ABANDONMENT OF SERVICE

1.Absence of more than three years, employee name struck off. Action is valid
GD Goyal versus Presiding Officer, CGIT cum Labour Court II, Chandigarh & Another
2013-1-LLJ-163(P&H)
Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd versus Ram Gopal Sharma and Others
AIR 2002 SC 643 : (2002) 2 SCC 244 : 2002-1-LLJ-834
2. Automatic termination of service for remaining absent for the specified period of absencewould
not attract Section 33 and no application under Section33-A would be maintainable
National Engineering Industries Ltd. versus Hanuman
1967-11-LLJ-883 (SC)
Newspaper publication should be deemed sufficient notice to workman absenting himself fromduty
DCM Shriram Industries Ltd versus State of U.P and Others
2013-1-LLJ-483 (All)
3. Where the management has taken the stand that the workman had abandoned the job and
doesnot report for duty, the onus lies upon the Management to disprove the working of 240 days
byproducing relevant records of attendance and payment of wages of its all workmen including
theclaimant workman. To prove abandonment of job by workman, it is incumbent upon
theManagement to issue show cause notice, serve charge sheet upon the workman, conduct
domesticenquiry, even in the absence of workman, if he does not participate inenquiry, by giving
him dueopportunities, so as to wriggle out from the wrath of non-compliance of section 25 F of
theIndustrial Disputes Act 1947 since it is imperative to comply with the principles of
naturaljustice.
M/s. Haryana Breweries Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and another
2015 LLR 593 (P&H)
4.Termination of service of an employee on the ground of his long unauthorised absence on
theground of his long unauthorised absence without issuing any show cause notice or
conductingenquiry, is illegal since such a termination is in violation of section 25 F of the
IndustrialDisputes Act 1947 as well as against the principles of natural justice. The plea of the
managementthat last address of the employee was not known to it would not justify the non-
conducting ofenquiry since management can send the show cause notice to the workman at his last
knownaddress and held enquiry in his absence before effecting termination of service of
workman.Presumption of management in respect of abandonment of job by the workman, thereby
strikingoff his name from its roll, without conducting enquiry, is illegal being in violation of
principlesof natural justice.
Iswar vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court and Others
2015 LLR 595 (P&H)
5. Abandonment of job by a workman has been rightly presumed by the management since he
hasremained absent for more than ten consecutive days as prescribed under the certified
standingorders and also he has not responded to the two notices sent to him by registered post at
hisrecorded address for reporting on duty. Principles of natural justice will not be violated when
theemployer has struck off the name of workman who has remained absent for more than ten
daysand as such holding of enquiry was necessary into the absence of a workman, since by
absentinghimself he has not responded to the letters sent to him by registered post. No
retrenchmentcompensation will be payable when a workman by absenting himself for more than
ten days, hasabandoned his job
Harpal Singh vs.Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cm Labour Court, Gurgaon andAnr.
2015 LLR 271 (P&H)

APPRENTICES ACT 1961

1. Nature and character of apprentice is that of trainee only. Apprentice does not have statutoryright
to claim employment, unless terms of contract of apprenticeship lay down such condition.
Haryana Power Generation Corporation Ltd. & Others versus Harkesh Chand & Others
2013 1 LLJ 716 (SC)
2.A combined reading of the Sections as well as Rules make it clear that apprentices are onlypersons
undergoing training and during that training they are entitled to get a particular stipend,they have
to work for fixed hours and at the end of the period of training they have to appear inthe test and a
certificate is issued to them. There is no obligation on the part of the employer togive them any
employment whatsoever. The position of apprentices remains as an apprenticetrainee and during
the period of training they will not be treated as workman. Only obligation onthe part of the
employer is to impart them training as per provisions of the Act and Rules and topay them stipend
as required under Rule 11 and beyond that there is no obligation on the part ofthe employer to treat
them as his employees and to give them status of employees. There is norelationship of master and
servant or employer and employee
UP State Electricity Board versus Shiv Mohan Singh & Another
AIR 2004 SC 5009= (2004) 8 SCC 402= 2005-1-LLJ-117
Mukesh K Tripathy versus Senior Divisional Manager LIC
AIR 2004 SC 4179=2004 (8) SCC 387=2004 III LLJ 740.
3.Employer was bound to appoint the apprentices in the available vacancies because of Section22(2)
of the 1961 Act and the contractual obligations arising out of para 2 of the letter ofappointment
which stated that the apprentices shall be absorbed in the department if there arevacancies.
Narinder Kumar & Others versus State of Punjab & Others
AIR 1985 SC 275=(1985) 1 SCC 130= 1985~I-LLJ-337.

BACK WAGES

1. The burden of proof is on the workman to show that he was not gainfully employed. Only after the
workman discharges the initial burden, the employer need to rebut the contention
Jag Dev versus D.T.C. & Others
2013-1-LLJ-404(Del)
Allahabad Jal Sansthan versus Daya Shankar Rai
(2005) 5 SCC 124
Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan versus SC Sharma
2005(2) SCC 363
Managing Director, Balasaheb Desai Sahakari SK Ltd versus Kashinath Ganapathi Kambale
(2009) 2 SCC 288
2. Awarding back wages is justified when the workman mentioned in his statement of claim that he
remained unemployed despite his best efforts after his termination but the management had not
brought on record any evidence to rebut such a plea of the workman
Daleep Kumar vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Battinda & Another
2015 LLJ 639 (P&H)

3. If award is silent on grant of consequential benefits and if only reinstatement is allowed, it does not confer
any right on the workman to claim any other benefit. Merely because he is reinstated, he cannot automatically
get consequential benefits.
R. Gangabyriah vs. General Manager, Spinning and Manufacturing Mills, Minerva Mills. Bangalore
2013-II-LLJ-35 (Kant)
AP State Road Transport Corporation and Others vs, Abdul Kareem
(2005) 6 SCC 36
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratories Vs. Deputy Labour Commissioner & Others
2007 (114) FLR 58 (SC)
Laxman Reddy vs. Andhra Pradesh road Transport Corporation and Others
2008 (117) FLR 1197 (SC)

BOND

1. Recovery of liquidated expenses towards foreign training is not opposed to public policy.
Nazir Maricar vs. M/s. Marshall Sons & Co. (India) Ltd.,
2005 LLR 1007 (Mad. HC)
Superintendence Co. of India (P) Ltd. Vs. Sh. Krishnan Murgai,
AIR 1980 SC 1717 : 1981 1 LLJ 121

BONUS.

1.Bonus is not covered by the Second Schedule and it appears in Item 5 of the Third Schedule
andthe Labour Court under the ID Act could decide only the items specified in Second Schedule
andtherefore the question of entitlement to bonus could not have been gone into by the
LabourCourt.
HP State Electricity Board versus Ranjeet Singh
(2008) 4 SCC 241
2. Subsistence Allowance is not to be considered as wages or salary and bonus is not
payablethereon.
Decan Merchant Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. Avdhoot Marutirao Rane & Anr
2008 LLR 30 (Bom)

COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT

1. Married daughter also is entitled to compassionate appointment. Disqualification of

marrieddaughter is gender discrimination
Management Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd., Kumbakonam versus
JointCommissioner of Labour (Conciliation) Chennai and Another. Decision of Supreme Court in
KPTiaras case of 06.09.2001 relied.
2013-1-LLJ-481(Mad)
2. Purposive interpretation of 'family'. Extends to grand children in special cases
Babu Ram versus State of U.P.
2013-1-LLJ-593 (All)
3. Appointment will have to be considered on the basis of rules prevailing on the date
ofcommencing of process of appointment. Subsequent changes in rules cannot come in the way
Manoj Kumar Thakur, S/o (Late) Brahmedeo Thakur, Dist. Darbhanga versus State of
Bihar,through its Chef Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna and Others
2014-4-LLJ-262(Pat)
P. Mahendran versus State of Karnataka
1990-1-LLJ-337 (SC)
4. No vested right for compassionate appointment. To be considered as per policy. The applicant
has only a right to be considered for appointment against a specified quota, even if he fulfils all the
eligibility criteria and the selection is made of the most deserving among the several competing
applicants, to the limited quota of posts available. In all these schemes there is a need to verify the
eligibility and antecedents of the applicant or the financial capacity of the family. There is also a
need for the applicant to wait in a que for vacancy to arise, or for a selectioncommittee to assess the
comparative need of a large number of applicants so as to fill a limitednumber of vacancies.
Obviously, therefore, there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on
anapplication. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility and financial condition, uptothe
date of consideration may have to be taken into account.
State Bank of India and Another versus Raj Kumar
(2010) 11 SCC 661
5. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to overcomethe
sudden financial crisis it finds itself facing, and not to confer any status upon it.
Fixing eligibility for a particular post or even admission to a course falls within the exclusivedomain
of the legislature/executive and cannot be the subject matter of judicial review, unlessfound to be
arbitrary, unreasonable or has been fixed without keeping in mind the nature ofservice for which
appointment are to be made or has no rational nexus with the objects sought tobe achieved by the
statute.
State of Gujarat and Others versus Arvindkumar T Tiwari and Another
(2012) 9 SCC 545
Executive Engineer and Others versus Gitaben W/o, Mahendra Bhai Bhagubhai Patel
2014-4-LLJ-352 (Guj)
6. The Courts and Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to
make appointments on compassionate grounds when the regulation framed in respect thereof did
not covet and contemplate such appointments
MGB Bank versus Chakravarti Singh
LNIND 2013 SC 725
7. Even Supreme Court under Article 142 cannot give direction for compassionate appointment in
violation of Rules/scheme
A. Umarani versus Registrar Cooperative Societies and Others
AIR 2004 SC 4504
8. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another
method of recruitment. It is an e3xception to Article 14 & 16 of constitution and hencve has to be
construed strictly. No case for relaxation of age.
C.K. Srinivasan vs. Government of Tamil Nadu
2013-II-lLJ-33 (Mad)
State of Gujarat vs. Aravind Kumar T Tiwari
(2012) 9 SCC 545

CONTRACT LABOUR ACT

1. Object of the act. Where the work is perennial, the contract labour should not be employed
Workmen of Food Corporation of India versus Food Corporation of India
AIR 1985 SC 670:(1985) 2 SCC 136:1985-11-LLJ-4(SC)
2.Government directed to formulate a scheme for regularisation of contract labour employed
inperennial work
P. Ramanaiah and Others versus Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam, Chittor District
2013-1-LLJ-230(AP)
3. If the workman is engaged through independent contractors, having valid license under
theContract Labour Act 1970 there would be no employer-employee relationship between
theprincipal employer and workman. In the absence of employer-employee relationship,
LabourCourt would not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference.
Brij Mohan vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court & Others
2015 LLR 575 (Del HC)
4. A contract of employment with any contractor is sham and nominal when over all day-to-
dayadministrative control and supervision upon those workers is exercised by the
principalemployer through its officials in addition to payment of wages, allowances and other
benefits areborne by the principal employer and the work is of regular nature. When it is proved
that theemployment contract with the contractor is sham and nominal, the employees of the
contractorwill be having their right to be absorbed as regular employees of the principal employer
General Manager, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Ranipet vs. Canteen workers of BHEL
2015 LLR 580 (Mad HC)
5.Provisions of labour laws including Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act1970 are
notapplicable to M/s Sulabh International Social Service Organisation since it does not fall
withinthe ambit of either 'industry' or 'employer'. An organisation should fall within the ambit of
terms'establishment' or 'contractor' for covering it under the provisions of labour laws
includingContract Labour Act, 1970. M/s Sulabh International does not fall within the ambit of
either'industry' or 'employer' since it consists of voluntary members and not employees.
Bindeswar Pathak vs. State (Central), State of Gujarat and another
2015 LLJ 597 (Guj)
6. While comparing and evaluating so as to whether the contractor's workman perform the sameor
similar kind of work, degree of skill, educational & technical qualifications,
experience,responsibility, initiative, reliability, trustworthiness etc on the part of the workman, in
additionto same or similar nature of work including various dimensions of a given job, are also
requiredto be taken into consideration. Nature of work cannot be judged by mere volume of
quantity ofwork.
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central ) & 2 Others
2015 LLR 625
7.General Manager of a company cannot be made accused for violation of the provisions of theAct,
in the absence of arraying the company as an accused. Only when the company can beprosecuted,
then the persons responsible for its affairs in the other categories could bevicariously held liable for
the offences.
Dinabandhu Sethi vs. State represented by Enforcement Officer (Central) Chaibasa
2015 LLR 664 (Jha) : 2015 (145) FLR 156
8. Gardeners engaged through contractor for upkeep of parks inside factory premises and
itsresidential colony will be deemed as employees of the company. Termination of services of
thegardeners who had worked for more than 240 days in 12 months, with the direct supervision
ofthe company will be illegal. Non-production of records regarding payments made to the labourby
the contractor and company will lead to adverse inference in establishing direct
relationshipbetween contract labour and principal employer
Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
2003 LLR 817 (SC)
9. When the principal employer is registered under the Act, wages of the contract labour werepaid
by the contractor, the contractor was license holder under the Act, principal employer wasmaking
payment to the contractor, same contractor was supplying contract labour to othercompanies also,
workman had never worked under the control and supervision of the principalemployer, the
contractor's workmen would not have relationship of employer-employee withthe principal
employer. When workmen failed, by any evidence on record, to prove their directengagement by
the principal employer, they are not entitled to seek any relief from the principalemployer by raising
an industrial dispute. If a workman fails to prove that in the preceding12months he had worked in
240 working days, the dispute raised by him in respect of histermination of services or for any other
relief under the ID Act is not sustainable being notcovered under the 'industrial dispute' as defined
under the ID Act 1947.
Management of Turbo Energy Ltd rep. By its Executive Director vs. Presiding Officer,
AdditionalLabour Court, Vellore & Others
2015 LLR 145 (Mad)
Bhavnagar Municipal Corporation etc vs. Jadeja Govubha Chhanubha & Anr
2015 LLR 160 (SC)

COURT PROCEEDINGS

1. Implementation of court order in certain proceeding will not act as resjudicata in

challengingsubsequent orders
Col. BJ Akkara (Retd.) versus Government of India and others
(2006) 11 SCC 709
2.Benficial interpretation of statutes
People's Union of Civil Liberties and Others versus Union of India and Others
AIR 1982 SC 1473:(1982) 3 SCC 235:1982-11-LLJ-454
3. Interpretation of right of life
Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India
AIR 1984 SC 802: (1984) 3 SCC 161
Olga Tellis versus Bombay Municipal Corporation
AIR 1986 SC 180
Mohini Jain versus State of Karnataka
Begulla Bapi Raju versus State of AP
(1984) 1 SCC 66
Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay versus Dilip Kumar Raaghavendranath Nadkarni
AIR 1983 SC 109:(1983) 1 SCC 124: 1983-1-LLJ-1(SC)l
Samatha versus State of Andhra Pradesh
AIR 1997 SC 3297:(1997) 1 SCC 191
Francis Coralie Mullin versus Union Territory of Delhi
AIR 1981 SC 746:(1981) 1 SCC 608
Ramsharan Autyanuprasi versus Union of India
AIR 1989 SC 549:(1989) Supp 1 SCC 251
Kharak Singh versus State of UP
AIR 1963 SC 1295
Maneka Gandhi versus Union of India
AIR 1978 SC 597:(1978) 1 SCC 248
4.Child Labour
MC Mehta versus State of Tamil Nadu
AIR 1997 SC 699:(1996) 6 SCC 756:1997-11-LLJ-124
5.A decision, is an authority of what it decides and what can be logically deducted therefrom
Bharat Forge Co. Ltd versus Uttam Manohar Nakate
(2005) 2 SCC 489
Kalyan Chandra Sarkar versus Rajesh Ranjan
(2005) 2 SCC 42
Opp. Ambica Quarry Work etc. vs. State of Gujarat
AIR 1987 SC 1073
Chauharya Tripathi & Others vs. LIC of India & Ors.
2015 LLR 452(SC)
6.Stalling adjudication proceedings at every stage of the dispute cannot be countenanced.
SK Verma versus Mahesh Chandra
AIR 1984 SC 1462 : (1983) 4 SCC 214 : 1983-11-LLJ-429 (SC)
UCAL Fuel Systems Limited versus Principal Labour Court Chennai and Others
2013-1-LLJ-283 (Mad)
7.While granting relief, application of mind on the part of Industrial Court is imperative
andpayment of full back wages cannot be the natural consequence
JK Synthetics Ltd. versus KP Agarwal and Another
(2007) 2 SCC 433
8.Order of Labour Court declining to frame an issue on the maintainability of workmen'spetition
under Section 33-A of I.D Act, as a preliminary issue was upheld as right and proper.
Buildworth Pvt Ltd., Dispur, Hauhati versus Labour Court, Assam, Gauhati and Others2013-1-LLJ-
96 (Gau)
Blue Star Employees Union versus Ex off Principal Secretary to Government
2000-11-LLJ-1398 (SC)
9. After taking voluntary retirement, there was complete cessation of jural relationship
betweenemployer and employee and such employees cannot be permitted to raise any claim of
increasein emoluments.
National Textile Corporation Ltd., versus Presiding Officer and Another
2013-1-LLJ-729 (P&H)
AK Bindal versus Union of India
2003 (3) RSJ 66
HEC Voluntary Retired Employees Welfare Society versus Heavy Engineering Corporation Ltd
2006-11-LLJ-245 (SC)
10. Where the dispute between the parties was an Industrial Dispute, the civil courts have
nojurisdiction.
Manojit Sanyal and Another versus Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Others
2013-1-LLJ-413 (Cal)
Premier Automobiles Ltd versus Kamalakar Shantaran Wadke
1975-LLJ-445
Manohar Joshi versus State of Maharashtra and Others
(2012) 3 SCC 619,
State of Bihar versus Dhirendra Kumar and Others
(1995) 4 SCC 229,
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation versus Krishan Kant
(1995) 5 SCC 75
Chandrakant Tukaram Nikam versus Municipal Corporation of Ahmadabad and Another
(2002) 2 SCC 542
10. Courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in thedomestic
enquiry,nor interference on the ground that another view is possible on thematerial on record.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipurn versus Nemi Chand Nalawaya
(2011) 4 SCC 584
B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India
(1995) 6 SCC 749
Union of India versus G.Ganayutham
(1997) 7 SCC 463
Bank of India versus Degala Suryanarayana
(1999)5 SCC 762
High Court of Judicature at Bombay versus Shashikant S. PATIL
(2000) 1 SCC 416
G.M. (Operations) S.BI & Anr vs. R.Periyaswami
2015 LLR 121
11. An award is liable to be set aside if the same is based on non-existing facts in utter disregard
tothe admitted facts. Territorial jurisdiction of the court lies only at the place where the
workmanwas posted and had worked till his termination. A court would have no jurisdiction to
decide anindustrial dispute if the workman had never worked in its jurisdiction.
Phoenix Industries Ltd. & Anr vs. Sh. Ram Singh Bhandari
2015 LLR 568 (Del HC)
12. When a party fails to discharge its burden to prove an issue framed by the court, it will not
beentitled to the relief claimed. For discharging burden of proving an issue framed by the court,
theparty concerned has to prove the same by leading evidence in affirmative. Interference by
theHigh Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India confines only on a limited point
wherethe quasi-judicial authorities apparently commit illegality, perversity, misreading
andmisinterpreting the law and facts.
Sanjay Kumar vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court -II, Faridabad and Another
2015 LLR 641 (P&H)
13. An award passed by Labour Court would not be sustainable if the Labour Court did not
framerelevant issues and adjudicate the same on the basis of evidence recorded.
The Principal and Another vs. Anant Nivrutti Bhure
2015 LLR 649 (Bom)
14. As per law settled by the Supreme Court, if an employee has been terminated from serviceeither
without enquiry or enquiry held is found to be defective, it is open to the employer toadduce
evidence even for the first time before the industrial adjudicator, by producing additionalevidence /
documents, to prove the charges at any stage of proceedings justifying its action,before conclusion
of finding by the industrial adjudicator. Awarding reinstatement straightaway,if enquiry is vitiated,
without affording opportunity to the employer to prove the charges beforethe industrial adjudicator,
is not appropriate
Sh. Mohd. Azim vs. Sarv Up Gramin Bank
2015 LLR 464 (Del)
Shambunath Goyal case (1983) 4 SCC 491 : 1984 SCC (L&S) 1
Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Laksmidevamma & Anr
AIR 2001 SC 2090 : 2001 SCC 529 (SC)
Workmen of M/s Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. vs Management &Others
AIR 1973 SC 1227
Amrit Vanaspathi Co. Ltd vs. Khem Chand
(2006) 6 SCC 325 : 2006 LLR 1076 (SC)
Management of Panitole Tea Estate v. Workmen
(1971) 1 SCC 742
15. When a party had refused to receive the summons, a plea taken by it in writ petition thataward is
in violation of principles of natural justice that there was no evidence before theTribunal to pass the
award or that the award is contrary to any substantive law is not sustainable.Challenging ex-parte
award after a long delay of five years without satisfactory explanation isneither justified nor proper.
When a letter bearing correct address of the addressee, containingsummons, has been delivered in
ordinary course of business, it would be presumed thataddressee has been served unless the
contrary is proved by the addressee. High Court is not to actas an appellate court under Article
226of the Constitution of India.
New Age Advertising & Printers vs. Rajinder Kumar
2015 LLR 235 (Del)
16. When according to the court, no substantial injustice has either been done or pleaded by
theworkman in writ petition, interference in award by the writ court is not called for
Sanjeev Bhasin vs. The Presiding Officer & Anr.
2015 LLR 267 (Del)
Sayed Yakoob vs. KS Radhakrishnan & Anr.
AIR 1964 SC 477
17. Writ Court under Article 227 of Constitution is having only supervisory jurisdiction, notrequiring
hearing or lengthy arguments or re-appreciation of evidence if findings are not shownto be perverse
or illegal.
M. Babu s/o Muniswamy vs. Management of Presscom Products rep. by its Proprietor
2015 LLR 156 (Kar)
18. An ex--parte award is liable to be set aside if the court notice did not reach
therespondent/management due to wrong address given by the workman
M/s Panorama Exports Pvt. Ltd vs. Mr. Nandu Bharadwaj and Ors.
2015 LLJ 166 (Del)
19. Relaxation of Rules can only be given by competent sauthority under the Rules on satisfaction of
condition laid down under rules. Court in exercise of jurisdiction cannot direct any authority to
exercise discretionary relief under rules
N.Pandithurai vs. Secretary to Government, Municipal Administration & Water Supply Department,
Secretarriat Chennai and Others
2013-II-LLJ-27(Mad)

CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS VERSUS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

1. No disciplinary action after criminal prosecution failed in Prevention of Corruption

Actproceedings
GM Tank versus State of Gujarat and Others
2006-111-LLJ-1075
2. Both criminal case and disciplinary action can proceed simultaneously
Ajit Kumar Nag versus General Manager(PJ), Indian Oil Corpmoration Ltd., Haldia and Others
AIR 2005 SC 4217:(2005) 7 SCC 764: 2005-111- LLJ-1129
Depot Manager, AP State Road Transport Corporation versus Mohd. Yusuf Miya and Others
1997-11-LLJ-902:(1997) 2 SCC 699
Capt. M. Paul Anthony versus Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another
1997-1-LLJ-1094(SC)
Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation versus M.G. Vittal Rao
2012-1-LLJ-320(SC)
3.Where findings of enquiry officer is supported by reasons, even if clean chit is given bylearned
Magistrate, no advantage accrues to the charged employee
Avinash Sadashiv Bhosle (D) thro' LRs versus Union of India and Others
2013-1-LLJ- 1(SC)
4. Difference between 'honourable acquittal' and 'benefit of doubt' in wiping off allegations
M.K. Sharma versus Union of India
2011-1-LLJ-325
5. Proof required in criminal trial is beyond reasonable doubt while in disciplinary proceedingsis
preponderance of probability. When domestic enquiry is held valid and proper in respect ofserious
charge of theft, awarding reinstatement with 50% back wages is not appropriate. Whenorder of
termination is based on misconduct of theft duly proved in enquiry and not based onorder of
conviction passe by criminal court, acquittal in criminal trial cannot affect the findingsof domestic
enquiry.
Harbansh Singh vs. Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant
2015 LLR 191 (Chg)

