October 2024

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS delivered in October- 2024
>> IMPORTANT JUDGEMENETS

 Labour Court cannot pass an interim order restraining employer from imposing punishment.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

 Offices of Chartered Accountants and Lawyers are not covered under the ambit of the ESI Act.

• CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Forfeiture of gratuity is illegal when no FIR was registered and allegations were not proved be-fore Court.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

All female employees working in private sector are entitled to Maternity Leave of 180 days.

• RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Tribunal cannot give findings on the validity of the enquiry when enquiry officer’s report was not on record.

• GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Employee would not be entitled to promotion even when he was found guilty of a minor mis-conduct.

• JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH HIGH COURT

Contractor is liable to pay accident compensation of an employee of the sub-contractor.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

No show cause notice is to be issued before terminating a probationer.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

 Financial benefits subsumed by VRS would not be available after cessation of employment.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

 Appointment letter cannot be disregarded only because of absence of employee’s signature.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

Dismissal is appropriate when misconduct was admitted before Enquiry Officer and misappro-priated amount was deposited.

• GUJARAT HIGH COURT

Transfer cannot be made under the POSH Act without ICC’s recommendation.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Proportionality of punishment cannot be considered when only the show cause notice has been issued.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  Compensation policy cannot exclude the applicability of the Employees’ Compensation Act.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

  Lay-off compensation, if not part of VRS package, can be claimed when entitlement arose during service.

• DELHI HIGH COURT

Factory supervisors would not be vicariously liable when they were not responsible for work-ers’ safety.

• KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Dismissal of approval application filed after more than 20 days from the termination date is proper.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

 It is not mandatory to consider the contentions of contract labour before drawing up a contract.

• Karnataka High Court

Disputes regarding EPF contributions are not arbitrable.

• TRIPURA HIGH COURT

  EPF Authorities cannot keep enquiries under sections 14B and 7Q pending for 15 years.

• PATNA HIGH COURT

Rejection of review application would not forfeit right of appeal against the 7A order.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

EPFO to prove the establishment’s having 20 employees after the employer has dis-charged initial burden.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

 Recovery of PF amounts due covered under a settlement under the ID Act would not be possible.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

Contention regarding status of a person as ’employee’ cannot be raised before the HC for first time.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

The damages and interest of PF dues will not get priority over the claim of debt recovery.

• TELANGANA HIGH COURT

  EPF Act would be applicable on employees not covered under un-exempted establish-ment’s contributory scheme.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

Establishment can request Authority to reopen case for further assessment when data was over-looked.

• ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Employer is not bound to contribute more than statutory limit under the EPF Act.

• PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Order determining dues without finding on applicability of the EPF Act on the establishment is illegal.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Order in review application other than rejection, can be appealed as if it was the original 7A order.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  No enquiry is required when the establishment has given a self declaration of having 20 employees.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

 Option under para 26(6) of EPF Scheme can’t be exercised after retirement even with no time limit.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

 Banks would be covered under the EPF Act even if they do not have more than one branch.

• MADRAS HIGH COURT

Employees list prepared by Inspecting officer, with names of outsiders brought by Union, is in-admissible.

• RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

  Section 7A order to be set aside in the absence of Gazette notification covering industry not mentioned under Schedule I of the EPF Act.

• MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

  No retrospective contribution by employer to pension fund over statutory limits after employ-ees’ retirement.

• KERALA HIGH COURT

 Accident compensation payable in foreign currency is to be at the exchange rate at which the compensation is calculated in Indian Rupees based on the date on which the payment is actually made.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT

The finding of the inquiry officer regarding misconduct is not open for challenge once the delinquent failed to challenge or in a way admits the validity of the inquiry.

• BOMBAY HIGH COURT