.
 

.

 
   

 
JUDGMENTS OF FEB 2012
  • 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.
    LLR HP HC 151
  • 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.
    LLR MP HC 187
  • Gratuity could not be withheld subject to conditions laid down in the statute.
    LLR MP HC 187
  • 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’.
    LLR MP HC 182
  • 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
  

.
  • An employee cannot be retired in the absence of specific clause in the appointment letter.
  • If the terms and conditions are not specified in the appointment letter, an employee will note be bound to abide by subsequent conditions.
  • Before availing leave, an employee has to apply and get it sanctioned.
  • When an employee is appointed for a fixed period, no notice or compensation will be payable on his termination.
  • An employee cannot be transferred only when there is a specific clause in the appointment letter.
  • Once a benefit is extended to an employee, it cannot be withdrawn by the employer.
  • House Rent Allowance and overtime payment does not attract provident funds contributions.
  • Absence/late coming, when habitual will justify dismissal from service.
  
         
Copyright © 2006 Labour Law Reporter. All rights reserved
This Website is Mentained by Webnet International