Apprentice :
Board can't adopt different yard
stick for same category of apprentices for their appointment after completion
of apprenticeship. When others appointed, few one can't be left behind.
Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board and Another. vs. D. Venktesan and Another. 2011 (128) FLR 949 (Mad. HC)
Employment Exchange (CNV) Act
There is nothing in the
Employment Exchange (CNV) Act which obligates the employer to appoint only
those who are sponsored by Employment Exchange.
Union of India and others vs. Ms.
Pritilata Nanda. 2011 (128) FLR 838 (S.C.)
It is essential for the public
sector establishments to notify every vacancy under employment exchanges (CNV)
Act 1959.
Thota Srinivasa Rao vs. Director,
Telugu Academy, Hyderabad and Another. 2011 LLR 138 (A.P. HC)
Equal Remuneration :
When an establishment is not an
'industry' under ID Act, Contract Labour Act will not apply but Equal
Remuneration Act will be applicable on such establishment.
Leelaben Parmer and Others vs.
Physical Research Laboratory and Another. 2011 LLR 813 (Guj. HC)
Criminal complaint under equal
remuneration act against MD and CRM of IRCTC Limited (Railway catering) not responsible for conduct of business of the company is liable to be quashed P.K. Goel And Another vs. Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)-I, Bangalore. 2011 LLR 410 (Karn. HC)
Habitual Absence :
When workman remained absent for
57 days during four months and also habitually absenting, striking off the name
would be proper.
Workman Sri P.C. Manjhi vs.
Management of Bokaro Steel Plant. 2011 LLR 846 (Jhar. HC)
No reinstatement to the workman
who is found guilty of habitual absence from duty. Past record of various
punishments on account of habitual absence cannot be ignored. Reinstatement set
aside.
Management of Bokaro Steel Plant,
A Subsideary of M/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. State of Jharkhand and
Another. 2011 LLR 847 (Jhar. HC)
Industry :
Rajghat Samadhi committee will
not be Industry under the ID Act.
Kanhaiya Lal vs. Union of India
and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 109 (Delhi HC)
Integrated Child Development
Services Scheme of Maharashtra state is an industry and the Anganwadi Sevikas
and helpers are workmen under the ID Act.
Vidya vs. State of Maharashtra
and another. 2011 (129) FLR 556 (Bom. HC)
Central council for research in
Ayurveda & Siddha is "industry" under ID Act.
Central Council for Research in
Ayurveda & Siddha vs. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur & Anr.
2011 LLR 469 (Raj. HC)
Lay-Off
For commencement of continuance
of lay-off permission through application under Section 25-M(1) of Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 had to be made but the mills did neither apply for nor
obtained the said permission hence the claim for wages for the alleged period
of lay-off has been rightly allowed.
Management of Cambodila Mills,
Coimbatore and Another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and
Others. 2011-III LLJ 157 (Mad. HC)
Limitation :
Labour Court would be treated as
a court under limitation act.
Jankiram Pandharinath Thorat vs.
Akot Municipal Council and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 427 (Bom. HC)
under sec. 33C(2) of ID Act. M/s.
Bhartiya Cutler Hammer Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-II Faridabad
and Others. 2010 (127) FLR 1086 (P & H HC) 770 (P & H HC)
Lock Out :
Once it has been accepted by the
workmen themselves that they had indulged in violence, a declaration of lock
out cannot be held to be illegal.
Punjab Tractors Workers Union vs.
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab, Chandigarh. 2011 (131) FLR 503
(P&H HC)
No Work-No Pay :
If the workmen are not allowed to
work by the employer, the principle "no work no pay" will not apply.
Panipat Co-op. Sugar Mills Ltd.
vs. Presiding fficer, Labour Court & Ors. CLR II 2011 P. 292 (P&H HC)
Part Time Employee
For reckoning the length of
service in context of sec. 25F of the ID Act engagement of part time typist on
intermittent occasions can't be counted as service. Not entitled to retrenchment
benefits.
G.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd.,
Hyderabad and Another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, A.P., Hyderabad
and Another. 2011 LLR 801 (AP HC)
Probationer :
“Unsatisfactory service” will not be penal in case of termination of the probationer.
Paramjit Singh vs. Director,
Public Instructions & Ors. 2011 LLR 116: 2011 (128) FLR 495 (S.C.)
The days put in by the workman on
his probation can't be considered for counting 240 days for the concept of
continuous service. Termination of probationer as per his terms of appointment
will not be termed as retrenchment.
Management of Apparel Export
Promotion Council vs. Surya Prakash. 2011 LLR 333 (Del. HC)
Promotion :
Employee can't be promoted merely on the basis of his claim that he was performing highly skilled work and possess minimum qualification.
