or difficulties arising out of any settlement or award will be an Industrial Dispute.
All India Women's Conference vs. Raj Karan and Another. 2010 LLR 1111 (Del. HC)

Industrial Dispute can only be raised at the place where services of the workman are terminated.
T.V. Swamy vs. (1) Management of Best & Crompton, Madras (2) Presiding Officer, I Additional Labour Court, Chennai. 2010 LLR 1045 (Madras HC)


Courts should not exercise its jurisdiction under sec. 11-A of I.D. Act to help dishonest employee by awarding them reinstatement.
Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, through its Managing Director vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Anr. 2010 LLR 152 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

No relief for the employer when ex-parte award was challenged after about five years.
Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Second Labour Court, West Bengal and Others. 2010 LLR 939 (Cal. HC)

The Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has to confine its jurisdiction to the terms as referred for adjudication hence the question as to justifiability of increase of the task of sweepers from 30 to 60 units was not an issue for adjudication and as such the Award is liable to be set aside.
Tata Tea Limited, Regional Office vs. General Secretary, Devicolam, and Others. 2010 (126) FLR 53 (Kerala HC)

Dismissal of reference by court due to absence of workman will not amount to award under ID Act.
Rajan Shrikrishna Morya vs. Marshal Security Pvt. Ltd. 2010 III CLR 633 (Bom. HC)

Labour Court has no jurisdiction to decide the issue of employer-employee relationship.
Bhaskar J. Vaidya vs. Member, Industrial Court, Amravati. CLR I 2010 P. 555 (Bom. HC)

Once court records the finding of workman guilt and dismissal not excessive, cannot go further and interfere with the punishment.
Tata Press Employees Union vs. Tata Informedia Ltd. and another. 2010(125) FLR 514 (Bom. HC)

Court / Tribunal to modify the punishment given by employer only when it is shockingly disproportionate to the charges.
Divisional Controller vs. Girdharbhai Thakarshibhai Tank. 2010 LLR 600 (Guj. HC)

Government and not the Labour Court has to decide revision of pay scales and other allowances for the casual farm workers.
Central Silk Board Employees' Union, Bangalore vs. Management of Central Silk Board, Bangalore and Another.
2010 LLR 757 (Karnataka HC)


Jewel Appraiser, having not been held as a workman by the Supreme Court, will not be entitled to
regularisation, hence the appropriate government should have passed an order while declining to refer the dispute for adjudication.
All Bank Appraisers' Federation, Tamil Nadu (represented by its General Secretary Sri K. Vijayarangan), Cuddalore vs. Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi and Ors. 2009 (4) LLN 358 (Mad. HC)

High Court will not interfere with the order of the appropriate government in rejecting to refer the dispute as raised by the workmen twice since no new material or reasons have been given for interference.
Pune Labour Union vs. State of Maharashtra, Industrial Energy And Labour Deptt. and others.2010(124) FLR 630 (Bom. HC)

Before making a reference the Government must form an opinion as to the status of the employees and whether there exists an industrial dispute.
A.P. Paper Mill Ltd. Rajahmundry vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. CLR I 2010 P. 384 (AP HC)

Being fact of employer-employee relationship in dispute, reference is bad in law, moreso when made by State Govt. when it was not appropriate Govt.
Hindustan Cable Ltd., Allahabad vs. Presiding Officer, I.T.-I Allahabad and Others. 2010 II CLR 863 (All. HC)

Existence of industrial dispute is a must for any difference in case of settlement on the point of reference. Question of validity has to be decided as preliminary issue by the court.
Siemens Ltd. vs. Their Employees Represented by Siemens Workers' Union and Another. 2010 LLR 934 (Bom. HC) 

Lay off permission dispute reference will not be illegal.
L.M. Glasfiber India (Private), Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka and Another. 2010 (3) LLN 854 (Karn. HC)

The Govt. is not expected to refer each and every matter mechnically in a routine matter. Govt. has to satisfy herself about existence of Industrial Dispute.
United Labour Federation, Chennai vs. Government of T.N. rep. by its Secy., Dept. of Labour & Employment, Chennai & Ors. 2010 III CLR 651 (Mad. HC)

Refusal to make a reference of industrial dispute involving disputed question of fact by the appropriate Government is not proper.
Coimbatore Cement Workers Union v. Management of ACC Ltd. & Ors. LLN (3) 2010 P. 505 (Mad. HC)

Unless the person seeking reference proves his status as a workman, refusal by the Government to refer the matter for adjudication cannot be challenged.
Prakash M. v. Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Labour. LLJ III 2010 P. 725 (Mad. HC)

On a dispute, Govt. can’t decide whether applicant is a workman or not. Dispute has to be referred to the court.
Hindustan National Glass & Industries Ltd. vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner, Garhwal Region, Dehradun & Anr. 2010 LLR 1178 (Uttarakhand HC)

Govt. can’t refuse to refer the dispute merely on the ground that the employee was engaged on contract basis.
Satish vs. Union of India and Others. 2010 LLR 474 (Bom. HC) 


When employer-employee relationship is not established, interim relief under sec. 17-B of I.D. Act can’t be awarded.
Carrit Moran and Company (P) Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. 2010 LLR 126 (Cal. HC)

Last drawn wages will be payable as interim relief under sec. 17(b) of ID Act.
South Indian Workers Congress & Ors. vs. Sree Sankara University of Sanskrit, Kalady. 2010 LLR 280 (Kerala HC)

Interim relief is only available in case of reinstatement and not compensation under sec. 17B of ID Act.
Arora Combines vs. Damaji Ganpat Mankar and Another. 2010 LLR 341 (Bom. HC)

No interim relief under sec. 17B of ID Act to the employee who has not been reinstated but only
Employers in Relation to the Management of Rajrappa Washery Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Their workmen, Rep. Through Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Rajrappa. 2010 LLR 370 (Jharkhand HC)

Employer is under obligation to pay last drawn wages or minimum wages whichever is higher when reinstatement order is challenged before HC.
Delhi Jal Board vs. Industrial Tribunal & Anr. 2010 LLR 472 (Del. HC)

Delay in raising industrial dispute and further delay in filing writ petition disentitles the employee from grant of relief.
Vritra Kumar vs. Central Bank of India & Ors. LLJ I 2010 P. 740 (Del. HC)

"Wages last drawn" does not mean wages can be less than minimum wages.
Tahshildar Kathoumer & Ors. vs. Judge, Labour Court & Ors. LLN(1) 2010 P. 644 (Raj. HC)

While challenging the reinstatement, where management asked workman to report for duty in lieu of payment under sec. 17B of ID Act during pendency of petition, DTC employer has to pay equal wages as being paid to others alongwith same holidays and not the minimum wages.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Phool Singh & Anr. 2010 LLR 571 (Del. HC)

Once application for approval of dismissal under sec. 33 is rejected and workman not allowed to join the duties, he is entitled to last drawn wages under sec. 17 B of the ID Act.
Bikram Singh vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr. 2010 LLR 682 (Del. HC)

When reinstatement is challenged, workman will be entitled to minimum wages as interim relief. In case employer succeeds, workman will refund the difference if his last drawn wages was less than minimum wages.
Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute vs. Nishikesh Tyagi. 2010 LLR 785 (Delhi HC)

The payment of last drawn wages to a reinstated workman, who is not allowed to be reinstated by the employer, will be from the date he files Affidavit about his unemployment and not from any earlier date.
The Management of K.S.B. Pumps Limited vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and Ors. 2010 LLR 813 (Mad. HC)

In case of challenge of labour court order on issue of vitiating an enquiry by employer, sec. 17(b) of ID Act will not be attracted. When the court finds the enquiry as valid, reference would be decided in favour of employer, no matters the employer failed to prove the misconduct before the industrial adjudicator.
Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IX & Anr. 2010 LLR 900 (Del. HC)

Employer will be liable to pay last drawn wages as interim relief from the date of filing writ.
South Indian Workers' Congress vs. Sree Sankara University of Sanskrit. 2010 LLR 46 (Kerala HC)


Compulsory retirement after holding enquiry where misconduct is proved, will amount to dismissal and approval of the same would be required under sec. 33 of the ID Act.
Sudhir Sharma vs. National Gandhi Museum. 2010 LLR 2 (Delhi HC)

Termination of service of workman due to reorganisation of work would be retrenchment and will
not amount to alteration in service conditions hence would not hit by sec. 33(1) of I.D. Act.
K.N. Ashokan vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Anr. CLR III 2009 P. 764 (Madras HC)

Claim for wages for extra duty will be tenable under section 33C(2) of Industrial Disputes Act.
Municipal Council, Samana vs. Radha Rani & Ors. 2010 LLR 80 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Back-wages can be claimed under section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and though a long time has elapsed, that will not be of any effect since there is no limitation prescribed under the Act for recovery of money due from the employer.
Managing Director, Kannad Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Aurangabad vs. Vishwnath Jagannath Kshirsagar and Ors. 2009 (4) LLN 492 (Bom. HC)

When the dismissal of workman was not bona fide on record and notice pay paid was also lesser than the amount, approval under sec. 33 (2)(b) of I.D. act rightly denied.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. vs. Joint Commissioner of Labour, Chennai & Anr. 2010 LLR 138 (Madras HC)

In the absence of approval for dismissal under sec. 33 of ID Act, reinstatement justified.
Centurian Services (P) Ltd. vs. Dharamveer. 2010 LLR 260 (Del. HC)

Application under Sec. 33C(2) of I.D. Act for costs and stitching charges of liveries by workmen is not maintainable.
Workmen of M.C.D. vs. M.C.D. LLJ I 2010 P. 417 (Del. HC)

When charges are not established, approval for dismissal rightly declined.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sh. Vinod Kumar. 2010 LLR 457 (Del. HC)

When the matter is pending before HC, seeking approval for dismissal of workman is not required.
General Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. M. Ashok Kumar and Ors. 2010 LLR 511 (Karn. HC)

Under section 33-C(2) of ID Act labour court is competent to construe the settlement award or a statute under which the right is claimed.
Management of International Travel Service, Bangalore vs. A.S. Devaraja. 2010(124)FLR 1089 (Karn. HC)

Approval for dismissal rightly refused when charges of negligent driving was not proved.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Abdul Hussain & Anr. 2010 LLR 490 (Raj. HC)

Approval for dismissal should be given when driver found plying bus on different route and not reporting break down to control room.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors. 2010 LLR 652 (Del. HC)

If dispute is pending in HC and not either in Labour Court or Tribunal, approval for dismissal will not be required.
General Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangalore vs. M. Ashok Kumar and Others. 2010 LLR 608 (Karn. HC)

Labour Court can’t decide the employer-employee relationship issue in an application under sec. 33C(2) of the ID Act.
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Solapur and Anr. vs. Nagnath Jyotiram Ghodke (Dead) by LRs. 2010 LLR 740 (Bom. HC)

Once settlement on dispute is arrived at by management, sec. 33 of ID Act for not seeking approval before dismissal is not attracted.
Ram Shankar vs. The Industrial Tribunal No. II & Anr. 2010 LLR 679 (Del. HC)

Imposition of punishment of stoppage of two increments will not attract breach of sec. 33 pending
proceedings under ID Act.
Hasmukhbhai Babulal Rana vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation & Anr. 2010 LLR 713 (Guj. HC)

Under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act labour court can’t decide new right not based on existing right.
Smt. Neeta S. Pathak vs. Bombay Port Trust and Another. 2010 LLR 791

Under section 33C(2), the Labour Court is not empowered to allow interest on the amount of incentive allowance.
H.S.T. Hegde vs. Premier Automobiles Ltd. and Another. 2010 LLR 795 (Bom. HC)

Provisions of limitation act not applicable to the proceedings under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act.
South Indian Bank Ltd. vs. Labour Court and Others. 2010 LLR 807 (Kerala HC)

When findings of enquiry officer are not perverse and if there is prima facie evidence in support of findings, tribunal can’t refuse to grant approval to the order passed by management. When workman failed to participate in the enquiry, industrial tribunal is not empowered to review the
management decision.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Nihal Singh. 2010 LLR 909 (Del. HC)

Approval application cannot be granted unless there is material to support the order sought to be approved.
V.K. Murgan vs. Tamil Nadu S.T. Corporation & Anr. LLN (2) 2010 P. 738 (Mad. HC)

When all three requirement of proviso to sec. 33(2)(b) of ID Act is complied with by employer, tribunal is to grant approval of removal of workman from service on  the ground of wilfull absence.
National Engineering Industries Ltd. Jaipur vs. Chhotu Ram, and Another. 2010 LLR 923 (Raj. HC)

Claim not based on existing rights, not tenable under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act.
Ramniklal Dave vs. Stering Agency & Anr. 2010 LLR 1051 (Bom. HC)

Temple will not be a "Industry".
Sree Vinayaka Devasthana Samithi, Bangalore vs. Smt. Kamalamma. 2009 (123) FLR 576 (Karn. HC)

When termination is effected due to reorganization or work, will not attract sec. 33(1) or 33 (2) of the ID Act, even if the conciliation proceedings are pending.
K.N. Asokan vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Anr. 2010 LLR 976 (Mad. HC)


Mere remaining in police custody does not amount to misconduct.
State of M.P. vs. Ramkumar Pathak & Anr. FLR (123) 2009 P. 184 : LLJ 2010 P. 42 (MP HC)

Reinstatement set aside of security guard dismissed for consuming alcohol at workplace being serious misconduct.
Tata Power Company Ltd. vs. S.M. Harke & Ors. CLR I 2010 P. 42 (Bom. HC)

A single charge of dishonesty on the part of workers is so servere that no one is expected to restore the said workers to service.
Management of Premier Instruments and Controls Ltd., Coimbatore vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore & Ors. 2010 LLR 492 (Madras HC)

Leaving workplace before duty hour may be detrimental depending upon nature of job. It is for
employer to decide quantam of punishment as per gravity & nature of duty.
The Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs. Shri Misri Yadav & Ors. 2010 LLR 666 (Cal. HC)

Once punishment is imposed for misconduct, can’t be reopened.
Cheepurupalli Annaji Rao vs. Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weaver Co-op. Society Ltd. & Anr. 2010 II CLR 1069 (AP HC)

Dismissal of bus driver without enquiry is invalid even when he caused accident, where one person died and others injured. Misconduct has to be proved.
Management, State Express Transport Corporation (Tamil Nadu) Ltd., Chennai vs. Presiding Officer, 1 Additional Labour Court, Chennai & Anr. 2010 LLR 1039 (Madras HC)

When a misconduct is not supported by service rules, no action can be taken against the employee for such commission of misconduct.
M. Marimuthu vs. General Manager (D& PB), State Bank of India and Another. 2010 LLN 454 (Madras HC)

Obtaining employment by concealing over qualification will not be misconduct for termination of
peon by bank.
Bank of Baroda, Chandigarh vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh & Anr. 2010 LLR 1094 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Long absence of six months is a serious misconduct and relief of compensation is sufficient.
Khairulla Hasanali Pathan vs. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. 2010 LLR 1150


Paying Rs. 27 p.m. only for 30 years long would be a clear case of violation of minimum wages,
highly codemnable and fit case for awarding compensation.
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Beed and Others. vs. Radhabai and Another. 2010 LLR 217 (Bom. HC)

In the absence of any malafide, payment of compensation will not arise under MW Act.
Mahanagar Telecom Nigam Ltd. vs. S.M. Nikam and Others. 2010 (125) FLR 540 (Bom. HC)

Society being covered by definition of commercial establishment as provided in Delhi Shop Act, will be liable to pay minimum wages as applicable to them.
Multipurpose Training Centre for Deaf vs. Government of NCT of Delhi and Others. 2010 LLR 728 (Del. HC)

When workers draw more than M.W. and better facilities, can not claim O.T.under M.W. Act.
National Airports Authority vs. Sudershan Kumar & Ors. 2010 II CLR 950 (Del. HC)

When difference of minimum wages paid, eight times penalty would be harsh and liable to be quashed.
Haryana Tourism Corporation Ltd. vs. Authority under Minimum Wages Act, Faridabad and Others. 2010 LLR 987 (Punjab & Haryana HC)


No bar under sec. 23 of PW Act operates in case of compromise / settlement between employer & employee.
Naasir Husain vs. Assistant Labour Commissioner, Moradabad and Another. 2010 LLR 374 (All. HC)


Termination illegal when workman proved his employment even before issuance of appointment letter of probation.
CHD Developers Ltd. vs. Rajinder Prasad. 2009 LLR 1284 (Delhi HC)

A probationer services can be terminated either during or after the completion or the extended period of probation.
Hyderabad Industries Ltd., Deoghar vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2010 LLR 40 (Jharkhand HC)

Termination of probationer during or at the end of the period will not be retrenchment.
Management of Pepsico India Holdings, Mamandur vs. Presiding Officer, 1st Addl. Labour Court, Madras & K. Babu. 2010 LLR 127 (Madras HC)

A probationer dispute of termination after 20 years liable to be quashed.
M/s Obeetee Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others. 2010 LLR 330 (All. HC)

An employee's reversion, who has been provisionally promoted on probation of one year, will not be interfered by the High Court since a probationer has no right or lien on the post.
Nemi Chand Mittal vs. Zonal Manager (N), FCI & Ors. 2010 Lab IC 2073 (Del. HC)

Discharge of probationer during third year of extended probation period, when performance was not found satisfactory, will not be stigmatic.
Ram Lal Sharma vs. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation & Anr. 2010 LLR 970 (HP HC)

Probationer’s termination due to unsatisfactory work will not be punitive.
Sanjeev L. Tatuskar vs. Secretary, Pune Institute of Computer Technology and Others. 2010 LLR 1110 (Bom. HC)


Resignation can be withdrawn before its valid acceptance.
Mala Tandon Thukral (Mrs.) vs. Director of Education & Others. 2010 LLR 659 (Del. HC)


Reinstatement with back wages proper when enquiry is vitiated as violative of principles of natural justice.
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sh. Ram Kishan (Ex-Driver). 2010 LLR 394 (Del. HC)

Reinstatement with full back wages would be proper where disciplinary proceedings were quashed being based on vague charge sheet.
Balvinder Singh Nigah vs. General Manager (Operations) Hotel Corporation of India Ltd. 2010 LLR 102 (Delhi HC)

When 20 years have been passed and workman worked for only 2 years, lump-sum compensation would be proper instead of reinstatement.
Executive Engineer, Irrigation & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar & Anr. 2010 LLR 21 (Raj. HC)

No reinstatement when bus conductor was found guilty of dishonesty.
Management of M/s. Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Kumar. 2010 LLR 116 (Del. HC)

Reinstatement justified for erecting temporary hutment though unauthorized by sweeper employee.
Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata and Ors. 2010 LLR 296 (Cal. HC)

When 20 years have passed, no reinstatement but only compensation would serve the purpose.
Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Patiala and Others vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Others. 2010 LLR 287 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

When appointment not made in prescribed procedure and services terminated illegally, compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be proper.
U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer/Labour Court II, Kanpur and Others. 2010 LLR 375 (All. HC)

Reinstatement with 50% back wages appropriate in case of oral termination.
U.P. Bridge Corporation Ltd., Lucknow vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Government of Goa and Others. 2010 LLR 346 (Bom. HC)

When workman worked for short period, compensation will be justified instead of reinstatement.
Management of M/s. Hindustani Dawakhana and Ayurvedic Rasayanshala vs. Jagdish Singh Rajpoot. 2010 LLR 342 (Del. HC)

No reinstatement when workman failed to prove 240 days working.
Saran Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Another vs. Union of India Through Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, Through its Secretary and Others. 2010 LLR 360 (Patna HC) 

Even temporary employee when completed 240 days will be entitled reinstatement compensation.
Executive Engineer, Palkhed Canal Division, Nashik vs. Pandharinath Chindu Kale. 2010 LLR 539 (Bom. HC)

When the daily-wager was not appointed on a project, his reinstatement would be proper.
M/s Uttar Pradesh Bridge Corp. Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Goa & Ors. 2010 Lab IC 1515 (Bom. HC) 

When the labour court held that termination order is valid, it was not in court’s jurisdiction to order reengagement of workman.
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others. 2010 LLR 699 (Alla. HC)

No reinstatement of the workman who was appointed for a specified period.
Executive Engineer, Works Division, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon vs. Abdul Sami A. Sayeed and Another. 2010(125) FLR 427 (Bom. HC) 

Employer can’t be compelled to continue such employee in service against whom charge of theft
was dully proved. No matter he was acquitted in criminal case.
A.S. Manjrekar vs. Bombay Port Trust and Anr. 2010 LLR 859 (Bom. HC)

Reinstatement rightly awarded when workman proved that he worked for more than 240 days and sec. 25F of ID Act was not complied with.
Vadia Gram Panchayat vs. Pratapbhai Dadbhai Kotila. 2010 Lab IC 2195 (Guj. HC)

Employee will be entitled to reinstatement without back wages when termination was done without complying the provisions of sec. 25F of ID Act.
Sunita Gupta vs. Nagar Palika Parishad, Sabalgarha, Distt. Morena & Anr. 2010 LLR 847 (MP HC)

When driver acquitted in criminal case for rash and negligent driving, back wages and continuty of service on reinstatement can’t be denied.
Sonu Mahadeo Chavan vs. Pune Municipal Transport. 2010  LLR 898 (Bom. HC)

Compensation in lieu of reinstatement has to be awarded on the basis of the calculation by taking into account the drawn salary and allowances as specified by Supreme Court.
Mr. Jagannath S/o Wamanrao Mane vs. M/s. Wokhardt Ltd. 2010 LLR 955 (Bom. HC)

When neither the charge sheet was replied nor participated in the enquiry, reinstatement illegal.
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union vs. Haldyn Glass Works 
Ltd. 2010 LLR 1013 (Bom. HC)

No reinstatement with back wages to a person who lost lien on job by remaining absent for more than 3 years without explanation.
Indian Coffee Board vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. X and Another. 2010 LLR 989 (Del. HC)

Reinstatement with full back wages in the case of illegal termination is not a settled law. Workman has to prove unemployment during the period. In this case 25% back wages award was appropriate.
Rohitsinh Vakhatsinh Darbar, C/o Gujarat Audhyogik Kamdar vs. Arvind Rubber-Well Control Ltd. 2010 LLR 940 (Guj. HC) 

Reinstatement without back-wages in substituting termination for continuous absence of 101 days, after holding he enquiry, would be appropriate since the workman (now deceased) has worked for a long period and comes from a poor family.
Union of India (Rep. by Chief Workshop Manager), Carriage and Wagon Works, Southern Railway), Madras vs. (1)
Registrar, Industrial Tribunal Tamil Nadu, Chennai, (2) P.N. Balasundaram. 2010 LLR 1002 (Mad. HC)

In the absence of any contract, termination of services of the workman without compensation will
amount to illegal retrenchment and instead of reinstatement, compensation will be appropriate.
Rajasthan State Text Book Board vs. Shri Kajod Mal and Another. 2010 LLR 1008 (Raj. HC)

Reinstatement with back-wages to be granted when workman sent medical certificate for sick leave and employer presumed voluntary abandonment. Since factory is closed, one lakh compensation granted.
Universal Cylinders Ltd., Alwar vs. Judge, Labour Court, Bharatpur & Dena Nath Mehto. 2010-II CLR 821 (Raj. HC)

Being telephone department an industry under ID Act, award of labour court granting reinstatement with back wages from the date of raising the dispute need not to be interfered.
Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. vs. Deepak Sadashiv Shrikande & Ors. 2010 LLR 1205 (Bom. HC)

In the absence of birth certificate, opinion of the medical board about the age of the workman would be final and not of the employer. Such retirement would be illegal and reinstatement 50% back wages would be proper.
Management of CSI Rainy Multispeciality Hospital, Chennai vs. G. Doss and Anr. 2010 LLR 1213 (Mad. HC)

Reinstatement itself connote continuity of service.
Punjab State Electricity Board Workers’ Union, Gurdaspur vs. Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh and Ors. 2010 LLR 1244 (P. & H. HC)

Even when there is violation of sec. 6N of U.P. ID Act regarding retrenchment, reinstatement is not automatic.
Nagar Nigam, Gorakhpur vs. State of U.P. and Others. 2010 LLR 27 (All. HC)

Retrenchment presupposes compliance of sec. 25F of I.D. Act.
Anil Kumar and etc. vs. Executive Engineer, PWD, Public Health Div., Gurgaon & Anr. 2009 Lab. IC 4064 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

When retrenchment is effected under sec. 25-N of the I.D. Act, compliance of sec. 25-F & G not required.
Mrs. Malti Devi vs. Management, Of M/S, I.E.S. India Ltd. and Another. 2009 (123) FLR 926 (Jharkhand HC)

When bus conductor has no ill-intention of not issuing tickets to passengers but could not do so
because he was taking care of a seriously ill passenger and started bus without issuing tickets, termination on such ground will not be valid. Reinstatement justified.
Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Hyderabad II Depot, Hyderabad vs. K. Jogi Reddy and Anr. 2010 LLR 60 (AP HC)

In case of illegal termination of daily wager, compensation and not reinstatement with back wages
would be proper.
Nepal Son of Sh. Khichhu Ram vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Faridabad and Anr. 2010 III CLR 565


Even if retrenchment provisions are violated, reinstatement with full back wages is not the rule.
Munshi Singh S/o Balwant Singh Kushwah vs. Nagar Panchayat, Joura. 2009 LLR 1294 (MP HC)

If retrenchment is illegal, compensation in lieu of reinstatement would be proper.
Superintending Engineer, P.W.D. B & R, Bhiwani vs. Prem Kumar & Anr. 2010 LLR 83 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Discharge simplicitor will be illegal without retrenchment compensation.
Bhim Sen Sharma vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and Others. 2010(124) FLR 201 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Continuance of employee for more than 6 years without break-Compliance of S.25-F is necessary.
University of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Gopal Sharan Gupta. LLJ I 2010 P. 216 (Raj. HC)

While retrenching the workman, it is not mandatory for the employer to issue notice in Form P to the Government.
Simplex Electronics vs. Vimalaben Atmaram Yadav & Anr. 2010 LLR 514 (Guj. HC)

When factory is closed, no question of applying the priciples of provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of ID Act arises.
Ajit Kumar and Others vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Cum-Labour Court and Another. 2010(124)FLR 1072 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Retaining juniors of another unit while retrenching seniors would be breach of section 25G of ID Act.
Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Hissar and Another. 2010(124)FLR 1067 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

When no appointment was given against a sanctioned post to a daily wager, no retrenchment compensation will be payable to him at the time of termination.
State of U.P. and Another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kanpur and Another. 2010 LLR 747 (All. HC)

No interference from HC when Govt. allowed the retrenchment under sec. 25N of ID Act after considering all aspects.
Bharat Seats Employees' Union vs. The Specified Authority under section 25N of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Anr. 2010 (125) FLR 767 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

When the appointment itself being illegal and employer having not indulged in unfair labour
practice, reinstatement with back wages will not be proper even if termination was in contravention of sec. 25F of ID Act.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Narender Kumar. 2010 LLR 854 (Del. HC)

Non renewal of contract of part time Teleprinter operator, will not amount to retrenchment.
Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd. vs. K. Daglas and another. 2010 (126) FLR 484 (Kerala HC)

Relief as compensation for termination of temporary employment without non-compliance of Sec. 25F of ID Act need not to be interfered.
Union of India vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT & Anr. 2010 LLR 1159 (Del. HC)

Part-Time employee is entitled to claim protection of sec. 25-F of ID Act.
Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and Anr. vs. Laxmi Devi and Anr. 2010 III CLR 626 (HP HC)

Though bank employee worked in different branches but did not work for 240 days continuously before termination, will not be entitled for any relief under sec. 25F of the ID Act.
Bank of Baroda, Kota vs. Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kota and Another. 2010 LLR 1195 (Raj. HC)

Retrenchment compensation is to be calculated @ of 15 days per month assuming 30 days of a month and not 26 as in the case of gratuity.
Management of TANSI, Mettur Dam and Anr. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem and Others. 2010 LLR 159 (Madras HC)

Reinstatement with 50% back wages proper when worker worked for 240 days and retrenched illegally. Employer failure to produce service record will go against him.
Naveen Singh Bhadoriya vs. State of M.P. 2010 LLR 1291 (MP HC)


Even if there is 5 day week and employee is required to work on sunday or holiday, he will be entitled to over time under sec. 5 & 13 of W.B. Shop and Establishment Act.
Food Corporation of India vs. Union of India and Others. 2010 LLR 33 (Cal. HC)


When the validity of settlement is disputed and reference is made out, court should frame and decide this as preliminary issue.
Paranjape Metal Shapers (Private) Ltd. vs. Pamets Employees Union. 2010 LLR 988 (Bom. HC)

One worker even if complainant, can’t be permitted to re-agitate the matter once settled between management and majority of workers.
G.B. Hingurani vs. Vinayak Narayan Govekar and Another. 2010 LLR 1108 (Bom. HC)

It is the binding nature of the award / settlement and not the period of operation which is relevant for launching the prosecution for breach under ID Act. Limitation provision under sec. 468 of Cr. P.C. not attracted.
Sri. Vikram Kirloskar vs. State of Karnataka and Anr. 2010 LLR 1247 (Karn. HC)