DELAY AND LATCHES

1.No limitation laid in ID Act but that would not give a workman a right to claim as and when
hefancies. No reason given for delay, no continous course of action, action is belated. Stale claim.
Krishan Kumar versus Delhi Jal Board
2013-1-LLJ-469(Del)
PS Sadasivaswamy versus State of Tamil Nadu
(1975) 1 SCC 152
UP State Road Transport Corporation versus Babu Ram
(2006) 5 SCC 433
Indian Iron Steel Company Ltd. Versus Prahlad Singh
(2001) 11 SCC 424
Ajaib Singh versus Sirhind Cooperative Marketing cum Processing Service Society Ltd.
(1996) 6 SCC 82
Kuldeep Singh versus G.M., Instrument Design Development and Facilities Center and Another
AIR 2011 SC 455
2. Employee is to explain the delay by acceptable explanation to the satisfaction of the court orthat
he was not responsible for the delay, for taking out his case out of the effect of delay andlatches.
Repeated representations to the employer is not sufficient to explain the delay. If anemployee fails
to explain the sufficient reason for delay in raising an industrial dispute, he wouldnot be entitled to
any back wages or his claim may be dismissed.
The Principal and Another vs. Anant Nivrutti Bhur
2015 LLR 649 (Bom)'
3. Abnormal delay in submitting the enquiry report after 12 years without plausible explanationto
the inordinate delay may make the enquiry ineffective. Order of dismissal after 14 years
ofcommission of service of charge sheet is not appropriate
K.V.S Ram vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn.
2015 LLR 229 (SC)
4. An industrial dispute, raised at belated stage without reasonable explanation for such longdelay,
is not maintainable as held by the Supreme Court in Nedugadi Bank Ltd. vs. K.PMadhavan Kutty
2000 LLR 340 (SC)
Naresh vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and others
2015 LLR 149 (P&H)
5. Limitation Act has no applicability in ID Act. If there is no prescribed limitation under thestatute,
in raising any demand by the workman, it does not mean that the dispute can be raised atany time,
without regard to delay and reasons therefor. Inordinate delay in raising an industrialdispute can be
fatal to the action. No formula of universal application can be laid down forfixing the limitation in
raising an industrial dispute since it depends upon the facts of eachindividual case. Power
conferred by statute without mentioning the period within which it couldbe invoked, te same has to
be within a reasonable period.
Surinder Kumar Sharma vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhattinda and Others
2015 LLR 171 (P&H)

DISCIPLINARY ACTION

1.Unless the act is prejudicial to the interests of employer, a charge of dishonesty cannot lieagainst
an employee.
Damodar Nanda versus GM Central Bank of India and others
2013-1- LLJ-494(Ori)
2.False claim for medical reimbursement, punishment of removal is not disproportionate.
S. Elhance versus State Bank of India
2013-1-LLJ-544(Del)
3.A public servant can be punished even without proof of any corrupt practice if the
cumulativeevidence that he was suspected in a number of instances to be corrupt or is generally
believed tobe a corrupt officer, is available against him
State of Madras versus A.R. Srinivasan
AIR 1966 SC 1827
4.The disciplinary authority while concurring with the enquiry officer, is not required to givereasons
and it must be presumed that the disciplinary proceedings and applied its mind theretobefore
concurring with the enquiry officer, the order of removal passed by it could not be heldto be bad.
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Others versus Prabhu Dayal Grover
(1995) 6 SCC 279
5.Charges vague, evidence perfunctory and guilt of the accused not established. Rules of
naturaljustice not complied.
Sawai Singh versus State of Rajasthan
1986-11- LLJ - 390(SC)
6.Dismissal of workman for involvement in criminal cases was held not sustainable, as
suchinvolvement was shown to be on the premises of the employment, much less to be subject
matterof full fledged trial by criminal court
Appollo Tyres Limited versus Rakeshkumar Pal and Another
2013-1-LLJ-146(Guj)
7.Misconduct outside the premises but the conduct of the workman affected the functioning ofthe
fellow workmen in the premises, it brought about bad name and bad reputation to thecompany,
therefore collectively considering all these would show that 'Premises' cannot benarrowly construed.
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd and Others versus TK Raju
(2006) 3 SCC 143
Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd versus Workmen
AIR 1975 SC 2125 : (1975) 4 SCC 731 : 1975-1- LLJ-391(SC)
Opp. Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court Meerut
1984-1-LLJ-16 (SC)
Mavji C. Lakum versus Central Bank of India
(2008) 12 SCC 726 : 2008-111-LLJ-1 (SC)
9.Once the workman admits his guilt before the enquiry officer, verdict against him cannot
bechallenged by invoking strict rules of evidence
S. Venugopal versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore and Another
2013-1-LLJ-334 (Mad)
10. Enquiry will be vitiated if the enquiry officer asked a lot of questions (72) to the workman
Padam Chand Gupta vs. Presiding Officer, CGIT/
2004 LLR 1072 (Del. HC)
Shankar Gopal Pagire vs. State Transport Cooperative Bank Ltd
2005 LLR 17(Bom. HC)
B. Viswantha Rao vs. Management of Canara bBank, Head Office,JC Road, Bangalore
2005 (1) CLR 986 (Kar. HC)
11. Demand by the delinquent employee for engaging a lawyer for taking assistance in
thedepartment enquiry proceeding is not justified if the Presenting Officer is not a legal
professionalor a legally trained person. Only ground that Enquiry Officer has got training in
conductingdepartmental enquiry or the presenting officer is having experience of conducting
departmentalenquiries in other cases, representing the employer and the delinquent employee has
no suchexperience, would not justify the contention of the employee that she was pitted against
anunequal since there is no violation of principles of natural justice to justify the stand of
thedelinquent employee accused of being inebriated while on duty as senior cabin crew.
Grace C Naulak vs. Air India Ltd represented by its MD
2015 LLJ 589 (Mad. HC)
12.The object of holding enquiry proceedings is to give the delinquent employee a
reasonableopportunity to produce his answers and to defend himself against the charges levelled
againsthim. A domestic enquiry must be in conformity with the Rules of Natural Justice. The Rules
ofNatural Justice, which are at present confined to a body of uncodified moral principles
tosupplement the existing law and not supplant it. Even when a Presenting Officer of
themanagement appears as a witness in the enquiry, there will be violation of principles of
naturaljustice unless the employee establishes that any prejudice has been caused to him. In the
absenceof any guideline provided in any statute, the enquiry officer can evolve his own procedure
but itmust be fair free from arbitrariness and in conformity with the principles of natural justice.
S.V.S. Marwari Hospital vs. State of West Bengal
2015 LLR 642 (Cal)
13. Illegal strike is not a sufficient reason for avoiding participation in enquiry.
A.K. Khare vs Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others
2015 LLR 655 (M.P.)
14. A charge sheet can be challenged only either on account of lack of jurisdiction of
authorityissuing the charge sheet or on account of such other fundamental ground and not
otherwise onany ground of merits
Ashok Kumar Gupta vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Others
15. Standard of proof in domestic enquiry is based upon preponderance of probabilities and not
beyond all reasonable doubts as in criminal cases. Unless acquittal of delinquent employee by the
criminal court, is honourable, i.e., on merits, departmental enquiry can proceed. Onus of proof
rests upon the party alleging the invalidity of an order. Maximomnia praesumuntur riteesse acts, '
all things are presumed to be done in due form'. Interference under writ jurisdiction with finding of
fact by the enquiry officer is not permissible unless the finding is perverse or on the basis of no
evidence. Interference by the High Court with the order of dismissal only on the ground that it
deprived the delinquent of his livelihood is wholly untenable since the transgression of jurisdiction
cannot be justified on the ground of consequences.
G. M. (Operations) SBI & Anr vs. R. Periaswami
2015 LLR 121 (SC)
16. Fair procedure does not mean giving copies of document or list of witnesses along with charge-
sheet. Presenting officer failed to provide list of documents and witnesses to respondent. IA had
held inquiry ex-parte, as Respondent did not appear and there was no other alternative. In ex-parte
enquiry, uncontroverted documentary evidence, suffic.
Ient to prove charges, no procedural irregularity committed, disciplinary proceedings conducted in accordance
with service rules. Charges against the respondent established and he was rightly dismissed. Service Rules
provide alternate remedy of appeal.
State Bank of India & others vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey
2013 II-LLJ-1
17. Standard of proof in domestic enquiry is based upon preponderance of probabilities and not
beyond all reasonable doubt.
Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur
(1972) 4 SCC 618 = 1972-1-LLJ- 1 (SC)
RS Saini vs. State of Punjab and Others
AIR 1999 SC 3579 = (1999) 8 SCC 90 = 1999-II-LLJ-1415
18.If the delinquent employee fails to avail of the opportunityprovided to him in a disciplinary
provceeding to defend himself, he cannot be permitted to complain against ex-parte proceedings
held against him
Bank of India vs. Apurba Kumar Saha
(1994) 2 SCC 615 + 1995-1-LLJ-18
Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills ltd vs. Pt. Ram Swarup
AIR 1957 SC 82 = 1957 I-LLJ-17

EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ACT 1952

1. Prerequisite of depost of the demanded amount for entertainment of an appeal is not

coveredunder section 7-C of the Act. Prerequisite of deposit is applicable to an order passed
undersection 7-A of the Act by the EPF authority and not to other provisions ofthe Act since
thelegislature has restricted the application of the provisions of section7(I) of the Act to the
orderpassed under section 7A of the Act.
T.R.M. Public School vs. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO
2015 LLR 620 (Del)
2. EPF authority not entitled to recover either PF Contribution or damages from the
principalemployer in respect of employees engaged through contractors, registered with the
PFDepartment, having independent code number. Contractors, registered with the PF
Department,having independent code number, are to be treated as 'independent employer'.
However, theliability of unregistered contractors, for payment of EPF contributions or damages
continues, incase of default on his part, if not paid by the unregistered contractor, in view of clause
30 of EPFscheme, 1952.
Brakes India Ltd (Brakes Division), Sholinghur 631102 rep. By its Vice-President (Pers& HRD)
vsEmployees PF Organisation, vellore rep. By its Regional PF Organisation
2015 LLR 635 (Mad)
3. Since good work reward is not in the exclusion clause of section 2(b) of the EPF Act1952, theEPF
contributions are payable on the amounts paid as good work reward. Provision ofimposition of
damages or penalty is meant both to penalise defaulting employer as well as toprovide
compensation to the beneficiaries to achieve the purpose of the Act. Default on the partof the
employer takes place only on failure in performance or failure to act and not otherwise.EPF
authority under the EPF Act is quasi judicial authority competent to apply its mind to thefacts
involved in each case, passing a reasoned order following principles of natural justice.Imposing of
penalty on the defaulter in all cases is not mandatory. While imposing damages, thequantum of
damages is to be assessed keeping in view several relevant factors such as period ofdelay, frequency
of defaults, number of defaults, amount involved, reason for default etc. Delayof EPF authority may
only allow the employer to use the money without interest. An employermight also claim prejudice,
on account of abnormal delay in initiating proceeding under section14B of the Act, upon proof of
loss of all relevant records and on non-availability of personnelwho were, several years back in
charge of the payments, provided further that the employerestablishes that reconstruction of
records or to produce records or to produce evidence isbeyond his control, taking all such pleas in
defence while replying to dhow cause notice,satisfying the EPF authorities with acceptable material.
Imposition of 100% damages should notbe a mechanical exercise, without supporting evidence.
M/s DCM Shriram Consolidated Ltd. vs. The EPF Appellate Tribunal
2015 LLR 473 (Del)
4. Contribution for unidentified workers cannot be demanded
Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation vs. Regional PF Commissioner
2008 -III LLJ
M/s Roopam Sarees Pvt Ltd vs APFC Surat
ATA No. 26(05) 2013 decided on 26.11.2014
M/s Coastal Projecs Pvt. Ltd vs. APFC Bhuvaneshwar
ATA N. 842(10)2013 decided on 21.11.2014
Nancy Craft vs. RPFC Delhi
ATA No. 216(04)2010 decided on 23.9.2014
5. While passing an order under section 7A of the Act, the EPF authorities can take the help
ofconcerned police authorities for identification of employees/actual beneficiaries to secure themthe
monetary benefits
RPFC vs. Faridabad Thermal Power Station
2015 LLR 269 (P&H)
6. Damages for delayed remittance not justified in the absence of mens rea on the part ofemployer
M/s Pashok Tea Estate vs. RPFC Siliguri
ATA No. 393(15) 2014 decided on 20.11.2014
7. When an employee has not made any nomination, in respect of family pension, after his death,the
pension is first to be granted to his father, and after his death to his mother as per clause (aa)of sub-
paragraph (5) of para 16. Merely for the reason that employee nominated his father,pension of his
dependent mother cannot be taken away. Spirit and tenor of pension scheme is toprovide
immediate succour to the dependents and not to exclude valid claim by dependent legalheir only on
the basis of nomination
Rajamma K.T. aged about 66 years w/o late VK Chackochan, Thrissur District 680
586vs.APFC(Pension), EPFO! Sub-Regional Office, Kochi -17, Ernakulam District and Another
2015 LLR 242 (Ker)
8.When the EPF Authority had virtually denied an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner bynon-
issuing of any notice of hearing to submit the explanation for delayed deposit of EPFcontribution,
while passing an order under section 14 B of the EPF &MP Act 1952, the order isliable to be set aside
since it is passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Para 32A of theEPF scheme provides
that damages have to be realised after considering financial difficulties andfrustrating
circumstances of the employer/establishment by application of judicial mind.Adjudicatory authority
has to deal with the issue with proper application of mind since it is notsupposed to stand in the
shoes of 'Recovery Officer'.
B.P.L. Limited, Rep. by its Dy. Gen. Manager vs. EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi& Others
2015 LLR 243(Ker)
9. Rules of 1977 in respect of EPF Act provide a time of 60 days for filing appeal and a proviso
toSub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Rules provide a further time of 60 days to the Appellate Tribunalwith
a power to condone the delay subject to its satisfaction. Limitation Act is not applicablesince the Act
being a special statute has itself provided a provision of limitation. There is noinherent right of
appeal as contented by appellants. Appellate authority is not empowered tocondone delay beyond
the prescribed limitation in the statute itself.
Kerala State Defence Service Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs. APFC
2015 LLR 246 (Ker)
10. Deposit of PF contribution for workers of contractor by principal employer will not be thefactor
for construing that the relationship of employer and employee existing between theprincipal
employer and the workers engaged through contractor
Petroleum Workers Union vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd.
2004(2) LLN 451
Cement Corporation of India Ltd vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court cum Industrial
Tribunal,Hissar & Others
2010 LLR 704 (P&H)
11. An establishment having different branches and /or departments in different places, all
thedepartments and / or /branches would be treated as part of principal establishment as
perSection 2A of the Act. An establishment may consist of factory and /or department and
branches,located in different parts of the country. A factory situated at different places, having
separatelicenses but same registered office, activities, Managing Director vis a vis Manager and
secretaryempowered to operate Bank account would be treated as part of same establishment. If
thefunctional, managerial and financial integrality between the different units such that one
cannotexist without the other, they should be treated as single unit. An order allotting a new
codenumber to a unit or branch of an establishment, having a code number under the EPF Act
alreadyallotted to its registered office is not maintainable.
Milan Biri Factory and Others vs. Regional PF Commissioner, W.B., and Others
2015 LLR 139 (Cal)
12. The Act becomes applicable to an establishment, when the strength of its employees touches20
or exceeds 20. When once the Act is made applicable to an establishment, it would continue tobe
effective notwithstanding the fall in number of employees to be below 20 as per section 1(5)of the
Act. There is no distinction as to whether an employee is regular, temporary, casual,getting wages
directly or indirectly from the employer, including employees engaged throughcontractor(s) for the
purpose of making the Act applicable to the establishment. Levy of interestupon the EPF dues not
deposited by the employer within the stipulated time, due to any reason,is mandatory and justified
irrespective of the fact that the establishment is in private sector orpublic sector or industrial or
nonindustrial or non profit making or profit making
M/s Polythene Bag Factory vs. Assistant PF Commissioner
2015 LLR 130 (Del)
Sri Guru Tej Bahadur Public School vs. EPFO and Or.
2015 LLR 128 (Del)
13. Once the order passed by the Commissioner, exercising the quasi judicial function, has beenset
aside by Appellate Tribunal, it would not be permissible for the Commissioner to challengethe order
of Appellate Authority by filing writ petition.
Regional P.F. Commissioner, EPF Organisation vs. Malegaon Sah. Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
2015 LLR 164 (Bom)
14.There is nothing to demand pre-deposit the amount of damages impose by passing an
orderunder section 14B of the Act. An employer has the right to prefer an appeal against an
orderunder section 14B of the Act under section 7 (I) of the Act but the pre-condition of deposit
forentertainment of such an appeal is not covered under section 7-O of the Act. Damagesdetermined
under section 14B of the Act are consequence of the demand raised under section 7Aof the Act, not
being principal liability attracting stringent provisions of pre-deposit to thehearing of the appeal.
H. K. Corporation vs. Assistant PF Commissioner
2015 LLR 167 (Del)
15. Initiating recovery proceedings against an employer on te basis of order passed under section7-I
of the Act by the EPF authority, prior to the expiry of statutory period fixed for filing anappeal by an
aggrieved employer before the EPF Appellate Authority, is not justified since itwould be an
arbitrary exercise of power on the part of EPF Authority. An appellate remedyavailable to an
assessee cannot be rendered nugatory, before even statutory period is over sincethe provision to file
a statutory appeal, as incorporated in statute, is definitely a benefitconferred on the employer who
has suffered the order and if recovery is effected, even when thestatutory period is not over, the
same would be an arbitrary exercise of power.
Popular Industries (Pynadath Crusher) vs. Assistant PF Commissioner & Recovery Officer
2015 LLR 175 (Ker)

ESI ACT 1948

1.In view of the exception, as provided in Clause (b) of section 2(22) of the Act, travellingconcession
or allowance, paid as per the terms of contract of employment or paid in lump-sumor at regular
intervals would not cease to be but it would constitute travelling allowance, not apart of 'wages'.
Travelling allowance or concession would not cease to be travelling allowanceonly because it is a
fixed sum paid alongwith wages, as per contract of employment.
ESI Corporation vs. Royal Plastic Industries
2015 LLR 633 (Ker)
2. Compensation/ damages pertaining to an accident resulting into injuries or death to a memberof
the ESI Scheme during course of employment and arising out ofemployment will be payableonly
under ESI Act and not any other Act.
Dropadabai and Others vs. M/s. Technocraft Toolings
2015 LLR 457 (SC)
A. Trehan vs. Associated Electrical Agencies and Anr.
(1996) 4 SCC 255
Bharagath Engineering vs. R. Ranganayaki & Another
2003 LLR 227 (SC) : (2003) 2 SCC 138
National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Hamida Khatoon and Others
(2009) 13 SCC 361
Opp. Jyothi Ademma vs. Plant Engineer, Nellore& Another
(2006) 5 SCC 513
3. Managing Director cannot be held responsible for non-remittance of contribution when he
isremotely located and is not exercising routine supervision.
Biju Ramesh vs. ESI Corporation
2014 LLR 359 ( Ker)

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

1.Grant of advance increment to employee of public sector corporation was held validlycancelled as
it was granted on erroneous interpretation of a G.O. and without jurisdiction andprinciple of equal
pay for equal work was not applicable.
Electronics Corporation of Tamil Nadu Limited rep. by its Managing Director versus N. Kumar
2013-1-LLJ- 266 (Mad)
2.The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive,some
requiring more tact, some less - it varies from nature and culture of employment. Theproblem
about, equal pay for equal work cannot always be translated into a mathematicalformula. If it has a
rational nexus with the object sought for, as reiterated before a certain amountof value judgement of
the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scalehas to be left with them and
it cannot be interfered by the court unless it is demonstrated thateither it is irrational or based on
no basis or arrived malafide, either in law or in fact.
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and Othersversus
Union of India and Others
AIR 1988 SC 1291 : (1988) 3 SCC 91 : 1994-111- LLJ- 979 (SC)
3.The holders of a higher qualification can be treated to be a separate class. Question of violationof
Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the part of the state would arise only if the personsare
similarly placed. Equality clause will have no application where the persons are not
similarlysituated or when there is a valid classification based on differential criteria.
Government of West Bengal versus Tarun K. Roy
(2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004-1-LLJ-421 (SC)
4.Grant of pay scales is an executive function not a judicial function
SC Chandra and Others versus State of Jharkhand
AIR 2007 SC 3021 : (2007) 8 SCC 279
5.Fixation of pay scale pursuant to the recommendations of Pay Commission are being donethrough
a policy decision of the government and that in the name of equal pay for equal workthe same
cannot be directed to be implemented by orders of court.
State of Punjab versus Surinder Singh and Another
2008-11-LLJ-1 (SC)
Union of India versus Mahajabeen Akhtar
AIR 2008 SC 435
KS Krishnaswamy versus Union of India
LNIND 2006 SC 1020
Union of India versus Arun Jyoti Kundu and Others
(2007) 7 SCC 472
Canteen Mazdoor Sabha versus Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) and Others
(2007) 7 SCC 710 : 2007- 111- LLJ-771 (SC)

FACTORIES ACT 1948

1.Section 92 - Failure to submit stability certificate of factory building. Occupier is liable.Offence of

disobeying the orders of inspector, complaint could be filed within six months of dateof offence
Anup Kumar Gupta versus State of Bihar
2013-1-LLJ-22(Jhar)
2. When the work being carried out in an establishment is not covered under 'manufacturingprocess
' as defined under section 2(k) of the Act there would be no existence of Factoryattracting the
applicability of the provisions of the Act. In the absence of existence of factory andactivities relating
to manufacturing process, violation of Factories Act 1948 would not comeinto existence.
Rajesh Saigal vs. State of Haryana and Others
2015 LLR 658 (Raj)
3. Interpretation of overtime calculation - double the rate of ordinary wages
VA Mamarde & Others vs. Authority under the Min. Wages Act Nagpur & Another
1972 (25) FLR 186 (SC)
4. Different working hours for factory and office is justified
A.J. Varghese and others vs. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd and Another
1986 (69) FLR 394 (MP)

GRATUITY

1.Whenever retiral dues are paid beyond due date, government is required to payinterest till dateof
its payment. If interest is not paid alongwith the dues, the liability topay interest continues tillthe
date of payment of interest. Non-payment of interest is a continuing wrong causingcontinuous
injury to the employee.
Swapan Kumar Pusilal versus State of West Bengal
2013-1-LLJ-696 (Cal)
2. 26 days = one month
Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills Limited versus Shri Mahendra Prataprai Buch
AIR 1980 SC 1944 : (1980) 4 SCC 106 : 1980-11- LLJ-252
Jeevan Lal Ltd., and Others versus Appellate Authority under the Payment of GratuityAct
andOthers
AIR1984 SC 1842 : (1984) 4 SCC 356 : 1984-11-LLJ-464
3.Any claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act has to be made under the Act itself
State of Punjab versus Labour Court, Jullunder
AIR 1979 SC 1981 : (1980) 4 SCC 4 : 1981-1- LLJ-354
4. Where the benefits sought are based on private scheme or settlement, the ControllingAuthority
under the Act has no jurisdiction.
Gujarat State Export Corporation Limited versus Madhusudan L Khandwala andAnother
2004-11-LLJ-389 (Guj)
Ayappan versus Joint Labour Commissioner
1999-11-LLJ-1351(Ker)
Allahabad Bank and Others versus All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association
2010-1-LLJ-593 (SC)
Management Virudhnagar Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. versus Asst Commissioner of
Labour,Sunderam Theatre Road, Madurai and Others
2013-1-LLJ-745 (Mad)
5. Sections 4(6), 7(3A) & 14 - Payment of interest is due on amount of gratuity for the delay in
itspayment
Ram Naresh Singh versus Chairman cum MD, B.C.C.L
2013-1-LLJ-127
6. Provision of section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act 1972 has overriding effect over anyother
instrument or contract that was inconsistent with the provisions of the Act. Entitlement togratuity
of an employee cannot be taken away on the basis of Rule33 of the Maharashtra stateCooperative
Tribal Development Cooperative Services Rules being Statutory Rules, would nothave the force of
statute to deprive an employee from the statutory right conferred by section4(6) of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972.An employer having failed to issue notice undersection 7(2) of the Act has no
right to question the limitation of time in filing the application byan employee claiming gratuity.
There is no limitation prescribed for moving an application toreceive gratuity especially when the
employer has not discharged its obligation under section7(2) of the Act.
Managing Director (M.D.) Maharashtra State Cooperative Tribal Development Corporation Ltd.
(MSCTDC) and Others vs Purushottam s/o Asaram Gaud, aged Major, Resident & Post
VillageGhanod, Tahsil Sakoli, District Bhandara and Others
2015 LLJ 610 (Bom)
7. Vide notification dated 31.12.2008, the Payment of Gratuity Act was amended to
includeeducational institutions and the definition of 'employee' was extended to include teachers as
wellin any educational institution with retrospective effect from 03.04.1997.
A teacher in any school or college or any other educational institution is entitled to gratuityunder
the Act.
New Greenfield Public School vs. Controlling Authority & Others
2015 LLR 233 (Del )
8. Gratuity for employees of an establishment working for 22 days in a month has to becalculated @
26 days working in a month.
May & Baker (I) Ltd. vs. JS Coutinho, National Union of Commercial Employees,
1991 LLR 375(Bom)
Kone Elevators India Ltd vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Labour
2005 LLR 442"(Mad)
9. Employer is liable to pay interest on the delayed payment towards pension and gratuity as
perprovisions of the Act at the current market rate till actual payment to the employee/retiree
ismade by the employer from the date of entitlement. Pension and gratuity are no longer anybounty
to be distributed by the employer to the employees since it has become valuable rightsand property
in tneir hands.
D. D. Tiwary vs. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Others
2015 LLR 126 (SC)
State of Kerala & Others vs. M. Padmanabhan Nair
(1985) 1 SCC 429
10. Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld except as per statutory provisions under section4(6)
of the Act. Statutory provisions under the Act cannot be subject to the provisions of theRules or
regulations framed by the employer regulating service conditions of employees.Payment of gratuity
and pension are as of right in the nature of 'property' in the hands ofemployees having protection
under Article 300A of the Constitution of India and not bountiesfrom employer to employees.
Regulations are not having overriding effect over the statutoryprovisions of the Act.
Union Bank of India vs. Ram Mohan
2015 LLR 142 (Ker)
11. An employee is entitled to gratuity of Rs. Ten lakh effective from 24.05.2010 if he wasworking
with the employer on that date or thereafter before his retirement. An employee isentitled to
payment of gratuity to calculated at the enhanced pay scale made effective from anydate prior to his
retirement irrespective of its being made after his retirement. As per provisionsof the Act an
employee is entitled to interest upon the amount of gratuity for the delay inpayment thereof on the
part of the employer at the prevailing bank rate or so and the employer isliable to pay the same.
Bundi Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. & Anr vs. Mahesh Kumar Mangal & Ors.
2015 LLR 153 (Raj)
12. Section 14 of the Act overrides other enactments including CCS Pension Rules and as such
thecontrolling authority has rightly allowed the claim of ex-employee allowing additional
payment,hence the writ petition, as filed, is untenable.
University of Delhi vs. Rattan Mala Ahuja & Ors
2015 LLR 177 (Del)

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE ACT 1947

1.Services of daily wager terminated without payment of retrenchment compensation. No reliefof

reinstatement can be claimed, appropriate relief is damages/compensation
State of UP through Secretary Forest LKO & others versus Satya Pal Singh & Another
2013-1-LLJ- 440(All)
Senior Superintendent, Telegraph (Traffic) Bhopal versus Santosh Kumar Seal
AIR 2010 SC 2140
2.Findings of the enquiry officer have to be supported by reasons. The order passed by
thedisciplinary authority and appellate authority, must also be supported by relevant reasons
Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and Others
2009-11-LLJ-21(SC)
3.Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof.
Calcutta Dock Labour Board and Others versus Jaffar Imam
1965-11- LLJ-12(SC)
Union of India versus HC Goel
1964-1-LLJ-38(SC)
Chairman, Pandyan Grama Bank, Virudanagar versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chennaiand
Another
2010 (4) LLN 824
4.Merely because the passengers who had gone out and come in cannot be chased and
broughtbefore the Tribunal before a valid finding could be recorded.
State of Haryana and Another versus Rattan Singh
AIR 1977 SC 1512 : (1977) 2 SCC 491 : 1982-1-LLJ-4
5.The evidence adduced on behalf of management must have nexus with the charges. The
enquiryofficer cannot have his findings on mere hypothesis. Mere ipse dixit on his part cannot be
asubstitute of evidence.
Mohan Arya verson United India Insurance Co. Ltd andu Others
(2006) 4 SCC 713
6.The enquiry officer being a quasi judicial authority, should perform his functions fairly
andreasonably by conducting a fair and proper enquiry to find out the charges levelled against
thedelinquent employee are true or not
2009-111-LLJ-198 : (2009) 2 SCC 541
7.Nomenclature, designation will not determine the status of employee. It is the actual
dutydischarged by him that will decide whether workman or supervisor. Held to be workman in
thiscase.
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd., Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court I
Gurgaon and Another
2013-1-LLJ-570 (P&H)
Arkal Govind Raj Rao versus Ciba Geigy of India Ltd., Bombay
1985-11-LLJ-401
S.K. Maini versus Carona Sahu Company Ltd
1994 (2) RSJ 710
8.Conclusions drawn by the disciplinary authority ought to be recorded on the basis of
cogentevidence
Omar Salay Mohd. Sait versus Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras
LNIND 1959 SC 28
10.Condition of service: Section 9-A, 12, 19, 20 & 33 Employer is entitled to implement changesin
conditions of service, upon giving notice thereof, after expiry of notice period
JD Orgochem Ltd., Mumbai versus Dyes and Chemical Workers Union, Mumbai
2013-1-LLJ-285 (Bom)
Madan Mohan Pathak versus Union of India
AIR 1978 SC 803: 1978-1- LLJ- 406(SC)
Jodhistir Chandra versus PR Mukherjee
AIR 1950 Cal 57
Mangaldas Narandas versus Payment of Wages Authority etc
1957 - 11-LLJ-256(Bom)
Voltas Limited versus Voltas Employees Union
2001-11-LLJ-522(Bom)
Haribhau Shinde versus F.H. Lala Industrial Tribunal, Bombay
AIR 1970 Bom 213
Life Insurance Corporation of India versus DJ Bahadur
1981-1-LLJ-1(SC)
11.Unfair Labour Practice : Employer has right to allot any type of duties, but it has to beconsistent
with the nature of employment. Employer cannot change designation itself. A drivercannot be
changed as lift operator
King Edward Memorial Hospital Pune versus Suresh D. Gaekwad
2013-1-LLJ-631 (Bom)
12.Granting repeated extension of service amounts to unfair labour practice
Bhikku Ram versus Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Rohtak
1995 Lab. I.C. 2448
13. Termination of services because of non-renewal of contract of employment would notamount to
retrenchment, even if the workman has served for more than 240 days, as per Section2(OO) (bb) of
ID Act
Haryana State FCCW Stores Ltd., v Ram Niwas
2002-11-LLJ-153 (SC)
Director General of Works CPWD versus DS Prasad
2013-1-LLJ-59 (Del)
14.In a proceeding under Section 17(b) of the Act, the merits of the matter cannot be enquiredinto
Indian Tourism Development Corporation Ltd., and Another versus Vinod and Others
2013-1-LLJ-536
15.Section 17(b) explained
Dena Bank Ltd. versus Kiriti kumar T. Patel
(1999) 2 SCC 106
16. Unbearable financial burden cannot be the basis to refuse reinstatement where terminationwas
in violation of ID Act.
Ferozpur Sutleg Coop. Housing Society versus Presiding Ofiicer
2013-1-LLJ-131 (P&H)
Harjinder Singh versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation Ltd
AIR 2010 SC 1116 : (2010) 3 SCC 192
17. The claim under Section 33(2) clearly postulates that the determination of question
aboutcomputing the benefit in terms of money may, in some cases, have to be preceded by an
enquiryinto the existence of the right and such an enquiry must be held to be incidental to the
maindetermination which has been assigned to the Labour Court.
Central Bank of India versus P.S. Rajagopalan
1964-SCR-3-14
18. Employer had to seek approval from authority before which the industrial dispute waspending.
As such approval was neither sought nor granted, dismissal of workman held illegal.
Modi Distillary ( A unit of Modi Industries Ltd.,) versud Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal(V)UP
and Another
2013-1-LLJ-301 (All)
19.Whether a lock out declared by employer would amount to alteration in service condition
ordischarge or punishment of workmen requiring permission under Section33 was held to
beunwarranted.
LD Sugar Mills versus Ram Swarup
1957-1-LLJ-17(SC)
20. Industrial Dispute Act is not applicable to employees of cooperative society registered underthe
Act.
Ferozabad Dudgh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd vefsus Presiding Officer, Labour Court Agra
andOthers
2013-1-LLJ-325 (All)
Allahabad Bank versus Canara Bank
AIR 2000 SC 1535
Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd., State of Bihar
LNIND 1999 SC 663,
Ghaziabad Zilla Sahakari Bank Ltd., versus Additional Labour Commissioner
2007-11-LLJ-239 (Ks)
Pradhan Prabadhak, Kisan Sahakari Chini Mill versus State of UP
2012-4-LLJ-726(All)
State of Punab versus Labour Court
1981-1-LLJ-354 (SC)
UPSEB versus Shiv Mohan Singh
2005-1LLJ-117 (SC),
19. Civil court has no jurisdiction in industrial dispute
Manojit Sanyal versus Oil Natural Gas Commission
2013-1-LLJ-413 (All)
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another versus Krishna Kant and Another
(1995) 5 SCC 75
21. An industrial adjudicator has no power under section 11(3) of the ID Act 1947 like that of
theinherent powers of the Civil Court since such powers are excluded by necessary implicationfrom
the list of special powers conferred upon the Adjudicating Authorities constituted under theAct. An
industrial adjudicator has no power under the Act to revive the proceedings which werealready
closed with the consent of the claimant/workman/management. Industrial Adjudicatorshaving
limited jurisdiction are not creatures of statute.
The Management of Hewlett Packard Global Soft Private Ltd. Vs. K.L.J.A Kiran Babu
2015 LLR 601
22. A dispute raised by the workman, challenging termination of his services is an industrialdispute
since he was appointed by the Assistant Director of Fisheris Department which is anindustry as per
section 2(k) of the ID Act 1947. Termination of services only by paying onemonth's wages without
complying with the applicable provisions of law is illegal retrenchmentsince the workman had
completed continuous service of 240 working days in the preceding 12months on the date of
termination and work in nature has been proved to be perennial. Aworkman is entitled to
backwages even if he was gainfully employed since the post was notabolished, management had not
adduced any evidence about gainful employment of theworkman whereas he was denied work over
40 years ago by the workman.
State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Charan Singh
2015 LLJ 603 (SC)
23. Appointment of a workman for 90 days on adhoc basis, extending the same from time to timeby
giving him artificial breaks, would not affect the continuity of service of workman forcalculation of
working of 240 days or more as continuous services during the preceding 12months. Termination
of services of a workman who has completed continuous service of 240days in 12 months, without
payment retrenchment compensation, as per section 25 F of the IDAct 1947 would be illegal
attracting reinstatement with back-wages. An award does not sufferany illegality calling for
interference if the same is passed on the basis of cogent evidence. Delayof three and half years in
raising an industrial dispute cannot be considered to be sufficient delayto reject the claim of the
workman in view of the law settled in this respect by the court.
Awarding backwages by the Industrial Tribunal from the date of demand notice served by
theworkman on the management is justified. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
writcourt does not sit in appeal for reappraisal of evidence.
Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officet,
IndustrislTribunal III, Delhi and Another
2015 LLJ 613 (Del)
State of UP and Anr. vs. Km. Shashi Joshi
2015 LLR 158 (SC)
24. Services of 240 days has to be counted from the relevant date of retrenchment for a period of12
calendar months for the purpose of section 25f of the IDAct 1947.
Daleep Kumar vs The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda & Another
2015 LLJ 639 (P&H)
25. Labour Court has no power to adjudicate disputed facts which are not covered in the terms
ofreference made to it or the workman has brought on record for the first time only before
theLabour Court. An award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside if the Labour
Courthas adjudicated on facts which are not part of the reference or incidental to the reference.
The Executive Engineer and Another vs. Dnyaneshwar Sahadeorao Tajane
2015 LLJ 648 (Bom)
26. Termination by way of punishment is not retrenchment or in violation of provisions ofsections
25 F and 25 G of the I.D Act 1947. Termination of employment initially for fixed period,liable to be
terminated at any time without issuing any notice, extendable from time to time,keeping the
appointment on purely temperory basis, is not retrenchment within the meaning ofsection 2(oo) of
the Act.
The Principal and another vs. Anant Nivrutti Bhure
2015 LLR 649 (Bom)
27. When the very status of the applicant as workman was disputed, the Labour Court would notbe
having jurisdiction to adjudicate the application. Territorial jurisdiction of LabourCourt/Industrial
Tribunal could not be rested on the plea that the head office of the respondentemployer was at
Delhi.
M. Vadivelu vs. Rajkishan and Company & Others
2015 LLR 654 (Del)
28. Paying less wages and other benefits to daily wagers in comparision to permanent employeesis
practising unfair labour practice as defined under section 25 (T),amounting to statutoryoffence
under section 25 (U) of the Act since it amounts to violation of principle of "equal payfor equal
work" i.e., exploitation of workmen, not permissible under any law. It is appropriate totreat the
services of the daily wagers as permanent after five years of their initial appointment ifthe work
being performed by the daily wagers was same as that of permanent workmen andworking hours
were same. Discrepancy in wages of permanent and non permanent workmen isnot permissible in
law. There is no restriction in law for recruitment of workmen as daily wagers.Regularisation of a
daily wager after completion of five year service is justified.
Umrala Gram Panchayat vs. The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union & Others
2015 LLR 449 (SC)
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Anr vs. Castrribe Rajya
P.KarmachariSanghatana
(2009) 8 SCC 556
Durgapur Casual Workers' Union vs. Food Corporation of India
(2014) 13 SCALE 644: 2014 LLR 219 (SN)
29. Development Officers working in LIC are not workmen under section 2(s) of the ID Act
1947since their principal duty is to organise and develop business in the area, to recruit agents and
totrain or guide them. He has no authority to appoint agents or to take disciplinary action
againstthem on behalf of the Corporation or even supervise their work or to administer any
controlover their work
Chauharya Tripathi & Ors vs. LIC of India & Others
2015 LLR 452 (SC)
30. Without issuing notice under section 9A of ID Act 1947 any change effected by theManagement
in service conditions is illegal and not sustainable.
Sh. Mohd. Azim vs. Sarv Up Gramin Bank
2015 LLR 464 (Del)
31. Raising an industrial dispute without availing appeal mechanism as per service rules
ismaintainable.
Jai Bhagwan vs. State of Haryana & Another
1983 (47) FLR 532 (SC) : 1984 - 1- LLJ 52 (SC)
32. If there is no justification to depart from 'last come first go' then retrenchment is illegal
Abdul Rahman & Others vs. The Div. Supdt. Southern Railways
1981 LIC 217
Om Oil and Oilseed Exchange Ltd. vs. Their Workmen
AIR 1966 SC 1957:1966 - 11- LLJ 324 (SC)
Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Shri Katcheru
1993 LLR 5 (Del)
33. Proving employer-employee relationship conditions
Niligiri Coop. Mkt. Society Ltd. vs. State of Tamil Nadu
2004 LLR 351 (SC)
The RPF Commissioner Mumbai vs. Syndicate Overseas Pvt. Ltd
2011 LLR 953 (Bom)
34. A doctor is no more a workman under ID Act
ESIC Medical Officers Association vs. E.S.I.C& Anr
2014 LLR 52 (SC)
35. Management is not entitled to seek relief from court if it has not complied with
thelegal/mandatory provisions of the Act while terminating services of a workman. An order
oftermination is void ab initio if the same has been made by the employer without compliance
ofmandatory provisions of the ID Act. Workman is entitled to reinstatement with full
backwageswhen the order of termination is void ab initio. If the workman had completed 240
dayscontinuous service during the preceding 12 calender months, his termination without
complyingmandatory provisions of Act is illegal making the workman entitled to reinstatement with
backwages
Jasmer Singh vs. State of Haryana
2015 LLR 225 (SC)
36. When the employer offers reinstatement at the earliest possible
opportunityincludingconciliation proceedings also, to the workman who has alleged termination
ofhis services,awarding reinstatement and backwages by the Labour Court to theworkman is not
maintainable.Awarding compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the LabourCourt to the workman in lieu
ofreinstatement and backwages is not justified in view ofrefusal by the workman to the workmanto
the offer of resuming his duty withoutprejudice to his legal right of backwages to be decidedby the
Labour Court.
Madhuri Chandulal Lakhani, Prop. Of Jenny Colour Lab& Studio Chembur vs.
PrashantShripadSatpute, Mumbai - 400 071
2015 LLR 239 (Bom)
37. Appropriate Government is having powers to make reference under section 10 of the Act,only
when an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended between the parties. While answeringthe
reference, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has to confine its inquiry to the question(s)referred
since it does not have jurisdiction to travel beyond the question(s) or / and the terms ofreference.
Civil Court does not have jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit involving provisionsof labour laws.
Reference made by the appropriate government in respect of workers whoseservices were
terminated long back prior to making of reference regarding their absorption andregularisation is
not sustainable since there was no industrial dispute that ' existed' or'apprehended' in relation to
workmen at the time of reference. Absorption and regularisation canbe claimed or/and granted only
when the contract of employment subsists and is in force inter seas employee and employer and not
later on after a long period. Reference regarding absorptionand regularisation can be made only
when the contract of employment subsists and is in forceinter se employee and employer.
Oshiar Prasad and Others vs. The employers in relation to Management of Sudamdih CoalWashery
of BCCL Dhanbad, Jharkhand
2015 LLR 254 (SC)
38. Section 2A of the Act can be invoked by a workman to avail remedy before the
IndustrialTribnal/Labour Court only against her dismissal, discharge, retrenchment or
otherwisetermination from services. When records reveal that the workman did not join duty at the
placeof transfer knowing that her services are transferable as per contract of employment, her
claimunder section 2A of the Act is not maintainable. If the employer has not issued any letter
oftermination of services to the workman, her transfer order cannot be held to be order
oftermination of her services. Writ court can interfere with the award passed by
IndustrialTribunal/Labour Court only to correct errors of law, procedural inconsistency or when
rules ofnatural justice have been violated, decision is not a fair decision being based on
extraneousconsideration, order is wholly arbitrary or capricious.
Ms. Geeta Devi vs.M/s Updater Service (P) Ltd & Anr.
2015 LLR 264 (Del)
39. Conciliation Officer not empowered to stay transfer.
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union through its Joint Secretary vs. Pix Transmissions Ltd
2011 LLR 193(Bom)
40. Fleet Executives exercising supervisory and administrative powers cannot be termed'Workman'
under the Act
M/s Pepsico. India Holding Pvt Ltd vs. Krishna Kant Pandey
2015 LLR 113 (SC)
41. While terminating the services of a workman, there is no requirement of compliance ofsection 25
F of the Act if the workman had not worked for 240 working days in any of the yearsof his service
on the basis of record. Such service will not be continuous service as per section 25B of the Act
irrespective of his long attachment with the company. No benefit can be grantedunder section 25 G
of the Act on the ground that some persons have been appointed after histermination if the
workman fails to provehis version on the basis of reliable evidence,prefereably documentary
evidence. Initial burden to prove 240 working days service is on theworkman.
Naresh vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and others
2015 LLR 149 (P&H)
Sanjeev Kumar vs. Presiding Officer Industrial Tribunal cumLabour Court Bathinda &Ors.
2015 LLR 188 (P&H)
42. When employer-employee relationship is not proved on record of the court file,
awardingreinstatement by the labour court to the eorkman is not justified. Major ingridients to
establishrelationship of employer-employee are appointment letter, attendance and payment of
wagesrecords, leave records, identity card issued by the employer, pay/wages slip issued by
theemployer, any other letter/communication in respect of the employee. Documents like gate
passby itself cannot be an incident of service sufficient to establish employer-employee
relationship.Medical treatment given to the workmen by the doctor of the company cannot be said
to be anincident of service since it may be given on humanitarian ground.
M/s Piaggio Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Mr. Jagannath Vithal Jagtap & Anr.
2015 LLR 137 (Bom)
43. Illegality in the order of termination on account of non-payment of retrenchment compensation
does not necessarily attract reinstatement when the employer has wound up the relatebusiness
activity. Concept of lump sum compensation in view of the short length of service, longlitigation and
closure of establishment or relevant job is appropriate looking to the totality ofcircumstances. While
recording proceeding under the Act, strict rules of Evidence Act are notapplicable. Admission of
zerox copy of the management cannot be defaulted at belated stage.
44. Protection of section 25F of the Act is not available to the workman, if he fails to prove thathe
had rendered continous service for 240 days or more during the previous12 months. Initialburden is
upon the workman to prove that he had rendered service for more than 240 daysduring the
preceding 12 months. Non-filing of an appropriate application by the workman beforethe
adjudicator for directing the management to produce relevant record would reveal that theworkman
did not discharge his initial onus to prove continuous service for 240 days during the12 preceding
months. High Court would not act as a court of appeal for going into the question ofsufficiency and
adequacy of evidence.
Satish vs.Presiding Officer and Another
2015 LLR 174 (P&H)
45. Once the workman has chosen to avail remedy under Common/Civil Law, he could not resortto
the other since the judgement of Civil Court would act as resjudicata to proceedings under IDAct or
any other special Law/Act. Only because an employee is a workman under the ID Act1947, or his
conditions of service are governed by the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders)Act 1946, it
would not be correct to contend that ipso facto Civil Court will have no jurisdiction.When the
infringement of provisions of Standing Orders or the ID Act is alleged, the civil courtjurisdiction
may be barred.
Pale Ram vs. The presiding Officerb, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Rohtakand Another
2015 LLR 185 (P&H)
46. Workman Onus of proof Once relationship of employer and employee is admitted by
employer and he submits that employee is working in supervisory capacity and not as workman,
onus is on management to prove that employee is not workman.
Hotel Hans Coco Palms vs. Milan Das @ Milan Krishna Das
2013-II-LLJ-28(Ori)
Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd vs. RS Bhatia (thro LRs)
1975 (31) FLR 326 (SC) = 1979 SCLJ 462

INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT STANDING ORDERS ACT 1946

1. Act is not applicable to a local authority as it was not an establishment under Section 2(e)thereof.
Sangli Miraj Kupwad Cities Municipal Corporation, Sangli, through its Commissioner
versusMahapalika Kamgar Sabha
2013-1-LLJ-277 (Bom)
2. New employees are bound by the certified Standing Orders
Sudhir Chandra Sarkar vs.Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd.
1994 (3) SCC 369 : AIR 1984 SC 1064: 1984 (11) LLJ 223 (SC)

MISCELLANEOUS

1.HRA is to be paid only if employee or the spouse is not provided government

accommodation.Spouse given government quarter, case of judicial seperation pending.HRA is not
payable
Union of India and Another versus Subhashish Basak
2013-1-LLJ-609 (Cal)
2. Where a service related claim is based on continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if thereis a
long delay in seeking remedy, as continuing wrong creates a continuous source of injury andthe
claim never gets fridged until payment is made.
Union of India and Others versus Tarsem Singh
(2008) 8 SCC 648
3. Responsibility of public sector
Manganese Ore (India) Ltd versus Chandi Lal and Others
AIR 1991 SC 520: 1999-111-LLJ- 1537(SC)

MISCONDUCT

1.Using credit card in excess of its limit is not a misconduct and is not a proof for the charge
ofindebtedness.
V. Subba Rao versus Disciplinary Authoritu cum Chief Manager, Andhra Bank
2013-1-LLJ-364(AP)
2. For sustaining charge of unauthorised absence amounting to misconduct, it must be provedthat
the unauthorised absence was wilful. If the absence is due to compelling circumstance underwhich
it is not possible to report for or perform duty, such absence cannot be held to be wilfuland the
employee cannot be held guilty of misconduct.
Krushnakant B Parmar versus Union of India and Another
(2012) 3 SCC 178
3. Freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) includes fair criticism oflaw
and executive actions, could not be infrginged on the ground remote or speculative ground.
Baldev Singh v State
AIR 2002 SC 1124 : (2002) 3 SCC 667
4.The commitment to freedom of expression demands that it cannot be suppressed unless
thesituations created by allowing the freedom are pressing and the community interest
isendangered. The anticipated danger should not be remote, conjectural or farfetched. It shouldhave
proximate and direct nexus with the expression. The expression of thought should beintrinsically
dangerous to the public interest.
S. Rangarajan versus P. Jagjivan Ram
(1989) 2 SCC 574
5. A person going to the press on behalf of association cannot be denied employment on theground
that he was acting in a manner subversive to the disciplinary authority.
Subhendu Kumar Mohanty versus Orissa Power Generation Corporation Ltd andOthers
2013-1-LLJ-531
6. A temporary employee who had completed 240 days of continuous service on
reinstatementwould only mean that the workman gets back the same status as that of prior to
termination ofservice. He is not entitled to regularization or to permanent status
Gangadhar Pillai versus Siemens Ltd.
(2007) 1 SCC 533 : 2007-1-LLJ-717 (SC)
7. A mere handling of one workman with the other would not be 'manhandling'
Taj Mahal Hotel represented by its Director B. Sripathy Rao versus Madvesh Acharya
2013-1-LLJ-651 (AP)
8. Temination of services of workman on the expiry of fixed period of his employment does
notamount to retrenchment even if the workman has worked for more than 240 days.
Haryana State FCCW Store Ltd. versus Ram Niwas
AIR 2002 SC 2495 : (2002) 5 SCC 654 : 2002-11- LLJ-1153
Director General of Works CPWD versus Daya Shankar Prasad
2013-1-LLJ-59 (Del)

