Courts/Tribunals can interfere with punishment only when it is disproportionate to the misconduct or shocking to the conscience.
2009 LLR 752
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dismissal of a bus conductor for not issuing tickets, as proved in enquiry, is wrongly set aside.
2009 LLR 689
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Mere continuation of trainees, by interim order, will not entitle them regularisation as regular employees.
2009 LLR 787
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Reinstatement rightly awarded when employer did not remove defect in writ petition.
2009 LLR 751
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Termination of a fixed-term employee will not be illegal retrenchment.
2009 LLR 732
KERALA HIGH COURT
Reinstatement of the worker is not proper when he persistently neglected his duty and habitually absented.
2009 LLR 769
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dismissal of a sweeper for alleged absence not proper; when his past record was satisfactory.
2009 LLR 752
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Under section 11A of the I.D., Act Labour Court/Tribunal can modify punishment but the power be exercised judiciously.
2009 LLR 689
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Allowing change in date of birth of workman, that too after his retirement, is wrong.
2009 LLR 783
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
An award cannot be interfered unless there is gross error and perversity.
2009 LLR 786
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Apprentices under Apprentices Act or Standing Orders are not to be covered under the ESI Act.
2009 LLR 744
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Dismissal during pendency of industrial dispute without approval will be illegal.
2009 LLR 739
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Dismissal for habitual absence subsequent to period of sickness etc. is not hit by section 73 of the ESI Act.
2009 LLR 788
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dismissal of a bank employee, for embezzlement, will not be interfered by the High Court.
2009 LLR 726
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Failure of workman to prove 240 days'' working will make termination as legal.
2009 LLR 773
PATNA HIGH COURT
Filing writ in the High Court challenging award of Labour Court without explaining delay, will not be tenable.
2009 LLR 725
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
High Court can direct Provident Fund Authority to recover provident fund dues from employer.
2009 LLR 711
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Initial burden to prove 240 days'' work lies upon the workman and after discharge, shifts upon Management.
2009 LLR 766
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Mere absence of the advocate will not be ''sufficient cause'' for non appearance of a party.
2009 LLR 693
DELHI HIGH COURT
More than 240 days working of a fixed-term employee will not make every workman as permanent.
2009 LLR 732
KERALA HIGH COURT
Overtime payment has been rightly held to be ''wages'' for ESI contributions.
2009 LLR 714
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reinstatement of workman, after long period, will affect the industrial peace.
2009 LLR 693
DELHI HIGH COURT
Reinstatement to a daily wager, failing to prove 240 days of continuous working, shall not be proper.
2009 LLR 791
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reinstatement with 50% back-wages is proper when the workman has completed 240 days'' service before termination.
2009 LLR 754
DELHI HIGH COURT
When no justification has been given by a public body, like Jal Board in filing the writ petition after 4 years, it will not be tenable.
2009 LLR 801
DELHI HIGH COURT
When workman has not signed proceedings, it cannot be construed that he understood the contents of the proceedings.
2009 LLR 775
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Workman''s failure to prove 240 days'' service in a year will not entitle any relief against termination.
2009 LLR 765
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Writ petition against order of the P.F. Commissioner, levying damages, will not be tenable when appropriate remedy for filing appeal is available.
2009 LLR 780
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Back wages will not be denied for doing some agricultural work.
2009 LLR 754
DELHI HIGH COURT
Dismissal for disobedience cannot be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
2009 LLR 707
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Imposition of punishment will not be improper merely because the Enquiry Officer was junior to the delinquent.
2009 LLR 722
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Removal from service not disproportionate when enquiry was as per principles of natural justice.
2009 LLR 800
DELHI HIGH COURT
Store supervisor, supervising work, and sanctioning leave of his subordinates, rightly held not to be a ''workman''.
2009 LLR 727
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
When disciplinary action is initiated against several employees, joint enquiry can be held.
2009 LLR 723
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
When neither time nor date or venue of the enquiry is communicated, removal will not be sustainable.
2009 LLR 763
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
When termination of a workman is based on contract of employment, no notice or pay will be necessary.
2009 LLR 697
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A cleaner, who was allowed to drive the bus occasionally, can''t claim driver''s salary.
2009 LLR 761
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A daily-wager, engaged without complying with regulations, will not be entitled to relief against termination.
2009 LLR 771
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Absorption of contractual employees is rightly declined when they failed to appear in Court.
2009 LLR 712
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Agricultural employees do not come within the purview of Payment of Wages Act.
2009 LLR 717
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Coverage of apprentices under ESI does not involve question of law for filing appeal.
2009 LLR 744
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
In order to sustain petition under section 33-C (2) of ID Act, there must be a pre-adjudication claim.
2009 LLR 776
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reinstatement rightly awarded when workman was guilty of only some minor irregularity.
2009 LLR 796
DELHI HIGH COURT
Section 25-N of ID Act will not apply in case of termination of the store supervisor not being a ''workman''.
2009 LLR 727
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Under Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 60 years for retirement, will be applicable unless any other condition exists.
2009 LLR 756
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
When all delinquents have participated in similar agitational activities, different type of punishments is not justified.
2009 LLR 723
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
ALC not justified in directing to pay wages to security personnel when already paid.
2009 LLR 743
KERALA HIGH COURT
Belated writ petition by Jal Board, challenging Award of the Labour Court setting aside termination of a beldar after 240 days'' working, will not be tenable.
2009 LLR 801
DELHI HIGH COURT
By-laws of a Co-operative Society, like Articles of Association of a Company, do not have statutory force.
2009 LLR 756
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, will be appropriate when a long time has elapsed.
2009 LLR 693
DELHI HIGH COURT
Labour Court can, under section 33(C)(2) of the ID Act, determine dues on existing rights.
2009 LLR 721
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Last drawn wages will be payable by the employer to the reinstated workman.
2009 LLR 782
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Membership of the Trade Union can''t be proved only on the basis of affidavits.
2009 LLR 699
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reinstatement rightly granted to bus conductor when charges not proved in enquiry
2009 LLR 803
DELHI HIGH COURT
Section 33-C(2) of the ID Act is in the nature of execution proceedings to recover dues.
2009 LLR 776
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Termination without retrenchment compensation will be illegal when employer failed to rebut 240 days'' working by workman.
2009 LLR 766
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
When delinquent not participated in enquiry and challenged his dismissal; no relief can be granted.
2009 LLR 726
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
An employee, drawing more than prescribed wages, will not get relief under Payment of Wages Act.
2009 LLR 812
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Labour Court not justified in giving direction for payment of back wages when no reinstatement granted.
2009 LLR 812
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
UP Ganna Kishan Sansthan will be a "State" under section 12 of the Constitution of India for writs jurisdiction.
2009 LLR 811
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tribunal erred in rejecting a dispute against the bank since it has not produced the requisite documents.
2009 LLR 810
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Rejection of a dispute for want of ''employer - employee'' relationship not proper when bank failed to produce relevant record.
2009 LLR 810
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