An individual can’t file a complaint before magistrate under sec. 34 of the ID Act for breach of settlement or award.
Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd. vs. Regional Joint Labour Commissioner. 2010 LLR 43 (Kerala HC)

A settlement under the I.D. Act is quite sacrosanct and binds the parties.
Valliammai vs. Block Development Officer & Ors. CLR I 2010 P. 663 (Madras HC)


In the interest of exigencies of employment, employer can draft its own standing orders by departing from model S.O. and get it certified. Transfer clause in such standing orders will not be illegal.
P. Nani, Hyderabad and Anr. vs. Certifying Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Twin Cities), Hyderabad and Anr. 2010 LLR 175 (AP HC)

Haryana State Federation of Cusumers' Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Ors. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Hissar & Anr. CLR III 2009 P. 367 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Even when use of abusive language is proved, termination can’t be sustained being workman was rustic and illiterate and misconduct required to be considered in that back ground.
Om Prakash Sharma and Another vs. Bijli Cotton Mills, Hathras and Others. 2010 LLR 142 (Alla. HC)

Termination simpliciter with no stigma for absence due to prolonged ill-health cannot be termed as illegal.
E.M.E. Edwards, St. George School vs. P.O. Industrial Tribunal & Anr. LLJ IV 2009 P. 786 (Mad. HC)

Termination appropriate when employee was guilty of allowing passengers without ticket in bus.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. State Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow and Another.
2010 LLR 362 (All. HC)

Termination valid in case where workmen obtained employment by misrepresentation about his caste.
Satish Chandra Gupta vs. Steel Authority of India Limited, Bokaro & Ors. 2010 LLR 405 (Jharkhand HC)

Continuous absence for a long time by the workman will justify his termination from service even without holding of enquiry.
Subhash Ramchandra Dumbre vs. Maharashtra State Cooperative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Ltd. & Ors. 2010 II LLJ 632 (Bom. HC)

Discharge on the basis of continuous ill-health will be illegal in the absence of strong material evidence.
Somasundaram vs. Labour Court, Coimbatore and Anr. 2010 LLR 919 (Mad. HC)

Termination illegal of a chaukidar worked for two years. Entitled to compensation only and not
Director Food and Supplies Department and Others vs. Prem Kumar and Another. 2010 LLR 1006 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Suit challenging termination in civil court not maintainable.
Ninua Nath vs. State Bank of India, New Delhi and Another. 2010 LLR 1124 (All. HC)

Once termination is held illegal, generally reinstatement with back wages should be awarded.
Mahabir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation. 2010 LLR 1156 (Del. HC)

Amending age of retirement from 55 to 58 in standing orders would not be illegal. Either management or employees can move application for amendment in certified standing orders.
Devaki M. and Others vs. B.P.L. Group of Companies. 2010 LLR 801 (Kerala HC)

When service rules of a society registered under specific act are approved by the Govt., Industrial
Employment (SO) Act will not apply.
K.H.R.W.S. Employees Federation vs. K.H.R.W. Society. 2010 LLR 1075 (Kerala HC)

A driver, classified as permanent under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, will get the regular pay scale.
Rupram Yadav vs. State of M.P. and Others. 2010 LLR 1065 (MP HC)


No earned leaves for the period of suspension to an employee.
Central Bank of India vs. Shyam Lal Jain. 2010 (125) FLR 1041 (Del. HC)


When reappointed after termination, employee can not challenge the termination.
Sahebrao vs. Divisional Controller, Maharashtra Road Transport Corporation. 2009 (123) FLR 559 (Bom. HC)

When it is proved that disciplinary authority acted with pre-conceived notion to dismis a workman, such termination would be illegal and reinstatement justified.
Than Singh Chabra vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2010 LLR 65 (Delhi HC)

A daily wager can’t challenge his termination as illegal retrenchment.
Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtak vs. Jagat Singh & Anr. 2010 LLR 39 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

In the facts and circumstances of the case termination of the workman's service for prolonged absence due to daughter illness was held not justified. If an employee fails to comply with the transfer order, he will not get any wages in view of the Supreme Court ruling but at the same time, if because of court order he has been paid salary for such period, that will not be recovered back.
N. Uthandavan vs. Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, and Others. 2009 (4) LLN 588 (Mad. HC)

When transfer order is in accordance with the standard code, stay by industrial court would be
Anjuman-I-Islams M.H. Saboo Siddik College of Engineering vs. General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya Kamgar Sena & Ors. 2010 LLR 308 (Bom. HC)

When trade union executive who is science graduate responsible for manufacturing of soaps, sent for machine inspection by transfer and discharged for disobedience would be malafide and illegal.
Management of Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd. Ranipet vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore. LLJ I 2010 P. 145 (Mad. HC)

An office bearer of a trade union can’t claim immunity from transfer.
Gautam Sengupta vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. 2010 LLR 430 (Cal. HC)

Industrial tribunal can entertain a dispute of transfer.
Valsad District Co-operative Bank ltd., through Manager vs. Valsad District Co-operative Bank Employees' Union. 2010 LLR 412 (Guj. HC)

No interference by civil court in the matter of transfers of employees in private sector.
Birla Jute Industries Ltd., Chanderia & Anr. vs. Ramesh Chandra S/o Ramswarup Gattani. 2010 LLR 378 (MP HC)

Junior officer doing clerical job is a workman under ID Act. Disobeying transfer order will amount to misconduct to justify dismissal from service.
Eicher Motors Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh and Anr. 2010 LLR 418 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Decline to interfere with the transfer order, HC single bench is right.
Shyam Babu Bhatnagar vs. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. and Others. 2010 LLR 478 (All. HC)

Courts not to interfere in transfer of office bearers of union being prerogative of employer.
All India State Bank of Indore Officers' Coordination Committee vs. State Bank of Indore. 2010 LLR 553 (MP HC)


Once a trade union has given its consent for verification of membership by secret ballot, it is stopped from challenging the same in writ petition.
Petroleum Employees Union vs. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central) and Others. 2009 IV LLJ 745 (Bom. HC)

