IMPORTANT LABOR LAW JUDGMENTS – JUNE 2018

  Important Judgment Court Name
1. Termination at end of probation is not punitive. Supreme Court 579
2. Dismissal justified for sexual harassment and assault on a lady officer. Pat. HC 595
3. Employees on contract basis are also entitled to maternity leave. Ker. HC 601
4. Summons for appearance in court only valid when served on the named person. All. HC 586
5. Termination of fixed-term employee, not retrenchment. P&H HC 622
6. Contractor’s employee controlled by principal employer, doing regular jobs to be regularized. Supreme Court 612
7. Failure to report for duty can be construed as abandonment of job. Del. HC 628
8. Regularization can’t be denied to a workman when three others were regularized. Mad. HC 637
9. Death by drowning of Field Officer will be ‘accident’ for compensation though away from main office but within the premises. Ker. HC 604
10. Dismissal from service of an employee also causes financial death to family. Karn. HC 607
11. Irregularities in sanction of the loan by bank employee would justify dismissal. Del. HC 616
12. Industrial dispute untenable when raised after abnormal delay. P&H HC 622, Del. HC 618
13. No disciplinary action called for on termination of a contractual employee. P&H HC 622
14. Last drawn wages not payable to a reinstated workman when offered to be employed. Mad. HC 637
15. Compensation instead of reinstatement appropriate when not paid retrenchment compensation. P&H HC 623
16. No stipulation in Payment of Wages Act to deposit worker’s money in a particular bank. Ker. HC 625
17. Direction to pay bonus sans formula prescribed by Bonus Act is set aside. Guj. HC 590
18. Evidence Act is not applicable to the claim under Employees’ Compensation Act. Gau. HC 598
19. Abandonment is to be presumed on Inspector’s report stating workman himself is absenting. Del. HC 628
20. Canteen employees employed by Society but controlled by Port Trust will be latter’s employees. Supreme Court 612
21. Employees covered under EPF & ESI by the contractor will not be employees of principal employer. Del. HC 618
22. Employer can lead evidence in Labour Court when enquiry as held is vitiated. Karn. HC 607
23. Last drawn wages during pendency in the higher court to be at current rate of minimum wages. Mad. HC 637
  EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS & MP ACT
   
24. Pre-deposit not necessary on filing of appeal challenging damages. Del. HC 648
25. Writ petition maintainable for staying of recovery when Tribunal is not functioning. Ker. HC 658, Cal. HC 650
26. Levy of damages must have supporting reasons of explanation. Guj. HC 677
27. Opportunity must be given to employer before coverage of an establishment. All. HC 686
28. Failure to appear before EPF authority despite many opportunities, employer can be allowed to defend on payment of cost. P&H HC 688
29. No appeal lies before Tribunal against levy of interest. Ker. HC 695
30. Order of Tribunal supported with reasons not to be interfered by High Court. Del. HC 643
31. High Court not to entertain a writ petition against a notice by EPF authority. Del. HC 646
32. Failure to challenge the number of employees in report of Enforcement Officer can’t be questioned later on. Cal. HC 650
33. Levy of damages for delayed payment not justified without enquiry. Mad. HC 660
34. An appeal against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. Pat. HC 664
35. An order of damages and interest is appealable before Tribunal. Del. HC 648
36. Tribunal can impose conditions while granting stay of recovery. Karn. HC 669
37. Liability for EPF dues can’t be warded off merely due to indebtedness. Guj. HC 677
38. An employer has special knowledge of number of employees. Cal. HC 650
39. High Court can entertain a writ against show cause notice when not issued by competent authority. Mad HC 683
40. Installments for EPF dues can be allowed to an employer facing financial crises. Ker. HC 657
41. EPF Authority not to demand contributions upon allowance till disposal of appeals in Supreme Court. Mad HC 683
42. Writ against EPF authority tenable only in absence of opportunity to the employer. Ori. HC 690
43. Appeal filed after 60+60 days is barred by limitation. Ori. HC 690
44. A pensioner can modify a nomination already made. Mad. HC 659
45. Having deposited the damages amount as levied, writ petition not tenable. Mad. HC 662

Reference:

https://www.labourlawreporter.com/important-judgments/