Landmark Labour Law Judgments 2025

“Supported by Labour Law Reporters (LLR)”

Gujarat High Court

1. Refusal of the workman to work on the site along with the team will amount to abandonment of service.
   Vantage Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Javedali Kutubali Hashmi, 2011 LLR 197 (Guj HC).
2. Striking name of worker for his unauthorized absence is improper.
   Mayank Desai v. Sayaji Iron & Engg. Co. Ltd., 2011 LLR 536 (Guj HC).

 

Himachal Pradesh High Court

1. When a workman remains absent for over 2 years, it will amount to voluntary retirement.
   State of Himachal Pradesh v. Presiding Judge, 2006 LLR 1020 (HP HC).
2. Burden of proof that the deceased is a workman is upon the claimants.
   Anu Kumari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 2017 LLR (SN) 995: 2017 (154) FLR 126 (HP HC).

 

Andhra Pradesh High Court

1. High Court can interfere in the enquiry when the findings are gravely perverse.
   Ramakoteswar Rao v. General Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, 2000 LLR 1013 (AP HC).
2. Cancellation of allotted quarter to a workman will not amount to change in his conditions of service.
   Paladugu Manikyala Rao v. Labour Court, Guntur, 1998 LLR 1103 (AP HC).

 

Calcutta High Court / West Bengal

1. Cogent reasons must be given for levy of damages on delayed deposit of PF dues.
   West Bengal Power Development Corporation Limited vs. Union of India and Others, 2022 LLR 436 (Cal. HC).
2. It is the duty of the EPFO to ensure that the Trustees have transferred the entire accumulation to EPFO.
   Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Anr. v. Sri Soumen Ghosh and Others, 2023 LLR 588 (Cal. HC).

 

Bombay High Court / Maharashtra

1. Coverage of employee under Provident Funds from the day of joining will not be illegal.
   Kay Iron Works (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, 2007 LLR 175 (Bom HC).
2. Assault of an employee by the employees far away from the work place will not be a misconduct.
   P.V. Pujari v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, (1994) 68 FLR 1124: 1995 LLR 125: 1995 LIC 157 (Bom HC).
3. An outsider can also hold an enquiry when the Standing Orders do not prohibit.
   Sandvik Asia Ltd. v. Maruti Mahipati Jagadale, (2002) 94 FLR 1086: (2002) 2 CLR 1018: 2002 LLR 1138 (Bom HC).

 

Delhi High Court

1. Abandonment will be presumed when employee fails to comply with the transfer.
   U.P. Singh v. