Landmark Labour Law Judgements

Supported by Labour Law Reporter (LLR)

 

GUJARAT HIGH COURT

1. Even if contract of apprenticeship is not signed, an apprentice will not become a workman.
Shankerbhai Lebabhai Vankar v. Executive Engineer — 2017, Gujarat High Court.

 

2. Director is not to be counted with employees for determining coverage of an establishment under the Provident Fund law.
Prabhat Hospital Private Ltd. v. Union of India — 2016, Gujarat High Court.

 

3. Non-furnishing of enquiry report will not entitle the employee to challenge the validity of his dismissal.
A.C. Trivedi v. Chairman & Managing Director, Dena Bank — 2005, Gujarat High Court.

 

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

1. Habitual absence justifies dismissal from service.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation, Rep. by its Chief Law Officer v. V. Ramaswamy s/o Late Kandaswamy — 2016, Karnataka High Court.

 

2. Increase in retirement age of government employees from 58 to 60 years would not automatically extend to the private sector.
Sri P. Raju v. M/s Raman Boards Limited — 2017, Karnataka High Court.

 

PATNA HIGH COURT

1. Consequential benefits of continuity and seniority in service will not be denied on reinstatement without back wages.
Davesh Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar — 2001, Patna High Court.

 

DELHI HIGH COURT

1. A vague charge-sheet will vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings.
Balvinder Singh Nigah v. General Manager (Operations), Hotel Corporation of India Ltd. — 2010, Delhi High Court.

 

2. Two establishments having no inter-dependence cannot be clubbed together for coverage under the Provident Fund law.
C.L. Khanna v. Union of India — 2007, Delhi High Court.

 

3. Demonstration must be held at a sufficient distance from the workplace.
The New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. GIC Employees' Union (NZ) — 2015, Delhi High Court.

 

4. Industrial adjudicator is empowered to direct the employer to produce additional evidence.
Rajender Singh v. State Bank of India — 2015, Delhi High Court.

 

5. Simultaneous payment of closure compensation is not a condition precedent.
Massod Ahmed Khan v. Hamdard Dawakhana (WAKF)/Hamdard (WAKF) Laboratories — 2012, Delhi High Court.

 

6. Mere submission of an application for leave does not mean that the leave has been sanctioned.
Bir Singh v. Delhi Transport Corporation — 2014, Delhi High Court.

 

7. Sexually determined physical contact would constitute sexual harassment.
Shanta Kumar v. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CDIR) — 2018, Delhi High Court.

 

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

1. In case of conflict between the appointment letter and Standing Orders, the Standing Orders will prevail.
WIKA Instruments India Pvt. Ltd., Pune v. Swati U. Nowgaonkar (Mrs.), Pune — 2016, Bombay High Court.

 

2. The purpose of reference of an industrial dispute is to maintain industrial peace in an establishment.
Siemens Ltd. v. Their Employees represented by Siemens Worker's Union — 2010, Bombay High Court.

 

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

1. A writ petition cannot be filed in the High Court by the holder of a power of attorney.
Daksha Sankhla (Dr.) v. Jai Narain Vyas University, Jodhpur — 2001, Rajasthan High Court.

 

MADRAS HIGH COURT

1. Transfer of an employee from one place to another is a normal incident of service and the High Court will ordinarily not interfere.
M. Ameetha Begum v. Commissioner, Marungapuri, Panchayat Union, Trichy District — 2005, Madras High Court.

 

2. Prosecution of a person other than the occupier of the factory would be illegal.
Sam B. Jijina v. The Tamil Nadu State Rep. by Inspector of Factories — 2017, Madras High Court.

 

3. Merely by sending the name of an office bearer of a Union, such office bearer cannot presume himself to be a protected worker.
N. Parathasarathy v. Blue Star Limited — 2009, Madras High Court.

 

4. Last drawn wages will be payable from the date of filing of the unemployment affidavit.
The Management of K.S.B. Pumps Limited v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Officer, Coimbatore — 2010, Madras High Court.

 

5. In case of transfer of an establishment, the transferee becomes liable to pay EPF contributions and other sums from the date of transfer.
Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd. v. R.P.F. Commissioner, Madras — 1998, Madras High Court.

 

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

1. No relief is to be granted without a finding that the workman has worked for 240 days.
Shyamlal S/o Chhaganlal Banjare v. Manager, Ankur Talkies, Dewas — 2010, Madhya Pradesh High Court.

 

ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

1. Regularisation of contract labour is not permissible when the labour has been engaged for a particular job.
Nuclear Fuel Complex v. K. Penta Reddy — 2002, Andhra Pradesh High Court.

 

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT

1. An establishment continues to remain covered under the Provident Fund law even if the number of employees subsequently falls below 20.
Evergreen Sr. Secondary School v. Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi — 2015, Punjab & Haryana High Court.

 

2. Unauthorised absence for 114 days would justify dismissal from service.
Rishi Kumar v. Presiding Officer — 2016, Punjab & Haryana High Court.

 

3. Petition can rightly be dismissed by the Employees' Insurance Court if the employer fails to deposit the amount as directed.
Lady Bird School Samiti, Bikaner v. Deputy Director, Regional Office, Employees' State Insurance Corporation, Jaipur — 2017, Punjab & Haryana High Court.

 

KERALA HIGH COURT

1. Compensation Commissioner can grant compensation exceeding the amount originally claimed.
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Abdul Razak — 2012, Kerala High Court.

 

2. EPF Authority must provide an opportunity of hearing to the employer before imposing damages.
B.P.L. Limited, Rep. by its Dy. Gen. Manager v. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi — 2015, Kerala High Court.

 

3. Once the facility of payment by instalments has been granted by ESIC, no interest or damages can be claimed.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Naduvattam G.M.V.S. Sangham Ltd. — 2000, Kerala High Court.

 

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

1. A person who has accepted resignation and received his dues cannot subsequently be permitted to challenge the resignation.
Lord Krishna Textile Mills, Saharanpur v. Labour Court — 2013, Allahabad High Court.

 

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

1. Only dependents of the deceased can claim accident compensation.
Kumari Reena v. Heera Nand — 2017, Himachal Pradesh High Court.

 

2. Proceedings before the Tribunal would continue until the Award becomes enforceable.
Harbans Singh v. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court — 2016, Himachal Pradesh High Court.

 

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

1. A civil suit is maintainable when the Provident Fund Authority fails to follow the prescribed procedure.
Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi v. Lala J.R. Education Society — 2017, Supreme Court.

 

2. Exercise of an option for extension of service will not deprive an employee of the right to receive gratuity.
G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology v. Sri Damodar Mathpal — 2022, Supreme Court.