IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS delivered in April 2024

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS

 Interstate transfer clause in appointment letter is valid even when it finds no mention in standing orders.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  POSH enquiry will quashed if copy of complaint was not served to the accused.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

 Dismissal for obtaining employment on false information justifies forfeiture of gratuity.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Tribunal can take into consideration settlement while adjudicating dispute.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Complaint of maternity benefit cannot be referred as an industrial dispute to the Labour Court.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Fixed term employee cannot claim employment as a matter of right.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

 Profit motive is irrelevant to cover an establishment under the term ‘industry’.

• JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT

 Reinstatement cannot be granted when management and employee have lost trust with each other.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

 Labour Court can only adjudicate on termination if the terms of reference provide so.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Accident compensation provisions of the Code on Social Security, 2020 put employees at a dis-advantageous position.

• ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Writ petition by employees against order of private company is not maintainable.

• ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Sympathy and sentiment cannot be the basis for ordering regularization.

• ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Abandonment from duty cannot be pleaded when letters for resuming duty were not sent by the employer.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  No employer-employee relationship can be established merely on the basis of ESI card.

• HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

Test if establishment is ‘industry’ or not is based on its nature of activity and employer-employee relation.

• JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT

No appeal can be preferred to the High Court against an order of Civil Court involving ESI related matters.

• ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Amendment made to standing orders would not come into effect if the appeal is allowed by the Tribunal.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  It is not mandatory to pay PF contribution for HRA and conveyance allowance.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Bank account cannot be frozen when no complaint has been lodged before PF Authorities.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

 Damages are to be reduced when there was no willful default in contributing to the fund.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  EPF Authority cannot compel contribution by employers with regard non-identifiable workmen.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

  Pre-deposit is not mandatory for appeal against order passed under section 14B of the Act.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  EPF Authorities have to consider whether the establishment is a chronic defaulter or not.

• JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

 Tribunal is empowered to dismiss the appeal when there is non-compliance of its interim order.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  Employer cannot file criminal complaint against PF Authorities for mere pendency of 7A pro-ceeding.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Establishment cannot seek exclusion and exemption simultaneously.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

  Arbitration clause cannot be invoked for matters falling under the ambit of the ID Act.

• GUJARAT HIGH COURT

  High Court cannot execute the award passed by the Labour Court.

• UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

 Employer cannot plead voluntary absenteeism without giving notice to the employee for resuming duty.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 Tribunal cannot sit as a court of appeal while exercising its jurisdiction under section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  A building worker would be eligible for a pension on reaching 60 years of age if he has worked for a period of not less than one year.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 Workmen employed through contractor cannot be paid less wages if performing the same or similar nature of work as those workmen engaged by the principal employer.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 Submitting false documents before the enquiry officer is a grave misconduct.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 Enquiry officer cannot take into consideration an employee’s past antecedents without providing him with the opportunity of explaining them.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

Payments made under Section 17B of the Act are not refundable and cannot be directed to be refunded even if the management succeeds in its challenge to the award.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  Workman cannot be said to have been wrongfully terminated upon attaining the age of superannuation when he had received his full and final dues.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

Employer can deviate from the principle of “Last Come, First Go” by giving plausible reasons.

• ORISSA HIGH COURT

  Principal employer cannot be made liable for illegal termination in the absence of employer-employee relationship.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  Any administrative order or instruction which is contrary to the Statutory Service Rules is non-est.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

  Compulsorily retiring a workman during pendency of industrial dispute is not permissible.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  Daily wagers performing activities of harvesting would be entitled to minimum wages payable to skilled labourers.

• JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT

  Workers who had worked for more than 480 days in a 24 month period performing activities other than construction are entitled to regularization.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide matters relating to ESI.

• MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT

  Employees of private companies cannot directly approach the Supreme Court for matters relating to wages and promotion.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Where procedure of representation against the findings of the IC is provided under the Service Rules, the same shall lie before the Disciplinary Authority and not as a remedy of appeal under the POSH Act.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  Even a resigned employee can approach the Labour Court for recovery of the amount payable by the employer.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

  Attachment is improper when application for staying order is pending before Tribunal.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  Full damages are not compulsory under section 14B of the EPF Act.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

  Aadhar card is not a proof of date of birth for claiming pension.

• GUJARAT HIGH COURT

  Agents having independent code numbers are to be treated as independent employers.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

  Establishment cannot be made liable for the period before it comes into existence.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  Granting interim stay upon direction of deposit of money is not the same as pre-deposit.

• ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

  No PF dues are payable from the date of compulsory retirement till reinstatement.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

  Order for pre-deposit of amount cannot be challenged before the High Court.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

  Section 7A notice can be quashed if employer is willing to submit form for transfer of funds.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  Employer cannot relinquish its liability citing presence of sub contract when there is express provision for compensation between employer and employee.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  Findings of the Tribunal under section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act will not operate as res judicata in subsequent claim by the workman.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  When the IC comes to the conclusion that the allegation has been proved, action for sexual harassment as misconduct in accordance with the service rules is to be taken.

• GUJARAT HIGH COURT

  No-adherence of transfer cannot be pleaded by the employer when the same was not communicated to the employee.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  10 percent per annum is the maximum rate at which interest may be granted on delayed payment of gratuity.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

  Promotion cannot be granted to a workman during period of punishment.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

  There would be no absorption of contract labour unless it is clear that they belong to the category for which contract labour system has been abolished.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  Interest over arrears is a service benefit accrued to an employee and payable in terms of the settlement.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

  Matter pertaining to discharge/dismissal is to be referred to the Labour Court and not the Industrial Tribunal.

• ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

  Service of an advocate falls under ‘a contract of personal service’ where the client exercises direct control over him.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  A hotel would come under the ambit of the definition of ‘factory’ under the ESI Act.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

  Subsequent payment of due amount won’t absolve employer from penalty imposed for non deposit of ESI contributions.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT