IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS delivered in September 2024

>> IMPORTANT JUDGEMENETS

  Termination in exercise of contractual right is not per se dismissal or removal.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  Provisions of Maternity Benefit Act would be attracted even if the woman was on probation.

• HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

  Workman cannot challenge termination before the Civil Court and the Labour Court parallelly

• GUJARAT HIGH COURT

  Tribunal cannot reduce punishment merely on the basis of the family background of the delinquent.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  Principal employer cannot be held liable for payment of wages without first fastening liability upon the contractor.

• JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT

  No violation of natural justice when both sides were allowed to engage lawyers in the enquiry.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

  Application under section 33C(2) of the ID Act can be made for claiming bonus.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  Territorial jurisdiction will be at the last working place even if termination was served in some other place

• ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

  A works contract for construction of road is not a contract for supply of labour under the CLRA Act.

• JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT

  Police can take action against the striking workers in case functioning of the factory is hampered.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  Scope of reference cannot be sought to be amended by the workers.

• GUJARAT HIGH COURT

  Order passed by the ESI authorities without serving any notice to the establishment would be set aside.

• ORISSA HIGH COURT

  The party who accepts payment under full and final settlement is not entitled to challenge it.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  Employer cannot be made liable for breach of settlement in the absence of any such settlement.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  Dismissal to be set aside when disciplinary authority didn”t give disagreement notice with the enquiry officer.

• RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

  Workman cannot be reinstated in an establishment which has been closed for 22 years.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  Court can go behind the termination order to determine if it is stigmatic.

• SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

  Compensation paid by employer on direction of the Court cannot be refunded even if award is set aside.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  EPF Authority is bound to consider the contention that gross salary of employees is above ceiling limit.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  EPF will be liable to be remitted on holiday wages made to the employees.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

  Appeal cannot be entertained unless the amount determined under section 7-Q is deposited.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  EPF Authorities can recover entire amount if the employer fails to pay any one installment.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  EO’s report will be accepted when the employer did not discredit it even after sufficient opportunity.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

  Reducing damages imposed on a non-profit trust, when entire amount had already been paid, is proper.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  High Court can restore appeal before the Tribunal when it was dismissed in default.

• TELANGANA HIGH COURT

  EPF Authorities to not initiate coercive action when appeal is pending before the vacant CGIT.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

  Interest will have to be paid when employer fails to send claim application of the leaving employee.

• ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

  High Court can permit filing of appeal after maximum limitation when summons were not served.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  Attendance allowance and performance allowance are excluded from ”basic wages” under the EPF Act

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  Mere common ownership when salaries were paid separately wouldn”t lead to clubbing of establishments.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  Order passed under 7Q of the EPF Act, without providing personal hearing, is illegal.

• Telangana HIGH COURT

  EPF authority cannot attach personal bank account of the Director for recovery of EPF dues.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  Show cause notice issued by EPF Authorities without jurisdiction will be quashed.

• CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT

  Employer is not liable to pay EPF dues to workers of the contractor when they have not been identified.

• TELANGANA HIGH COURT

  Condition of depositing some amount for staying orders under sections 14B and 7Q is valid if made to protect the interest of employees.

• ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

  Assessment would be set aside in the absence of finding about joint declaration for coverage.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT