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.