IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS delivered in August 2024

>> IMPORTANT JUDGEMENETS

Retrenchment amount would not include gratuity amount payable to the employee.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

 Lead Systems Engineer is not a workman when engaged in innovative and managerial work.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

No ESI coverage for professionals engaged for maintenance of accounts and compliances on part time.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 A person would be in a ‘permanent job’ if his salary is increased periodically.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Gratuity can be attached for recovery of government dues payable by an employee.

• TRIPURA HIGH COURT

 For availing medical leave, letter has to be submitted on that day or atleast the next day.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

 An employee cannot claim minimum wages of his family members before the High Court.

• PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

 EPF Authorities are bound to provide the employer with all relevant documents relied upon by them.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 Compensation cannot be avoided merely because notice pay has been made to the workman on closure of the establishment.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Dependents compensation would be payable when employee’s accident took place while working overtime.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

Employer to approach the Authorities and not the HC for seeking order to remit PF dues in installments.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

 Labour Ministry cannot declare proceedings under the EPF Act void.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Surrogate mothers are entitled to maternity benefits.

• ORISSA HIGH COURT

Employees are not entitled to workmen benefits if predominant function of establishment isn’t commercial.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

Being unable to attend work due to accident would not constitute as ”break in service”.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Getting leave sanctioned by an unauthorized clerk would not be proper.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

Aggrieved woman can make a complaint under POSH Act even after the company has been wound up.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

  Employees can only approach the Labour Court for claiming better gratuity.

• MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT

 Getting job on the basis of incorrect particulars is a gross misconducts justifying dismissal.

• GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Employee cannot enforce award of reinstatement on her refusal to rejoin even after repeated intimations.

• GAUHATI HIGH COURT

An unregistered Trade Union can challenge award of Tribunal/Labour Court but can’t file writ petition.

• MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT

Payments under S.17-B of ID Act cannot be refunded even if management emerges victorious.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

Authority under the Payment of Wages Act cannot determine the question of potential wages.

• GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Section 14B of the EPF Act is not violative of article 14 of the Constitution.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

PF Code cannot be allotted to an establishment merely on the basis of the inspection report.

• PATNA HIGH COURT

Start-ups cannot be inspected under the EPF Act in the first year of their being set up.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

APFC cannot challenge order of the CGIT before the High Court.

• HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

CGIT’s order of staying coercive action during pendency of appeal cannot be challenged before the HC.

• PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

  Employer cannot be prosecuted in the absence of knowledge of misappropriation of PF dues.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  EPF authority cannot unjustly retain and earn interest on amount deposited under section 7O for 10 years.

• PATNA HIGH COURT

The Central Government has exempted institutions run by religious/charitable trusts from the EPF Act.

• TELANGANA HIGH COURT

  Report of EO has to be determined w.r.t. the register of employees maintained by the establishment.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

  Employer can pray for staying attachment of bank account before CGIT during appeal’s pendency.

• TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Delay in remittance of EPF dues due to lack of knowledge of law is no ground to waive damages.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  HC cannot interfere with arrest warrant if employer failed to respond to the authority’s show cause notice.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

EO’s inspection report is not admissible in the absence of complete details of the employees.

• PATNA HIGH COURT

Educational institutions are coverable under the EPF Act.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

Mere undue hardship suffered by the employer is not sufficient cause for waiver of pre-deposit.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT