S.No. Important Judgement Remarks
1. When it is not on record that employer ever denied the workmen from resuming his duty, it stands proved that the workmen left the employer on his own accord Bombay High Court LLR 933
2. Persistent dishonest conduct of the employee in misappropriation of the money in past also would result that the employer would have lost trust and faith in such an employee

Punishment of Dismissal is not disproportionate to the delinquent employee who has been held guilty of misappropriation of money

Patna High Court LLR 939
3. If workmen is discharged from service after proper domestic enquiry, the dispute raised by the employee will be an industrial dispute and the civil court will not have jurisdiction to entertain and try the same Himachal Pradesh High court LLR 943
4. When an employee has performed duty for more than 240 days or more termination of his services without making compliance under Industrial Dispute Act is illegal Madras High Court LLR 947
5. If employee is not able to prove that he has approached the management to join on duty after long absence is not entitled for reinstatement Punjab & Haryana High Court LLR 950
6. A part time workmen working for more than 240 days is covered under Industrial Dispute Act Punjab & Haryana High Court LLR 951
7. Negligence in food Manufacturing Unit justifies Termination Punjab & Haryana High Court LLR 953
8. When the workmen has himself stopped reporting for duty despite offer made by the management it would not be covered under term termination Punjab & Haryana High Court LLR 955
9. Transfer of an employee facing enquiry would be considered as mala fide Karnataka High Court LLR 991
10. Failing to reply show cause notice despite its receipt can’t be inferred denial of opportunity Madras High Court LLR 935