U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Imtiaz Ahmad and Another. 2011 LLR 977 (Allahabad HC)
Promotion
Employee can't be promoted merely on the basis of his claim that he was performing highly skilled work and possess minimum qualification.
U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Imtiaz Ahmad and Another. 2011 LLR 977 (Allahabad HC)
Punishment :
The findings of the enquiry officer having being upheld by court, no reason why the employee could escape the penalty of dismissal from the service.
Punchmahal Vadodra Gramin Bank
Vs. D.M. Parmar 2011 (131) FLR 1019 (SC)
It is well settled that
punishment is primarily a function of the Management
I.N.T.U.C., Bhagalpur and Another
vs. Union of India and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 989 (Patna HC)
Though there is no limitation for
making reference provided in the law but it ought to be made within reasonable
time. Employer must show that such delayed reference has caused prejudice to
him.
Bank of India vs. Union of India
and Others. 2011 (130) FLR 48 (Patna HC)
The Government can refuse to make
a reference to the Labour Court or Industrial Court if the dispute is raised after
a long delay.
Natvargiri Shivgiri Goswami vs.
Union of India & Ors. FLR (129) 2011 P. 974 (Guj. HC)
When conciliation proceedings
were pending, no order to refer the dispute could be made by the High Court in
writ petition.
SPIC Pharma Employees Union
(SPEU) Cuddalore vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. LLJ (III) 2011 P. 72 (Mad.
HC)
The appropriate government can
very well decline to refer the dispute when raised after 20 years.
M. Kadirvelu vs. Union of India,
rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi & Anr. 2011 LLR 534
(Mad. HC)
Refering a dispute by Govt.
raised by workman after about 9 years is liable to be quashed.
All India Institute of Medical
Sciences vs. Sanjay Kumar & Anr. 2011 LLR 398 (Del. HC)
Workman can raise industrial
dispute From The Court Room Important Labour Judgments 2011 and the Courts
rarely interfere with the quantum of punishment.
Sate Bank of Mysore and others
etc. vs. M.C. Krishnappa. 2011 (130) FLR 1082 (SC)
Denial of salary on principle of
“no work no pay” and termination of service on account of unauthorised absence
are not two punishment.
State of U.P. and others vs.
Madhav Prasad Sharma. 2011 (128) FLR 915 (S.C.)
Reference :
Govt. is not to see the delay in raising the dispute, but whether the dispute existed or not while making reference.
Kuldeep Singh vs. G.M.,
Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre and another. 2011(128) FLR
121; 2011 I CLR 5 (S.C.)
Reference of a dispute for
increase of salary by the employee of a temple, not against the appropriate
person/employer, will not be justified hence the claim is liable to be quashed.
Sri Nathji Bhandar and Another
vs. State of West Bengal and Others. 2011 (129) FLR 1086 (Cal. HC)
Appropriate government, in
exercise of its administrative powers, can decline to refer a dispute for
adjudication when there is perversity and inordinate delay without any
justifiable explanation. even after receiving VRS benefits though management
can object the legality of the reference before tribunal.
M/s. Greaves Cotton Ltd. vs.
Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Ors. 2011 LLR 315 (Del. HC)
State Govt. power for refering
the dispute is administrative one and not a judicial or quasi-judicial.
Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union,
Dhanbad vs. Union of India & Ors. 2011 LLR 304 (Jharkhand HC)
Govt. while declining to refer
the dispute should records reasons for the same. Govt. can't assume power and
jurisdiction of adjudicator.
Kartar Singh and Ors. vs. Joint
Secretary to Government of Haryana and Ors. 2011 LLR 859 (P& H HC)
Regularisation :
When canteen is run by Hotel Corporation of India in the premises of Air India, dismissed employees of HCI can't be treated as employees of Air India and any such regularisation would be illegal.
Balwant Rai Saluja & Ors. vs.
Air India Ltd. & Ors. 2011 LLR 739 (Del. HC)
Daily wager has no right to ask
for restoration of status as he has no status. No regularisation of such
employee.
Sushil Kumar Srivastava vs.
Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand and Others. 2011 LLR 309 (Uttarakhand HC)
Once enquiry is conducted,
management can't take plea that workman was temporary and no enquiry was
required.
In the absence of any reference
on the point, tribunal can't grant regularization to the workman.
General Manager (Telecom), Nagpur
& Ors. vs. Zarir S/o Pesi Mawalwala, Nagpur & Ors. 2011 LLR 1020 (Bom.
HC)
Reinstatement :
Merely because the appointment was contrary to the recruitment rules, reinstatement with back-wages can't be denied to the employee who was appointed on consolidated salary and continued to work for two years and termination was found illegal.
Devinder Singh vs. Municipal
Council, Sanaur. 2011 LLR 785 (S.C.)
Reinstatement by the employer.
