S.No. Judgement Remarks
1.
  • Theft of official documents and using them against employer by an employee would justify his dismissal
  • Plea for denial of proper opportunity by delinquent employee untenable when he himself did not participate in inquiry
  • Factual aspects neither pleaded nor submitted before Tribunal available untenable in the High Court
  • An enquiry is to be held fair and proper on compliance of principles of natural justice
Delhi High Court LLR 129
2.
  • Branch manager having subordinates will not be a ‘workman’ under Industrial Disputes Act.
Gujrat High Court LLR 1138
3.
  • Reinstatement is not automatic even on every illegal termination
  • When duration of service is very short, lump-sum compensation in lieu of reinstatement is appropriate
Punjab & Haryana High Court LLR 143
4.
  • Interest on delayed deposit of ESI contributions can’t be waived by any authority or the court
Kanatka High Court LLR 149
5.
  • A doctor running a clinic with an assistant not to be covered under Industrial Disputes Act
  • Abandonment of job appropriate if an employee fails to comply with offers for resumption of her duty
Delhi High Court LLR 173
6.
  • Financial capacity of an employer is relevant for fixation of fair wages
MP High Court LLR 155
7.
  • Mere framing of charge of moral turpitude in inquiry would not justify forfeiture of gratuity
  • It is not employer but the court to decide about offence of moral turpitude by an employee.
  • Gratuity of an employee can be forfeited only when his service is terminated for prescribed misconduct
Delhi High Court LLR 124
8.
  • Termination of contractual employee not illegal on expiry of his contract
Punjab & Haryana High Court LLR 147
9.
  • Bonus can’t be claimed in writ petition in view of prescribed forum under the Bonus Act
Himachal Pradesh High Court LLR 161
10.
  • Appeal against order of controlling authority not tenable beyond 60+60-120 days
MP High Court LLR 165
11.
  • Appeal against Employees’ Insurance Court is tenable only on question of law.
Kanatka High Court LLR 151
12.
  • Occurring of an accident when proved, compensation would be payable
Supreme Court LLR 122
13.
  • A sales promotion employee is a ‘workman’ under I.D. Act
Punjab & Haryana High Court LLR 145
14.
  • A contractor is liable to pay accident compensation resulting into death at construction site
Bombay High Court LLR 134
15.
  • Industrial Tribunal not High Court to decide whether the work is of perennial nature performed by workers of a contractor
Patiala High Court LLR142
16.
  • Last drawn wages to a workmen during pendency of proceeding  payable only when he files an affidavit about his unemployment.
Gujrat High Court LLR 136
17.
  • 100 per cent functional disability in an accident would justify total compensation under Employees Compensation Act.
Kanatka High Court LLR 151
18.
  • Circumstantial evidence not to be discarded when no eye-witness is available
Supreme Court LLR 122

Ref. Labour Law Reporter February 2019