IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS delivered in March 2024

>> IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Threatening female Enquiry Officer is a serious misconduct justifying dismissal.

• Delhi High Court

Setting aside of ex-prate award is proper when there were sufficient reasons for manage-ment’s absence.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  Conviction not necessary to be denied the status of protected workman.

• Karnataka High Court

  Payment of gratuity cannot be directed with reference to CLRA Act.

• Calcutta High Court

  No employee can claim leave of absence as a matter of right.

• Karnataka High Court

  Findings of disciplinary enquiry can be challenged even after taking voluntary retirement.

• Bombay High Court

  Industrial Tribunal cannot deal with the matter of delay in payment of salary or increments.

• Madhya Pradesh High Court

  No Exemption under the Cess Act by taking shelter of applicability of Factories Act.

• HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

  Even hearsay evidence can be considered in a domestic enquiry.

• Bombay High Court

  Project engineer is not a ‘workman’ under Industrial Disputes Act.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  ESI Authorities cannot initiate recovery without supplying the order determining the amount.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

  Employer’s visiting card is not a sufficient evidence to prove ‘ ’employer-employee’ ‘ relationship.

• Delhi High Court

  Trainees, not employed as apprentices or under standing orders, are employees under EPF Act.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  Damages must be reduced for the society which was running under the loss of Rs.97 lakh.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

Order passed under sec. 14B and 7Q would be composite in the absence of separate notice or summons.

• ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

  Recovery proceedings can be initiated only against the Managing Director as he is the employ-er.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Tribunal can enlarge period of limitation under Rule 21 of EPFAT Rules on HC’s direc-tion.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Where the default was owing to delay of above 1000 days, fixing the damages at 25% is proper.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

Writ Court cannot interfere with show cause notice issued by EPF Authorities.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

Initial burden is on union to prove that the employees had been engaged from the claimed dates.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

Enquiry conducted by EPF Authority is deemed to be a judicial proceeding.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 Investing amounts in other entities managed by family members is no proof of unity of owner-ship.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

 EPF Authority is not precluded from initiating new proceedings for previously determined peri-od.

• GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Payment of PF dues in arrears can be allowed even in absence of such provision in EPF Act.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Test of proof of charge in a domestic enquiry is preponderance of probabilities.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  It is outside the scope of the industrial adjudicator to issue a mandatory direction to replace temporary posts with permanent posts.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

In respect of every ‘undertaking’ of same company, there can be as many recognised unions corresponding to the number of undertakings of such company.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Reference made by the appropriate Government cannot be vitiated on hyper technical grounds.

• ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 There would be no employer-employee relationship between the principal employer and contractual workers when the contractor controlled aspects like leave and holidays.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Relief of compensation instead of reinstatement would be proper when the employee had sought employment elsewhere.

• ORISSA HIGH COURT

  Minimum wages cannot be the only factor for determining accident compensation.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

The employer is bound to maintain records specifying the work performed and receipts given to the persons employed by him.

• HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

  Mere procedural defect in complying with provisions of section 25F would not lead to reinstatement.

• CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

Appropriate Government must form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute before making the reference.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  Proceedings under Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act, are not to be decided by the Court like a complete reference before it.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Appropriate Government should refer the dispute when it was claimed that the settlement had been terminated.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  Complaint against factory manager will be unsustainable where reply given after show cause notice was not considered.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Employer can dismiss the employee even after his attaining the age of superannuation when the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him while he was in service.

• ORISSA HIGH COURT

Burden of proving terminated employee’s gainful employment lies on the management.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

  The Act is applicable both on working journalists and non-journalist newspaper employees.

• ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

 Order issued for terminating the services of an employee should be specific in nature.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Interest on belated deposit of PF dues cannot be waived off.

• MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT

 Termination of services without providing opportunity to show cause or holding disciplinary enquiry is unjustified.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages is proper when no domestic enquiry was conducted but the employee admitted the misconduct.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Labour Court does not become functus officio on the publication of the Award.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  Waiver of 50% of damages levied under ESI Act is justified when the establishment was suffering from financial stringency.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  Retrenchment cannot ordinarily amount to alteration in the conditions of service.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

Appeal against ICC’s report cannot be made directly to the High Court.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  For reinstatement, the period not spent on duty must be construed for the purposes of back wages only and not for the purposes of seniority, promotion etc.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 Lawyers engaged for a specific period are not entitled to maternity benefits.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

Factory owner doesn’t cease to be an occupier if he sublets his premises for construction purposes to a third party.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

A flat owner’s association is not an “industry” under the ID Act.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

A person can continue to remain a member of a trade union after retirement if resolution is passed to such effect.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Initial onus to prove relationship of employee and employer is always on the workmen.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 Trade Union cannot refuse to furnish details sought by employer.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  Minimum wages cannot be claimed under section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Employer is not required to submit alternative restructuring plan for closure of business.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Matter to be remitted to Labour Court when document was placed for first time before Higher Court.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence in Employees’ Compensation proceedings.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 It is not necessary for the employer to prove commission of any misconduct in the past.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  Predetermination of damages/interest and conducting of hearing as mere formality is illegal.

• ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 It would be open for establishments to approach HC for urgent orders in absence of Presiding Officer.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Mere remittance of EPF dues does not create any ‘ ’employer-employee’ ‘ relationship.

• PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Exemption under EPF Act is not available when employer’s rules are not more beneficial than the Act.

• GAUHATI HIGH COURT

 Damages can be reduced or waived off by reasoned order.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Provisions of section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act are inevitable provisions.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

 Deliveryman is not a ‘workman’ under the ID Act.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 It is mandatory for the employer to file representation before the Authority if an employee’s gratuity is being withheld due to disciplinary enquiry.

• CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

 The workman can only call upon the employer to produce before the Court the nominal muster roll for the given period, the letter of appointment etc.

• JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT