240 days’ service in a calendar year by a bank employee should be in one branch.
LLR Supreme Court 113

Only occupier, not all Directors, are to be prosecuted for factory offence.
LLR Pat. HC 186

A Director, who had resigned, can’t be held liable for provident fund dues.
LLR Karn. HC 158

‘Calendar year’ and ‘block of twelve months’ are interchangeable. 
LLR Supreme Court 113

On judicial review, High Court should not sit as Appellate Authority.
LLR Supreme Court, 176

Dismissal of a Bank Officer should not have been interfered by the learned Single Judge.
LLR Supreme Court 172

An interim order by Tribunal, can’t be challenged.
LLR Supreme Court 115

Challenging coverage under Provident Funds without impleading employees not legal.
LLR Mad. HC 126

Provident Fund contributions not attracted on compensation to a reinstated employee.
LLR Mad. HC 133

Declaring ‘protected workmen’ is not automatic process. 
LLR Ker. HC 166

Recovering Provident Fund dues without prescribed procedure is set aside.
LLR Bom. HC 122

An enquiry not necessary when removal as per conditions of appointment.

A bank employee abandons job for his absence more than prescribed period.
LLR Raj. HC 140

Adjudicator, not High Court, to decide disputed ‘employer-employee’ relationship.
LLR Cal. HC 148

Industrial dispute, without espousal, not maintainable.
LLR Cal. HC 148

No place, for generosity, while imposing punishment. 
LLR Raj. HC 143

Gratuity cannot be withheld for want of no-objection certificate and for non-vacating of quarter.

Gratuity could not be withheld subject to conditions laid down in the statute.

Back-wages not proper when the workman did not make any effort to find employment during interregnum. 
LLR Guj. HC 200

Enquiry to be interfered only when it is perverse.
LLR Gau. HC 201

Labour Court can’t travel beyond terms of reference.
LLR Del. HC 191

Consultant doctors providing services for some hours not to be covered under Provident Funds Act.
LLR Ker. HC 165

Taking cognizance of factory inspector’s complaint by a Magistrate in filling up blanks to be quashed. 
LLR Jhar. HC 154

Dismissal of workman for prolonged absence is proper.
LLR Karn. HC 161

Reinstatement appropriate when transfer is illegal.
LLR Mad. HC 130

Supervisor, exercising control upon other employees, not a ‘workman’. 
LLR Guj. HC 123

Enquiry by biased Enquiry Officer to be vitiated.
LLR P&H HC 138

Recovering EPF dues be only by adopting prescribed procedure. 
LLR Karn. HC 158

Abandonment rightly presumed on 22 months’ absence. 
LLR Del. HC 178

Holding of enquiry for long absence not imperative.
LLR Del. HC 178

Reinstatement for a long absentee not justified.
LLR Del. HC 178

Rejection of review application by the EPF Authority not proper merely because it is in the prescribed form.
LLR Bom. HC 181

It is for employer to decide as to when and where an employee should be transferred.
LLR Mad. HC 183

Assaulting and abusing a superior will amount to serious misconduct.
LLR All. HC 116

Development Officer, in an Insurance Company, will be a ‘workman’.

Conveyance allowance is rightly held not ‘wages’ to attract ESI contribution.
LLR Mad. HC 172

Transfer to new employer without employee’s consent not proper. 
LLR Mad. HC 130

A contractor, employing less than 20 workmen, has not to obtain licence.
LLR Cal. HC 148

Holding enquiry, without prescribed procedure, not legal.
LLR P&H HC 138

Non-disclosure of material information in the application for employment is a serious dereliction. 
LLR Raj. HC 143

Apprentices under uncertified standing orders to be covered under Provident Fund Act.
LLR Mad. HC 126

Mere submission of a list of “protected workmen” is not enough for declaration.
LLR Ker. HC 166

Evidence for proving misconduct can be produced if there is a request by employer.
LLR P&H HC 138

Reducing punishment by Labour Court must have reasons.
LLR Raj. HC 143

Termination of a daily wager, who completed 240 days’ service will be illegal if retrenchment compensation not offered.
LLR P&H HC 136

Court interferes with transfer only when tainted with malafide. 
LLR Mad. HC 183

For coverage under ‘Chemical Industry’, as enumerated in Schedule I of EPF&MP Act, no notification is required. 
LLR Guj. HC 197

Claim for gratuity upheld when employer failed to issue form ‘M’.
LLR Mad. HC 203

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites linkedin More