.
 

.

Diary 2010

HRD & LABOUR LAW REFERENCER
CUM
DIARY - 2011
+
Chart with a 2011 calendar

   

 
JUDGMENTS OF JAN 2012

  • An employee, guilty of theft, is not entitled to any relief in adjudication.
    LLR Supreme Court 8
  • A trade union can’t oppose promotion on the plea that it will reduce its membership.
    LLR Supreme Court 79
  • No reinstatement to an employee who loses management’s confidence.
    LLR Supreme Court 8
  • A workman cannot be forced to work with a different employer without his consent.
    LLR Supreme Court 76
  • Reinstatement is not a rule in every case of wrongful termination.
    LLR Supreme Court 1
  • Nature and scope of departmental enquiry vis-à-vis criminal proceedings are different.
    LLR Supreme Court 8
  • HRA, overtime, bonus, commission, washing allowances will not attract EPF contributions.
    LLR Del. HC 22
  • Assaulting of superior at a workplace is gross indiscipline to justify dismissal.
    LLR AP HC 53
  • A legal advisor on monthly retainership not a ‘workman’.
    LLR P&H HC 26
  • Probationers are not entitled to demand reason for their termination.
    LLR P&H HC 46
  • Cess on building construction is charged for special service rendered to individual’s agency.
    LLR Supreme Court 1
  • Special allowance, DA, conveyance and other allowances paid to all employees would be treated as basic wages.
    LLR MP HC 42
  • Ex-parte enquiry justified in the absence of stay.
    LLR Mad. HC 34
  • Reinstatement with full back-wages is not a rule when termination is held illegal.
    LLR All. HC 59
  • Habitual absence of the workman amounts to grave misconduct.
    LLR Karn. HC 70
  • Denial of representation in enquiry, by a Union leader violates principles of natural justice.
    LLR Mad. HC 95
  • He, who alleges unfair labour practice, must plead and prove.
    LLR Supreme Court 79
  • Punishments of dismissal are to be rarely interfered by Labour Court under section 11A of I.D. Act.
    LLR AP HC 53
  • Deductions can be challenged before Authority under Payment of Wages Act only when wages are less than prescribed ceiling.
    LLR AP HC 48
  • Workers or Union must be impleaded while challenging coverage under ESI Act.
    LLR MP HC 73
  • Compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate when workman has worked for 240 days before termination.
    LLR Supreme Court 1
  • Workers have a right to seek promotion.
    LLR Supreme Court 79
  • A worker can’t be denied representation in enquiry by a union leader when employer is represented by a legally trained person.
    LLR Mad. HC 95
  • If dismissal is disproportionate to misconduct, reinstatement with consequential benefits should result.
    LLR Del. HC 86
  • A workman not opting for service on change of ownership will be entitled to retrenchment compensation from transferor.
    LLR Supreme Court 76
  • A shift supervisor is not a ‘workman’.
    LLR Mad. HC 30
  • Discharge of a bus driver for rash driving and causing accident not justified.
    LLR Guj. HC 43
  • Payment of last drawn wages u/s 17B of the I.D. Act are not refundable.
    LLR Del. HC 16
  • Failure of contractor’s workers to prove that they are directly appointed will not make the contract as sham.
    LLR Del. HC 16
  • Preliminary findings can’t be challenged in writ petition.
    LLR Mad. HC 34
  • Certifying Officer should ensure that a proper mechanism for representation of workman in enquiry is provided while certifying the Standing Orders.
    LLR Mad. HC 95
  • Principles of natural justice not violated for non-supply of documents with the charge-sheet when charges are admitted.
    LLR Del. HC 89
  • Labour Court should not have modified dismissal of workman for habitual absence.
    LLR Karn. HC 70
  • Requirement of “proof beyond doubt” is not necessary in departmental inquiry.
    LLR Guj. HC 43
  • Writ petition against preliminary findings of the lower court is not entertainable.
    LLR Mad. HC 34
  • An order of reference can’t be challenged in High Court.
    LLR Del. HC 19
  • Determination of money towards damages for delayed payment of provident fund must be clear.
    LLR Mad. HC 37
  • Manpower suppliers will have the principal relationship for provident fund purposes.
    LLR Del. HC 22
  • A plea, not taken before the concerned authorities under an EPF Act, not tenable before Reviewing Authority.
    LLR MP HC 42
  • Creating avenues for promotion of the workmen would not require notice of change.
    LLR Supreme Court 79
  • Disciplinary proceedings not vitiated for non-supply of documents if no prejudice has been suffered.
    LLR Del. HC 89
  • High Court, in writ jurisdiction, not to interfere in factual findings of the Labour Court.
    LLR Mad. HC 30
  • A dispute can be referred when employer denies ‘employer-employee’ relationship.
    LLR Del. HC 19
  • EPF Appellate Tribunal has to consider all relevant aspects instead of passing stereotype order.
    LLR Bom. HC 14
  • Standard of proof required in criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt but not in domestic enquiry.
    LLR Supreme Court 8
  • An industrial settlement aims at industrial peace and harmony.
    LLR Supreme Court 79
  • Dismissal of a Bank Branch Manager is not justified when only one of 4 charges partly proved.
    LLR Del. HC 86
  • Reference order is an administrative function.
    LLR Del. HC 19
  • Offering of promotion with open mind will not be treated as unfair labour practice.
    LLR Supreme Court 79

 

.


  • 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