TWO MINUTES HR MANAGER

• Refusal of the workman to work on the site alongwith the team will amount to abandonment of service.
  Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Javedali Kutubali Hashmi , 2011 LLR 197 (Guj HC).
• Striking name of workman for his unauthorized absence is improper.
  Mayank Desai v. Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Ltd. , 2011 LLR 536 (Guj HC).
• An employee retired after 55 years will not be liable to be covered under the Act on his re-employment if he has already withdrawn his full amount of accumulation on his retirement.
  Bombay Printers Ltd. v. Union of India , (1992) 1 LLJ 816: 1991 LLR 443: 1991 (63) FLR 106 (Bom HC).
• Abandonment will be presumed when employee fails to comply with the transfer.
  U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank , 2011 LLR 708 (Del HC).
• An apprentice cannot refuse the offer of employment after successful completion of training period.
  Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India , (1994) 54 DLT 403: 1994 LLR 557: (1994) II CLR 916: 1994-II LLN 339 (Del HC).
• Two establishments, functioning together and employing 20 employees, will be covered under the Provident Fund Act.
  Om Investment Corporation, Bangalore v. Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Bangalore, 2009 LLR 990 (Karn HC).
• A dispute about appointment of a person as an ‘apprentice' or an ‘employee' can be referred for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
  J.K. Synthetics Ltd . v. State of Rajasthan , 1994 LLR 725: (1994) I LLJ 835: (1994) II CLR 66 (Raj HC).
• No back wages can be awarded if the concerned workman fails to assert before the Labour Court about his unemployment during pendency of the industrial dispute.
  Hridyanand v. G.P. Stores, Allahabad , 1996 LLR 433 (All HC).
• A belated request for change in the date of birth cannot be considered hence liable to be rejected.
  Gurcharan Singh Sethi v. Union of India , (2002) IV LLJ Supp 213: 2000 LLR 764 (Del HC).
• A charge-sheet to an employee for his involvement in other business will not be vague when the names of business firms and addresses which are being carried on by him are mentioned in it.
  Davendra Kumar v N.G.E.F. Ltd. , 2000 LLR 705 (Karn HC)
• Cancellation of allotted quarter to a workman will not amount to change in his conditions of service.
  Paladugu Manikyala Rao v. Labour Court, Guntur , 1998 LLR 1103 (AP HC).
• Assault of an employee by the employees far away from the work place will not be a misconduct.
  P.V. Pujari v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay , (1994) 68 FLR 1124: 1995 LLR 125: 1995 LIC 157 (Bom HC).
• Employees of the contractor working through contractors in an exempted establishment are to be covered under the E.P.F. Act and the Scheme. The contractors should obtain their Code numbers and also deposit the contributions with the authorities.
  Bata India Ltd. v. Union of India , (2001) 2 BLJR 887: (2001) 89 FLR 1092: (2001) 4 LLN 536:(2001) II LLJ 212: 2001 LLR (Sum) (Pat HC).
• An employee provided with accommodation by employer will be a licensee and not a tenant.
  Emmanuel Prem Masih v. Delhi Diocesan Trust Association , 2000 LLR 1028 (Del HC).
• The object of a charge-sheet is that the delinquent must know what he is charged with and have the adequate opportunity to meet the charges and to defend himself by giving a proper explanation.
  G.V. Aswathanarayana v. Central Bank of India, by Chairman, Bombay , 1993 LIC 637: 2003 LLR 937 (Karn HC).
• In the absence of any provision pertaining to transfer of a workman, notice of change in service conditions will be imperative.
  Chennai Port and Dock Workers Congress (INTUC) v. Union of India , (2002) 94 FLR 1072: 2002 LLR 1090 (Mad HC).
• Acquittal of the employer in prosecution launched by the ESI Authorities for nonproduction of record will not be interfered by the High Court since the prosecution has been launched after expiry of six months.
  Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Brajakishore Panigrahi , 2011 LLR (SN) 664 (Ori HC).
• Rehabilitation package by the Government is rightly considered by the Tribunal in allowing the payment of dues in installments.
  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Sylee Tea Estate , 2017 LLR 518 (Cal HC).
• Persons involved in theft, forgery, etc., not to be rewarded by the Labour Courts by reinstatement merely on acquittal in criminal trial.
  All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. O.P. Chauhan, 2007 LLR 435 (Del HC).
• A reinstated employee will not be entitled to bonus for the period when he did not work because of his illegal termination.
  Ahmed Hussain v. Management of Swadeshi Cotton Mills, Pondicherry , (2000) 96 FJR 476: 1999 LLR 904 (Mad HC).
• During adjudication, the question with regard to validity of an enquiry will be treated as a preliminary issue.
  UCO Bank v. The Presiding Officer , 1999 LLR 1136 (Del HC).
• Recovery of ESI contributions, without show cause notice and inspection report, is not tenable.
  Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Managing Director, M/s. Qetcos Ltd., 2008 LLR 1117 (SN) (Ker HC).
• Labour Court is empowered to grant interim relief during pendency of dispute.
  Powercell Battery India Ltd. v. R. Servesh , 2012 LLR 510 (Karn HC).
• Failure to entertain a claim of a workman under section 33C(2) of the Act, on the plea of the employer that there is no relationship of employer and employee, will not be justified.
  Sardara Singh v. M/s. Ithad Motor Transport Pvt. Ltd ., 1992 LLR 384 (Del HC).
• Refusal by a driver to work on weekly off on emergent duty will justify his dismissal.
  Mohan Singh v. Jaipur Metals & Electrical Ltd., Jaipur, (1996) II LLJ 551: 1996 LLR 448 (Raj HC).
• Gravity of misconduct must be measured in terms of its nature while imposing punishment.
  General Manager Appellate Authority v. Mohd. Nizamuddin , (2006) 7 SCC 410: 2006 SCC (L&S) 1663: 2006 LLR 1238 (SC).
• There is no right vested with employees to seek to work over time.
  Petroleum Employees Union v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., 2015 LLR (SN) 331: 2015 (144) FLR 161 (Mad HC).
• An employee having worked for more than 240 days in the fifth year will be eligible for gratuity.
  Mettur Beardsell Ltd., Madras v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras , 1998 LLR 1072 (Mad HC).
• Withholding increment during suspension of an employee will not be valid.
  Andhra Bank, Central Officer, Hyderabad v. M.L. Gopichander , 2000 LLR 946 (Karn HC).

Move to Top