30% back-wages on reinstatement would be appropriate to a driver if termination has been set aside.
2010 LLR 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Rs.2 lakh would be appropriate relief instead of full back-wages and reinstatement.
2010 LLR 87
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Termination of a labourer caught for accepting bribe, after his acquittal, is rightly set aside.
2010 LLR 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Full back wages upon an order of termination being declared illegal can''t be granted mechanically.
2010 LLR 93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Employee, not the employer has to prove continuous working for entitlement of gratuity.
2010 LLR 26
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Workers in the seasonal establishments are entitled to gratuity @ 7 days'' wages per year.
2010 LLR 26
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Disablement benefit under the ESI Act will not be available to an employee receiving injuries when his salary was more than the prescribed ceiling.
2010 LLR 52
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Merely some higher posts are lying vacant, the employee will not have a right to be promoted.
2010 LLR 58
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Deprivation of permanency by extending service of the employee amounted to unfair labour practice.
2010 LLR 6
DELHI HIGH COURT
Exercising option for voluntary retirement will not give a right to an employee to get it accepted.
2010 LLR 29
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Compulsory retirement of an employee - that too after holding of an enquiry amounts to dismissal to attract section 33 of I.D. Act.
2010 LLR 2
DELHI HIGH COURT
Reinstatement not to be granted to the daily wager-workman.
2010 LLR 39
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reinstatement with full back-wages to be set aside if termination of probationary services not illegal.
2010 LLR 36
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Regularisation/absorption of contract workers, if the contractor did not possess licence, not proper.
2010 LLR 69
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Full back-wages would be appropriate when the termination of an employee is set aside.
2010 LLR 97
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Merely working 240 days in a year would not entitle the contractual or casual workers to claim regularization.
2010 LLR 73
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Proceeding ex-parte against an employer because he has refused to accept the service by registered post is wrong.
2010 LLR 85
DELHI HIGH COURT
A defaulting employer is rightly proceeded ex-parte by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for determination of money.
2010 LLR 84
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
When the disciplinary authority has acted in an arbitrary manner, dismissal of the visibly impaired employee is to be set aside.
2010 LLR 65
DELHI HIGH COURT
Lower court erred in setting aside dismissal of workman guilty of moral turpitude.
2010 LLR 88
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
No regularization of a workman who has completed 730 days'' service before alleged termination.
2010 LLR 92
DELHI HIGH COURT
Vague charge-sheet will vitiate the whole disciplinary proceedings.
2010 LLR 102
DELHI HIGH COURT
Reinstatement not a rule even when retrenchment compensation is not paid at the time of termination.
2010 LLR 27
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudden withdrawal of overtime benefit without notice under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act illegal.
2010 LLR 33
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Dismissal will not be disproportionate when the officer has waved his fingers in front of the face of his superior, a lady officer.
2010 LLR 51
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Merely because the contractor employing 20 workers was not having a licence, no absorption can be directed.
2010 LLR 9
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounts Officer, not discharging any supervisory or managerial duty, will be a workman.
2010 LLR 6
DELHI HIGH COURT
ESI Act will be applicable upon an establishment when, in addition to 7 employees, there were three paid directors.
2010 LLR 38
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A probationer does not acquire any right to hold a post during the period of probation.
2010 LLR 40
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Initiating disciplinary proceedings after 11 years would be prejudicial to norms of justice.
2010 LLR 102
DELHI HIGH COURT
While modifying the Award of the Labour Court, the High Court must give supporting reasons
2010 LLR 93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
While awarding reinstatement, the Labour Court has to see the nature of work of a workman.
2010 LLR 27
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Extra payment has to be made for additional working even with 42 hours in a week.
2010 LLR 33
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Labour Court has erred in holding that an apprentice is a ''workman''.
2010 LLR 55
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Taking legal recourse for deprivation of promotion that too after his retirement, will not be tenable.
2010 LLR 58
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Nature of duties, not designation of an employee, is criterion to determine a ''workman''.
2010 LLR 6
DELHI HIGH COURT
Non-renewal of contractual probationary period of a probationer cannot be termed as retrenchment.
2010 LLR 40
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Merely because the workers have worked for 240 days in a calendar year, it will not give any right for absorption/ regularisation.
2010 LLR 69
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Rejection to refer a dispute of workers that there were different contractors not proper.
2010 LLR 78
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Termination of workman sans retrenchment compensation on or before the date of termination will be illegal.
2010 LLR 83
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Holding of enquiry for dismissal of workman will be only an empty formality when he is convicted
2010 LLR 88
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Labour Court has rightly rejected the dispute when the workman was engaged on ad hoc basis.
2010 LLR 92
DELHI HIGH COURT
Reinstatement with back-wages appropriate when misconduct has not been proved against the workman.
2010 LLR 102
DELHI HIGH COURT
No employee has a right to be promoted, at best he has a right to be considered for promotion.
2010 LLR 58
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
A complaint under MRTU&PULP Act not tenable for unfair labour practice when the contractor did not possess the licence.
2010 LLR 9
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
50% back-wages would be appropriate to a bus conductor wrongly dismissed for non issuing tickets.
2010 LLR 60
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Compulsorily retirement from service of a workman will also be dismissal and he will be entitled to reinstatement with full back-wages.
2010 LLR 2
DELHI HIGH COURT
A daily wager cannot challenge his termination alleging it to be violative of sections 25 F and 25 G of the I.D. Act.
2010 LLR 39
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Termination of a confirmed employee has been wrongly set aside without stating any reason.
2010 LLR 1
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Contract Labour (R&A) Act is a complete code by itself.
2010 LLR 73
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Services of a probationer can be terminated during or at the end of the probation period without assigning any reason.
2010 LLR 40
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
An individual cannot file a complaint before the Magistrate to take cognizance of violation of section 29 of the I.D. Act.
2010 LLR 43
KERALA HIGH COURT
The Tribunal while directing regularization has to give finding that the contract labour system was ruse, sham or camouflage.
2010 LLR 69
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Service of notice (summons) for appearance before the Labour Court is not an empty formality.
2010 LLR 85
DELHI HIGH COURT
Claim for extra duty will be tenable under section 33 C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act and will not be barred by limitation.
2010 LLR 80
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Last drawn wages would be payable when an employer has been directed by the Labour Court.
2010 LLR 46
KERALA HIGH COURT
For incorrect calculation, no plea that there is no provision under the Pensions Scheme for rectification can be taken.
2010 LLR 48
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reinstatement must be accompanied by payment of full back wages.
2010 LLR 93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Aggrieved employee can challenge the order of EPFO by filing the appeal and not under writ petition.
2010 LLR 22
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Reinstatement after 20 years should not have been granted to a workman who has worked only for two years.
2010 LLR 21
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reinstatement after 20 years should not have been granted to a workman who has worked only for two years.
2010 LLR 21
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Determination of money by the Regional PF Commissioner will not be interfered.
2010 LLR 16
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
High Court will not interfere in the option for VR, accepted by passing resolution.
2010 LLR 15
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
High Court will not interfere in the option for VR, accepted by passing resolution.
2010 LLR 15
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
When the deceased died of TB, claim for compensation not tenable.
2010 LLR 18
MADRAS HIGH COURT