PROBATION

1.Termination of a probationer during probation period will not be illegal

The National Small Scale Industries Corporation Ltd and two others vs. M. Narayanan
2005 LLR 967(Ker)
Hari Ram vs. Presiding Officer
1998 LLR 1086 (P&H)
2. Termination of services of a probationer is not illegal. In the absence of any deeming clause
orterm in the contract of employment for automatic confirmation on expiry of probation orextended
period of probation, the services of an employee would continue on probation, till he isconfirmed in
his employment. When the contract of employment does not provide for automaticconfirmation on
expiry of probation period, theemployee would remain probationer till hisservices are confirmed by
a positive act ofthe employer
Jaya Raina vs. Gujarat Livelihood Promotion Company Ltd. and Another
2015 LLR 193 (Guj)

PROTECTED WORKMAN:

1.Officers recognised by employer as protected workmen and communicated only are entitled
tostatus of protected workman. There cannot be any automatic or deemed sanction under
Section33(3) of I.D Act. Suspension is not an action altering the conditions of service.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Mursheerabad, Hyderabad,represented by
itsManaging Director and Others versus B. Samuel
2013-1-LLJ-734(AP)
PH Kalyani versus Air France
AIR 1963 SC 1756 : 1963-1- LLJ-679 (SC)
2. Unauthorised absence from duty justifies punishment of termination since the workman didnot
resume duty despite letters sent to his residence by the management. When the workman washeld
guilty of the unauthorised absenteeism by conducting fair and proper enquiry, terminationof his
service is appropriate.
Sanjeev Bhasin vs. The Presiding Officer & Anr.
3. Tempering of documents thereby causing loss to the employer is a serious misconduct, forwhich
the punishment of recovery of amount of loss caused in addition to reduction in basic payis not
shockingly disproportionate.
The LIC of India & Others vs. S. Vasanti
2015 LLR 179 (SC)

PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE

1. Appointment of counsel representing employer in legal proceedings as enquiry officer,

wouldshow bias against employee and would be in violation of principles of natural justice.
S.A.L. Jon Lopez versus Registrar of Cooperative Societies, N.V.N. Maaligai, Chennaiandanother
2013-1-LLJ-298 (Mad)
Indian Refrigeration Industries versus Ram Rattan Sharma
2006-11- LLJ- 103 (Del)
2. No opportunity given to cross-examine management witness nor given opportunity to
producewitness to the employee. Violation of principles of natural justice.
Prof. Chitra Anant Salunke versus Principal Siddarth College of Law, Mumbai and others
2013-1-LLJ-454 (Bom)
State of UP and Another versus C.S. Sharma
AIR 1968 SC 158

PUNISHMENT

1.Dismissal upheld for intoxication and unauthorised absence from duty

Federal Bank Ltd versus GS Federal Bank Employees Union
2013-1-LLJ- 75(Ker)
2.Compensation in lieu of reinstatement
Bihar State Khadi and Village Industries Board versus Bihar State
2013-1-LLJ-584 (Pat)
J.K. Synthetics Limited versus K.P. Agarwal and Another
(2007) 2 SCC 433 : 2007-11-SC-128 (SC)
Jagbir Singh versus Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board
(2009) 1 SCC 327
Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation versus M.C. Joshi
(2007) 9 SCC 353
MP Administration versus Tribhuvan
(2007) 9 SCC 748
Sita Ram and Others versus Moti lal Farmers Training Institute
(2008) 5 SCC 75
Gaziabad Develpment Authority and Another versus Ashok Kumar and Another
(2008) 4 SCC 261
Mahboob Deepak versus Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and Another
(2008)1 SCC 575
3. Punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be disproportionate for the charge of
misappriation.Interference of Labour Court uder Section 11(A) set aside.
Tamil Nadu State Road Transport Corporation (Madurai Division 1) Limited Madurai
versusPresiding Officer Labour Court Madurai and Others
2013-1-LLJ-623
T.N.C.S. and Others versus Meera Bai
(2006) 2 SCC 225
4. Punishment of compulsory retirement had the effect of dismissal as the employee had
notcompleted eligibility period for pension. Interference under Section 11(A) of the Act upheld
Union of India and Others versus Sharada Bai and Others
2013-1-LLJ-692 (MP)
5. Even temporary embezzlement of customer is a serious misconduct for cashier in Bank. It is
nodefence that no loss was caused.
State Bank of India and Another versus Bela Bagchi and Others
(2005) 7 SCC 435
Canara Bank versus Naresh Kumar Gupta
2013-1-LLJ-475
6. Discrimination in punishment, for the misconduct of suppression of information
regardingeducational qualification at the time of appointment, others punished with stoppage
ofincrement while the petitioner employee was terminated. Held violative of Article 14 of
theConstitution
Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others versus Triveni Sharan Mishra
2014-4-LLJ-257 (SC)
7. Charges of 'go slow' and 'wilful disobedience' (grave and serious in nature ) if partially provedas
per finding of the Labour Court and confirmed by the Industrial Court as well as High Court,would
not be taken as grave and serious to justify punishment of dismissal from service
beingdisproportionate and severe to the gravity of the misconduct.
Nicholas Parimal India Ltd vs. Hari Singh
2015 LLR 561
8. Past record of a delinquent employee, if any, when not considered either at the timeof issuingof
charge sheet or leading evidence in the domestic enquiry, its consideration at a later stagewhile
deciding quantum of punishment by the disciplinary authority isnot sustainable
Nicholas Parimal Ltd vs. Hari Singh
2015 LLR 561 (SC)
9. As per law settled by the Supreme Court, reinstatement with full back wages is not anautomatic
relief when termination is held to be illegal. Awarding lumpsum compensation in lieuof
reinstatement with full back wages depends on most of the factors including length of service,nature
of relationship of employer-employee, nature of job etc. Settled proposition of law is thatthe Labour
Court/Industrial Tribunal has the authority and power to award any relief which issuitable to the
facts and circumstances of the case in lieu of reinstatement and full back wages
Shivji Sharma vs Secretary (Labour) & Another
2015 LLJ 617 (Del)
10. If the workmen guilty of similar misconducts, were imposed lesser punishment of stoppageof
increments, punishment of a single workman with dismissal would not be justified since itwould be
violative of principles of natural justice.
K.V.S. Ram vs. Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corpn.
2015 LLR 229 (SC)
11. No sympathy should be shown by the courts in cases involving corruption sincemisappropriation
of any amount, may be small or large, is a serious misconduct. Punishment ofremoval from service
isnot harsh or disproportionate to the guilt of making forged entry of Rs.533 in the carbon copy of
the account ledger sheet later on which is a misconduct of seriousnature. Embezzlement of any
amount, temporary or otherwise, small or large, by a Cashier,bonafide or malafide, is to e
considered seriously since in view of the general public at large, itwould be misappropriation
ofpublic money, a serious misconduct on the part of the Cashier
Diwan Singh vs. LIC and Others
2015 LLR 119
Divisional Commissioner, NEKRTC vs. M. Amaresh
(2006) 6 SCC 187
Divisional Commissioner N E K R T C vs. A.T. Mane
(2005) 3 SCC 254
Niranjan Hemachandra Sashittal and Another vs. State of Maharashtra
(2013) 4 SCC 642
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. Bajarang Lal
(2014) 4 SCC 693
12. Court has no power to interfere in the quantum of punishment, imposed by The employerupon
the employee, under power of judicial review without giving convincing reason. HighCourt while
exercising its judicial review power, cannot sit as departmental appellate authoritysince the same is
not provided in law. Quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to beawarded is exclusively
within the jurisdiction of the competent authority/employer. Judicialreview on the administrative
action is limited only to the cases where there is any illegality,irrationality and procedural
impropriety in the order passed by the administrative authorities.Punishment of reduction of basic
pay and recovery of loss caused by the employee upheld.
The LIC of India & Ors. vs. S. Vasanthi
2015 LLN 179 (SC)
13. For theft removal from service is not disproportionate
Harbansh Singh vs. Managing Director Bhilai Steel Plant
2015 LLR 191 (Chg)
Govt of AP and Ors. vs. Mohd. Nasarullah Khan
AIR 2006 SC1214
Depot Manager APSRTC vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad
AIR 2007 SC 152
14. Termination for shortage of stock held to be justified when the concerned workman wasworking
as a sweeper-cum-helper whose main duty was to check cash memo and punching thembesides that
he has admitted charges before the police and was made approver. The enquiry asheld against the
petitioner-workman, wherein the charges were proved and opportunity for cros-examination of the
witnesses of management was given could not be stated as violative ofprinciples of natural justice.
The Labour Court in a specific issue as to whether the enquiry heldby the management is legal and
proper, has held it to be fair and proper, hence in a writ petition itcould not be interfered. Keeping
in view the shortage of stock items, and admission of thepetitioner-workman, the punishment of
removal from service would not be disproportionateand shocking to the conscience of the court and
as such the High Court in writ petition could notinterfere with the award of the Industrial Tribunal
upholding the dismissal from service, more sowhen the High Court, in its judicial review did not act
as an Appellate Court.
Ravi Saran vs. The Co-op. Store Ltd., Super Bazar
2015 LLR 195 (Del)
15. Discrmination in punishment
Obettee(P) Ltd. versus Mohd. Shafiq Khan
AIR 2005 SC 3510 : (2005) 8 SCC 46
16. Punishment is disproportionate, High Court can substitute punishment
B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India
AIR 1996 SC 484 : (1995) 6 SCC 749l
Subhendu Kumar Mohanty versus Orissa Power Generation Ltd and Others
2013-1- LLJ-531(Ori)
17. Using abusive language and threatening superior officer was held serious misconduct
andinterference of Labour Court with dismissal of workman was held a capricious exercise
ofdiscretion under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad versus Presiding Officer, Additional IndustrialTribunal
cum Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad and Others
2013-1-LLJ-372(AP)
New Shorrock Mills versus Mahesh Bhai T Rao
AIR 1997 SC 252 : 1997-1-LLJ-1212(SC)
Mahindra and Mahindra Limited versus N.B. Narvade etc
2005-1-LLJ-1129 (SC)
Orissa Cement Ltd.,
1960-1-LLJ-518 (SC)
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation versus Mohan Lal Gupta and Others
2009 -4-LLJ-655 (SC)
LK Verma versus H.M.T Ltd and Another
2006-1-LLJ-1074 (SC)
Biecco Lawrie Limited and Another versus State of West Bengal and Another
2009-4-LLJ-644 (SC)
Opp. Ved Prakash Gupta versus Delto Cable India (P) Ltd
1984-1-LLJ-655 (SC)
28. Past conduct of the employee has to be the subject matter of charges otherwise cannot betaken
into consideration
Nara Goud versus Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court Warangal and Another
1997-1-LLJ-643 (SC)
29. Even if the past conduct is not mentioned in the chargesheet but was mentioned in secondshow
cause notice does not vitiate the action of management
Government of A.P. versus Mohd. Taher Ali
LNIND 2007 SC 1186
REGULARISATION OF SERVICE

1.Employees cannot be regularised only on ground of 10 years of service

Ms. Seetha M.L. and others versus State of Karnataka and Others
2013-1-LLJ-706 (Kant)
Secretary, State of Karnaka versus Uma Devi
2006-11-LLJ-722 (SC)
State of Karnataka versus M.L. Kesari
2010-4-LLJ-583 (SC)
2.Demand by contract employees for regularisation is not justified if he has failed to meet
therequirement of policy, framed by the employer, particularly in public sector, for absorption
ofcontract employees in regular service. If the policy framed by the employer is not having anylegal
infirmity and implementation of the policy is as per norms laid down, the court would notpass an
order to select an employee for permanent post when his candidature does not meet therequirement
of the policy.
Shatish Kumar Singh vs. State Bank of India & Anr.
2015 LLJ 573. (Del HC)

RESIGNATION

1. When the workman has pleaded that he was forced to submit his resignation and the
employerhas failed to give any evidence to allow that the resignation was ever accepted or
acknowledged,it would establish that the resignation was procured under pressure and coercion by
theemployer. Obtaining resignation from an employer by the employer under pressure and
coercionamounts to Unfair Labour Practice.
Choksi Heraeud Ltd. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.
2015 LLR 658 (Raj)
2. When letter of acceptance of resignation was issued by employer, received by the
workmanwithout any protest, full and final payment was received by the workman through account
payeecheque, the cheque was encashed, the plea of the workman that his resignation had been
obtainedby force by his employer is not maintainable.
M. Babu s/o Muniswamy vs. Management of Prescom Products, rep. by its Proprietor
2015 LLR 156

RETIREMENT / VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT

1.Request for voluntary retirement can be refused on the ground of disciplinary action
Balak Ram Singh versus State Bank of India
2013-1-LLJ-50(M
2.When a charge of cohabiting with a woman who was not a legally wedded wife or with
anotherwoman during subsistence of marriage and treating such woman with cruelty and torturing
her isproved it is unbecoming and disgraceful on the part of charged officer and the order
ofcompulsory punishment is not shockingly disproportionate
M.M. Malhotra versus Union of India and Others
AIR 2006 SC 80: (2005) 8 SCC 351
3.It is well settled that unless either in the certified Standing Orders or in the service regulationsan
Act or omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to fish out someconduct
as misconduct and punish the workman even though the alleged misconduct would notbe
comprehended in any of the enumerated misconducts.
Rasiklal Vaghaijibhai Patel versus Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Another
AIR 1985 SC 504 : 1984 - 11- LLJ-186(SC)
4.What in a given context would constitute conduct unbecoming of a public servant to betreated as
misconduct would expose a grey area not amenable to objective evaluation. Wheremisconduct when
proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the part of the employerto specify and if
necessary define it with precision and accuracy, any ex-post facto interpretationof some incident
may not be camouflaged as misconduct.
A.L. Kalra versus The Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd
AIR 1984 SC 1361: (1985) 2 SCC 35: 1985-1- LLJ-527(SC)
V. Subba Rao versus Disciplinary Authority cum Chief Manager, Andhra Bank and Another
2013-111-LLJ-364(AP)

SUSPENSION

1.Meaning and effect

Khem Chand versus Union of India
AIR 1958 SC 300 : 1959-1-LLJ-167
Fakir Bhai versus Presiding Officer and Another
AIR 1986 SC 1168 : 1986-11-LLJ- 124 (SC)
2. Wages for the period of suspension to an employee cannot be denied if suspension order hasbeen
passed only on account of his involvement in a crminal case under the Arms Act in whichhe is
acquitted later on by the court. If neither any notice is served upon the employee before orafter
effecting his suspension nor any enquiry is conducted, his wages for the suspension periodcannot be
denied. Wages for the suspension period cannot be denied if there is no such provisionin the
standing orders of the corporation/employer. Wages for the suspension period cannot bedenied if
during enquiry he is not found guilty of the charges, levelled against him. An employeeis entitled to
wages with interest thereon for the suspension period if he not found guilty of thecharges on the
basis of which he was suspended from service.
Rampal vs. Rajasthan Sgate Road Transport Corporation & Ors.
2015 LLR 599 (Raj)
3. Suspension is not termination of service. No cessation of master servant relationship
duringperiod of suspension. Punishment order does not deny allowances for suspension period.
Jain Sahakari Bank Ltd., Mumbai and Another versus SMT Bharati
Joshi,Goregaon(West),Mumbai
2013-LLJ-1-604 (Bom)
4. When an employee, particularly a cashier, was guilty of temporary embezzlement of Rs.
533received from policy holder and deposited it after two months, it will be a serious
misconducthence the division bench of the high court has rightly upheld the punishment of
compulsoryretirement. A matter like embezzlement, even when it is temperorary by an employee,
will be amisplaced sympathy if no action is taken against it, in view of the judgement of Supreme
Court.
Diwan Singh vs Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors
2015 LLR 646 (SC)
9. Refusal to obey the lawful instructions of superiors is a serious and grave misconductjustifying
punishment of removal or dismissal from service
Sh. Mohd. Azim vs. Sarv Up Gramin Bank
2015 LLR 464 (Del)

TRANSFER

1. Transfer is not only an incident inherent in the terms of appointment but also implicit as
anessential condition of service in absence of any specific condition to the contrary. Nogovernment
can function if the government servant insists that once appointed in a particularplace or position,
he would continue there as long as he desires. Court cannot interfere withtransfer order unless
malaise intention is proved.
K. Thirumalaisamy versus Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp.,Coimbatoreand
Another
2013-1-LLJ-627
2. A high court under Article 226 and 227 had to go into the question as to whether the transferwas
in the interest of public service, which would essentially require factual adjudication andinvariably
depend upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of thecae concerned. Transfer of anemployee
appointed in a transferable post, is not only an incident, but a condition of service,necessary too in
public interest and efficiency in the public administration.
National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd., versus Shri Bhagwan
AIR 2001 SC 3309: (2001) 8 SCC 574: 2001-11- LLJ- 1243 (SC)
3. A government employee has no legal right to be posted at any particular place.
Chief General Manager, (Telcom) NE Telecom Circle versus Rajendra Ch.Bhattacharjee
AIR 1995 SC 813 : (1995) 2 SCC 532
4. A government servant has no vested right to remain posted at a place of his choice nor can
heinsist that he must be posted at one place or the other and he is liable to be transferred in
theadministrative exigencies from one place to another.
Rajendra Singh versus State of Uttar Prasesh
(2009) 15 SCC 178
5. Transfer of an employee to another company is illegal if the same is effected without havingthe
support of terms and conditions of the employment contract or applicable rules or certifiedstanding
orders of the employer. Transfer of an employee to another company only on the basisthat the
transferor company is going to be merged in the transferee company is illegal, till theprocess of
merger is incomplete. Transfer of an employee to another company after merger ofboth the
companies is legal.
Shri MK Saini vs. Indraprastha Power Generation Co. Ltd.
2015 LLJ 616 (Del)
6. Transfer of an employee from one place to another as per service conditions of hisemployment is
not a change in his service conditions.
Sh. Mohd. Azim vs. Sarv Up Gramin Bank
2015 LLR 464 (Del)
7. A transfer order is not illegal if the appointment letter, issued to the employee includes
thecondition that the employee can be transferred from one branch to another branch since such
atransfer is an incident of service being based on contractual terms of employment. A transferorder
is not illegal if the seniority list of all staff/employees of all the schools run by the Societyis being
maintained by the Society. Transfer is an incident of service if based on contractualterms of
employment. Transfer cannot be held to be illegal only on the ground of form andtechnicalities in
the transfer order.
Tarunjeet Kaur vs. School Management of GHPS, Hemkunt, colony and Others
2015 LLR 471 (Del)
8. Any court cannot quash an order of transfer of services of a workman, if the managementstates
and proves on record that transfer of the workman was in accordance with terms andconditions of
employment contract.
M/s Geeta Devi vs. M/s Updater services (P) Ltd. & Anr.
2015 LLR 264 (Del)
9. When post is transferable but the workman does not report for duty at the place of his
tranfer,awarding reinstatement by the Labour Court to such a workman on raising an industrial
disputelater on by him, is not justified. Non-reporting for duty at the place of transfer, as per terms
andconditions of appointment letter, without any justified explanation, thereby
remainingunauthorisedly absent would be treated as abandonment of service on the part of an
employee.Transfer of an employee is justified when his post is transferable on the basis of terms and
conditions of his appointment letter.
Competent Security Services vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
2015 LLN 169 (Del)
10. Jurisdiction of Tribunal Employee transfered to work in hotel in another place, but Industrial dispute
proceedings filed where earlier hotel is located. Order of transfer issued by earlier management had no
authority to do so. In pursuance of transfer order, employee denied to work at earlier place, the same amounts
to retrenchment Part of cause of action arose in jurisdiction of Tribunal.
Hotel Hans Coco Palms vs. Milan Das @ Milan Krishna Das
2013-II-LLJ- 28 (Ori)

UNION MATTERS

1. No right to hold union meeting at work place

Railway Board, representing the Union of India New Delhi vs. Niranjan Singh
1969 (18) FLR 300 :AIR 1969 SC 966 : (1969) 8 SCC 548 (SC)
Management of Sringreni Colleries Company Ltd., Ramagundam & Godavarikhani,Karimnagarvs.
Industrial Tribunal -1, Hyderabad & Anr
2012 LLR 1162 (AP HC)
2. Deliberate and conscious non-compliance of transfer order as well as refusal to participate
inenquiry are serious misconducts justifying termination of services of the employee. When thereis
no illegality, perversity or material irregularity apparent on the face of the award calling
forinterference under writ jurisdiction, non-interference byte High Court is justified.
A.K. Khare vs. Indian Drugs and Pharmacetuicals Limited
2015 LLR 655 (MP)
3. Injunction can be granted against union office bearers
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineers Sangam rep. by General Secretary V. Ashok Kumar vs. S.
Manoharan, Junior Engineer (Elec), Safety Officer, North Chennai Thermal Power Station, Chennai
and others
2013-II-LLJ-37 (Mad)

WAGES AND SALARY

1. Principle of 'no work no wages' will not be applicable where the employee is willing to workbut is
not allowed by the employer.
G. Periyakaruppan versus District Collector & Inspector of Panchayats, Madurai and others
2013-1-LLJ-765(MAD)
2. Where a bank official allowed excessive overdraft limits for his personal ends and against
theinterests of the bank and the depositors, his case must be dealt with iron hands and not
lenientlyand the plea of leniency on the ground of long years of service rendered by him is rejected.
State Bank of India and Others versus Dinesh Dinakar Pande
(2006) 7 SCC 212: 2006-111-LLJ-563(SC)
3. Where Consolidated Wages paid were higher than what was prescribed in government
notification payable as dearness allowance, then there is no liability to today DA separately.
Sunrise Industries, Bangalore versus Sunrise Industrial Unit, AITUC
2013-1-LLJ-419
4. Object of Minimum Wages discussed
Chandra Bhawan Boarding and Lodging, Bangalore versus The State of Mysore &Another
AIR 1970 SC 2042:(1969) 3 SCC 84: 1970-11-LLJ-403
5. Payment of less than minimum wages amount to forced labour
Sanjit Roy versus State of Rajasthan
AIR 1983 SC 328:(1986) 1 SCC 525:1983-1-LLJ-220(SC)
The Workmen represented by Secretary versus The Management of Reptakos Brett &Co. Ltd
andAnother
AIR 1992 SC 504:(1992) 1 SCC 290:1992-1-LLJ-340(SC)

WORKMEN COMPENSATION ACT 1923

1. Section 3: An adopted son is eligible to get compensation. Where the stress and strain of
drivingheavy vehicle for 1152 kms. is a mishap caused by employment conditions and there is
causalnexus between employment and mishap, so compensation is payable
Mst. Param Pal Singh through father versus National Insurance Company and Another
2013-1-LLJ-520(SC)
2. Heart Attack can also be treated as employment injury and compensation is payable
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt Ltd versus Ibrahim Mohammed Issak
1970-1-LLJ-16 (SC)
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co versus Ritta Fernandez
1969-11-LLJ-812(SC)
Shakuntala Chandrakant Shreshti versus Prabhakar Maruti Garvali & Another
2007-1-LL-474(SC)
Mallikarjuna J Hiremath versus Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd & Another
AIR 2009 SC 2019
Sunderbai versus General Manager, Ordinance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur
1976 Lab IC 1163(MP)
3. Payment of compensation under the Act, there should be causal connection between the employment and cause of death

Leela Devi vs. Ram Lal Rahu

1990 LLR 212 : 1989 LIC 758 : (1988) 73 FJR 238 (HP HC)|>

4. An employer is liable to pay compensation only in respect of injury suffered by an employee on account of accident having arisen out of and in the course of employment.

Ifthe workman, of course, has exposed himself to an added peril by his own imprudent act, thereby receiving injury, he would not be entitled to compensation under the Act.

Anaccident causing injury to the employee must arise out of and in the course of employment, for entitlement of employee to claim compensation under the Act. "In the

course ofemployment" means "in the course of work for which the workman is employed to do and which is incidental to it". "Arising out of employment" means "during the

course ofemployment, injury has resulted from some risk incidental to the duties of service" "Unless engaged in duty owing to the master, it is reasonable to believe, the

workmen would nototherwise have suffered" making him entitled to claim compensation under the Act

Laxmanrao vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Board

2015 LLR 260 (Bom)

Mackinon Mackenzie & Co. Pvt. Ltd vs. Ibrahim Mahmmod Issak

1969 ACJ 422(SC)

5. No liability to pay compensation on accident of an employee cobvered under ESI Act

Abad Fisheries vs. Commissioner for Workmen Compensation,

1994 (3) LLJ Suppl. 59

Allied Industries vs. Noolchand

2008 LKR 217 (Raj)