The union which establishes larger membership of workmen, management can’t denied recognition to such union.
MRF United Workers Union rep. by its General Secretary, Arakkonam vs. Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary, Labour and Employment Department and Others. 2010 LLR 165 (Madras HC)

A trade Union, with a very small minority of the Bank's workers, will not be entitled to any relief in the writ petition challenging memorandum of settlement with the Federation of the Banks.
All India Punjab National Bank Workers Federation vs. Punjab National Bank. 2010 LLR 320 (Del. HC)

Union can’t represent in industrial dispute unless workers are members of union.
Duncans Industries Ltd., Kanpur vs. Presiding Officer & Anr. 2010 LLR 403 (All. HC)

Employer has every right to remove Trade Union flag from his premises.
Kerafibertex International Pvt. Ltd. vs. Kerafibertex Employees Association and Another. 2010(125)FLR 365 (Kerala HC)

When a person is aggrieved by the election about recognition of a trade union and also fresh
elections have taken place, the remedy will lie before the civil court and not the Registrar of Trade Unions since the later has no such power to decide when there is a dispute.
Roadways Mazdoor Sabha, U.P. and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others. 2010 LLR 1021 (All. HC)


Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a dispute in connection with transfer of workmen.
Shasun Chemicals & Drugs Ltd. vs. V. Doraiswamy. FLR (123) 2009 P. 520 (Madras HC)

Courts not to interfere in transfer of office bearers of union being prerogative of employer.
General Manager, United News of India, New Delhi vs. State of Orissa and Two Others. 2010(124)FLR 994 (Orissa

Transfer of bank employee from one branch to another is legal. Such employee remaining absent for 90 days has been rightly deemed by bank as voluntary abandoned the job.
Punjab National Bank vs. Union of India & Anr. 2010 LLR 616 (Del. HC)

Transfer of a daily rated employee will be illegal being not bound by the conditions of the service containing transfer from one place to another.
Ashok Tiwari vs. M.P. Text, Book Corporation and Anr. 2010(2) MPLJ 662 (MP HC)

When the bank employee remains absent for 30 days, presumption of voluntary retirement of employee as per bi-partite settlement would be legal. No employee has a right to be posted at any place of his choice and remaining absent due to this reason has no legality.
Sydicate Bank vs. Sh. B.N. Pandey & Anr. 2010 LLR 903 (Del. HC)

When employee failed to comply with the transfer order, termination would be legal.
Shubhada Phansekar vs. Travel Corp. (India) Ltd. & Ors. 2010 LLR 1087 (Bom. HC)

Though transfer of an employee is prerogative of employer but in case of low paid / class iv employee transfer outside state should rarely be done bonafidely only when administrative exigencies require.
K.N. Singh and Another vs. G.M. (Personnel), M.M.T.C. Ltd. and Others. 2010 LLR 1172 (Orissa HC)

For non compliance of transfer order. No need of holding enquiry by employer.
General Manager, South Central Railway vs. Syed Abdul Kareem. 2010 LLR 1283 (AP HC)


When an employee has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and also received the retiral dues
accruing out of it, he will not have any right to withdraw his option.
Milind Pandharinath Behere vs. Union Bank of India, Mumbai and Others. 2010 (124) FLR 159 (Bom. HC)

VRS optee received all payments should not be reinstated.
H.M.P. Engineers Ltd., Fatehnagar vs. R. Kashi Naidu. 2010 LLR 252 (Guj. HC)

Acceptance of VRS application can’t be challenged by the employee on the ground that no exit interview was conducted.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Others vs. L.K. Khan Babi. 2010 LLR 357 (Guj. HC)

Once VRS is accepted by the employee, he can’t be allowed to avail further benefit of new VRS introduced thereafter.
Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. Smt. Basanta Bai and Another. 2010 LLR 798 (Chhattisgarh HC)

VRS application can be withdrawn before its acceptance.
Madhusudan Govindrao Trivedi vs. UCO Bank, Calcutta and Others. 2010 LLR 1052 (Bom. HC)

Application for voluntary retirement under VRS does not confer a right that the competent authority has to accept the same.
C.V. Francis vs. Union of India and Ors. 2010 LLR 29 (Jharkhand HC)


Ad-hoc employee or daily wager has no right of regularisation even if completed two years of service.
Dharamvir Singh (Shri) vs. The Management of M/s Shri Aurbindo College. 2010 LLR 92 (Delhi HC)

To determine whether a person is a workman, main criterion would be his dominant nature of duties and not absolute autonomy.
Standard Chartered Bank vs. Vandana Joshi and Another. 2010 LLR 200 (Bom. HC)

Employee who was not a workman but a highly paid executive cannot challenge the Arbitrator's award having regard to the unfair stand taken by him.
GIVO Ltd. vs. David Johnson. LLJ IV 2009 P. 748 (Del. HC)

Senior Engineer discharging supervisory duty would not be workman under ID Act.
Gulshan Rai Madan vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2010 LLR 294 (Del. HC)

A doctor engaged in diagnosis and treatment of patients will not be a workman.
Mar Baselios Medical Mission Hospital vs. Dr. Joseph Babu. 2010 LLR 376 (Kerala HC)

Area sales Manager of a pharmaceutical company will not be workman either under UP ID Act or Sales Promotion Employees Act.
M/s. Pfizer Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Others. 2010 LLR 586 (All. HC)

Junior Engineer though appointed as supervisor but not discharging supervisory duty, will be workman under ID Act.
Batuk S. Chauhan vs. Factory Manager and Another. 2010 LLR 598 (Guj. HC)

Doing clerical job and checking bills will not amount to supervisory work.
Ranbir Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II, Faridabad and Another. 2010 LLR 614 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Senior engineer is not a workman under ID Act.
S.N. Goswami vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II, Faridabad & Anr. 2010 Lab IC 1274 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

When there is no appointment letter or any other documentary evidence, personal driver of General Manager can’t be held to be an employee of the company.
Mudra Communications Ltd. vs. Ganesh Kumar and Ors. 2010 LLR 763 (Del. HC)

