Key Labour Law Insights
Supreme Court
- Iswarlal Mohanlal Thakkar v. Paschim Gujarat Vij Company Ltd — Date of birth stated in Civil Court prevails over all other records.
- Workmen of Balmadies Estates v. Management, Balmadies Estate — Termination for theft of employer’s property should not be set aside.
- Punjab State Electricity Board v. Inderjit Singh — Reinstatement quashed due to contradictory statement of the workman.
Delhi High Court
- Shambhu v. M/s. Sugan Drycleaners — Self-serving affidavit is not conclusive proof of employer–employee relationship.
- Hindalco Industries Ltd. v. Suman Lata Tuteja — Mere submission of leave application cannot be presumed as grant of leave.
- Hamdard Public School v. Director of Education — Confirmation of a probationer not deemed till specific order is received.
- Nand Lal v. Bakshi Transport Corporation — Resignation cannot be challenged when receipt of final payment is proved.
- Smt. Veena Devi v. Container Corporation of India Ltd. (CONCOR) — Transfer held mala fide when employee approached higher authority for grievance redressal.
Bombay High Court
- Shashikant Gangaram Narkar v. Advance Transformers and Equipments Pvt. Ltd. — Full back wages when termination not on technical ground.
- Regional Director, ESI Corporation, Panaji v. Shaikh Mustafa Kadar — ESI authority not empowered to waive interest on delayed contributions.
- Union of India v. Mohan P. Gore — A hospital engaged in welfare activities is an industry under I.D. Act.
- Everest Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Pratik C. Khandhadiya — Labour Court cannot entertain complaint of an employee who is not a “workman.”
- P.V. Pujari v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay — Assault by employee far away from workplace not a misconduct.
- Sanmitra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner — EPF Authority can inquire under Section 7A to ascertain applicability of the Act.
Madras High Court
- Sri Ramnarayan Mills Ltd. v. EPF Appellate Tribunal — Apprentices on regular work are “employees” under the PF Act.
- Sam B. Jijina v. State of Tamil Nadu — Prosecution of other than the occupier of the factory is illegal.
- Management of Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Paper Mills v. Workmen of Tamil Nadu Newsprint & Paper Mills — Canteen workers not being employees; Standing Orders do not apply.
- A.V. Rm. V. Transport Service Ltd. v. EPF Appellate Tribunal — Two units functioning together with same partners to be clubbed for EPF coverage.
Karnataka High Court
- N.B. Kulkarni v. Life Insurance Corporation of India — Charge-sheet after five years of alleged misconduct is vitiated.
- Mr. Tushar v. Internal Complaints Committee — Non-supply of sexual-harassment complaint copy not fatal if guilt admitted.
- Sri H.N. Venkatappa v. Management of Himalaya Drug Company — For challenging VRS after acceptance, benefits must be returned.
- Krishnappa M. v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. — Union office bearers must have integrity and hard work to be role models.
Allahabad High Court (Uttar Pradesh)
- Pramod Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. — Witness to incident cannot be an impartial enquiry officer.
Gujarat High Court
- Muljibhai Bhurabhai v. Upendra Vyas, Manager, Rohit Mills Co. Ltd. — Contempt of Courts Act not applicable to Labour Court.
Odisha High Court
- Suhrid Ranjan Dasgupta v. Steel Authority of India — Tribunal, not High Court, can decide factual aspects of award.
- Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. State of Orissa — Order passed without service of summons is unsustainable.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
- Kalyan Roller Floor Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. U. Neelamma — Compensation justified when nexus between accidental death and employment exists.
Gauhati High Court
- The Workmen v. Management of Dufflating Tea Estate — Loss of confidence justified when misappropriation proved.
- Subansiri Lower H.E. Project Contract Basis Workers Union v. NHPC — Contract workers under contractor not employees of principal employer.
- Ananta Prasad v. Gauhati High Court — Suspension for sexual harassment invalid when made before inquiry report received.
Chhattisgarh High Court
- Larsen and Toubro Ltd. v. State of Chhattisgarh — Once manufacturing starts, BOCW Act ceases to apply.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
- Gajanan Rice Mill v. EPF Appellate Tribunal — Once establishment covered under Act, continues even if employees fall below 20.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
- Harjit Singh v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala — Abandonment indicates intention of workman to leave service.