Nagar Palika Nigam, Khandwa vs. Tulsiram and Another. 2011 LLR 405 (MP HC)
Even though the retrenchment may
be illegal and unjustifiable, that itself does not create a right of
reinstatement with full employment benefits and back wages.
Kripa Ram vs. Secretary H.P.
State Board. LLN (1) 2011 P. 264 (MP HC)
Non payment of retrenchment compensation
at the time of termination does not mean that such workman will be automatically
reinstated.
National Small Industries,
Kashmipur vs. Labour Court, Haldwani and Another. 2011 LLR 419 (Uttarakhand HC)
Compensation instead of
reinstatement is justified when employee was terminated according to terms of
appointment though Section-25F was not complied with.
Ramesh Singh Rajput vs. Castrol
India Ltd. and Another. 2011 LLR 505 (Del. HC)
Striking off name of workman from
roll due to absence without notice or retrenchment compensation will be
illegal.
Compensation instead of
reinstatement would be proper.
Mayank Desai vs. Sayaji Iron
& Engg. Co. Ltd.& Anr. 2011 LLR 536 (Guj. HC)
In case of illegal termination, compensation
in lieu of reinstatement and back wages will be proper.
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.
vs. Umendi & Ors. 2011 LLR 581 (Chattis. HC)
Sushil Kumar Srivastava vs.
Public Service Tribunal, Uttarakhand and Others. 2011 LLR 309 (Uttarakhand HC)
Once enquiry is conducted,
management can't take plea that workman was temporary and no enquiry was
required. In the absence of any reference on the point, tribunal can't grant
regularization to the workman.
General Manager (Telecom), Nagpur
& Ors. vs. Zarir S/o Pesi Mawalwala, Nagpur & Ors. 2011 LLR 1020 (Bom.
HC)
Employees appointed as assistants
temporarily by LIC in various branches will not be entitled to regularisation.
Hashmuddin and Others vs. Life
Insurance Corporation of India and Others. 2011 LLR 511 (All. HC)
Resignation :
Acceptance of resignation before completion
of notice period will not be invalid even though it was stated in the resignation
that it will be accepted after three months.
Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. Labour
Court, Dehradun and Another. 2011 LLR 493 (All. HC)
Resignation of an employee
accepted on the same day by the school managing committee will not be construed
to be given voluntarily when employee did not have any time to withdraw.
Manager, Shri Sanatan Dharam
Saraswati Bal Mandir School & Anr. vs. Shri K.P. Bansal & Ors. 2011 LLR
605 (Delhi HC)
It is the discretion of the management
to accept the resignation or treat it under VRS. Rejecting application of the
employee to treat his resignation under VRS by management can't be said to be
malafide.
Dr. C. Madhusoodan vs. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. and Another. 2011 LLR 1046 (Karn. HC)
In the absence of any verson by
the employer against the plea of employee that she was forced to resign,
reinstatement rightly awarded against such illegal termination.
M/s. Jagran Ltd., Meerut Through
its Director vs. Labour Court (II, U.P.), Meerut, and Others. 2011 LLR 1084
(All. HC)
To be treated as a letter of
resignation with in the eyes of law, language should be un-conditional without
reflecting any pressure.
Gujarat Water Supply & Sewage
Board and Anr. vs. Mahavirsinh Balapbha Gohil. 2011 LLR 1259 (Guj. HC)
When there is no provision of
waiver of notice period, instant acceptance of resignation will not come in the
way of withdrawal of resignation by the employee after four days of submission.
P. Gayathri vs. Secretary,
Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachar Sabha, Hyderabad, and Another. 2011 LLR 139 (A.P.
HC)
When the resignations were in
employee handwriting and received all legal dues with extra amounts, can't be
said that resignations were obtained under coercion and were invalid.
Management of Madura Coats Pvt.
Ltd. and Anr. vs. Presiding officer, labour court, Tirunelveli 2011 I CLR 298
(Mad. HC)
In the absence of any proof of
obtaining resignation under coercion, no industrial dispute is maintainable.
Management of Madura Coats Pvt.
Ltd. and another vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Tirunelveli and others.
2011(128) FLR 1040 (Mad. HC)
Daily-rated employees, once
regularised, would become entitled to all service benefits.
Din Bandhu vs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Bhatinda, and Another. 2011 (130) FLR 469 ( P&H HC)
Resignation submitted after
developing an under standing can't be termed as involuntary or retrenchment.
Shuddhodhan and Others vs. Member
Industrial Court, Nagpur, 2011 (128) FLR 412 (Bom. HC)
After completion of stipulated
period of service in bond, employer can't compel the employee to be with him in
service.
Damodar Valley Corporation &
Ors. vs. Souvik Sarkar and Ors. 2011 LLR 174 (Cal. HC)