Even if employer does not lead any evidence that employee was not workman, it is for the employee to establish that he comes within the definition of "Workman" under ID Act.
District Administrative Committee, U.P. P.A.C.C.S.C. Services vs. Secretary-Cum-G.M. District Co-operative Bank Ltd. 2010 (126) FLR 519 (Alla. HC)

Draftsman being not equal to artist will be workman under ID Act.
Maheshwar Singh vs. Indomag Steel Technology Ltd. 2010 LLR 824 (Del. HC)

Neither nomenclature nor designation or salary is the factor to decide whether an employee is a workman or not. It is for the employer to rebut the evidence produced by the workman about his being a workman.
Chandrashekhar Chintaman Vaidya vs. National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd., Akola. 2010 LLR 926 (Bom. HC)

It is for the workman to prove the employer employee relationship and not the employer. In such absence workman will not be entitled to any relief.
Prem Nath Yadav vs. Chandra Bose & Ors. 2010 LLR 1208 (Del. HC)

Having worked for long, adhock / temporary workmen can’t claim regularisation only on this ground. Statutory procedure is also required to be followed.
Jivanbhai Gopabhai vs. Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika & 2 Ors. 2010 LLR 1229 (Guj. HC)

Business development manager drawing Rs. 32500/- per month would be workman under ID Act since neither any employees were working under him nor having any power to sanction leave.
Pam Network Ltd., Bangalore vs. B. Balakrishna. 2010 LLR 1198 (Karn. HC)

No relief can be given to workman unless court decides about 240 days working in a year of the workman.
Shyamlal S/o Chhaganlal Banjare vs. Manager, Ankur Talkies, Dewas. 2010 LLR 1194 (MP HC)

Accounts officer or assistant manager not discharging supervisory duties will be workman under
ID Act.
Kirloskar Electric Company Ltd. (M/s) vs. Government of N.C.T.of Delhi and Ors. 2010 LLR 6 (Delhi HC)

Daily rated employer is also a workman under I.D. Act.
General Manager, Chitrakoot Dham Manelal vs. P.O. Labour Court. 2010 LLR 1272 (All. HC)


Where employee of the company found having illegal possession of company property, would be dealt speedly under sec. 630 of Companies Act.
M/s. Tata Steel Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand and Another. 2010 LLR 283 (Jharkhand HC)

Employee in a private sector can challenge a clause in appointment letter as opposed to public policy only on factual foundation thereof.
Sethi Y.K. vs. BASF India Ltd. LLJ I 2010 P. 493 (Del. HC) 

No regularization of service when there exists no employer-employee relationship.
Employer in relation to Management of 'D' Ropeways of B.C.C.L. Dhanbad vs. Workmen represented by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union, Dhanbad. CLR I 2010 P. 411 (Jharkhand HC)

Employees are not entitled to increments notionally earned during the period of their unauthorized absence.
G. Venkateswarlu & Ors. vs. Regional Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. CLR I 2010 P. 607 (AP HC)

For cement industry, the Central Government is the appropriate Government and the provisions of the MRTU and PULP Act do not apply to cement industry.
Ultra Tech Cement Ltd., Chandrapur vs. Shriniwas M. Mohril. CLR I 2010 P. 656 (Bom. HC)

A worker who is suffering from diabetes and blood pressure could develop chest pain on account of stress and strain of work.
Management of HAL Helicopter Division, Bangalore vs. Smt. L. Fatima Mary & Ors. 2010 I CLR P. 232 (Karn. HC)

Employee who has put in 480 days service from March 1984 to February 1986 is held to be entitled to permanent status in service.
Management of Shri Ganpathy Mills Co. Ltd. vs. Deputy Chief Inspector of Factories. CLR I 2010 P. 665 (Madras HC) 

The appropriate Authority for dock workers is Central and not the State Government.
Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Goa vs. Mormugao Handling Agents Association, GOA. 2010 LLR 581 (Bom. HC)

Nursing allowance will also be payable to nurses/ midwives working in dispensaries being part of
employer’s hospitals.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rita Luthra & Ors. 2010 Lab IC 2160 (Del. HC)

Any person can be appointed as representative of the employer under power of attorney.
Maharashtra Employees Union vs. M.K. Metal Industries and Others. 2010 LLR 936 (Bom. HC)

When workers resided in the leprosy home of MCD unauthorisedly, though having made their jhuggis out side the leprosy home, they are not entitled to HRA. Deduction valid.
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Workmen as represented by Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union & Anr. 2010 LLR 968 (Del. HC)

Increment if is to be stopped, should be with a speaking order otherwise should be released with due date.
Prahlad Kumar Vishwakarma vs. M.P.State Textile Corporation Ltd. Through Its M.D., Bhopal and Another. 2010 LLR 1000 (MP HC)

Clerical error in employer’s address will not make him free from liability to implement the award passed against him.
Ruchika Cables Pvt. Ltd. vs. Secretary (Labour) & Anr. 2010-II LLR 853 (Del. HC)

Compulsory retirement of bank employee after enquiry for remaining absent for 536 days justified.
Mrs. Pramila David vs. The General Manager, Syndicate Bank & Ors. 2010 LLR 1041 (Madras HC)

Management decision to abolish full time post can’t be challenged.
Super Screw Private Limited vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. II, Faridabad and Anr. 2010 LLR 1163

Issue of change of date of birth can not be decided in writ.
Ramesh Balmiki @ Ramesh vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others. 2009 (123) FLR 507 (Jharkhand HC)

Promotion is not a matter of right.
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. vs. Mai Chand. LLN (4) 2009 P. 288 (Punjab & Haryana HC)

Unless acknowledgment due of registered AD post is received, service of document can’t be presumed.
Modi Sugar Mills, Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad vs. Presiding Officer- Labour Court, II, Ghaziabad and Others. 2010 LLR 273 (All. HC)

Code of Discipline in Industry can be made applicable when both the employer and the employees agree hence the High Court would not issue directions for its applicability.
Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh vs. Union of India & Ors. 2010 LLR 251 (Bom. HC)

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More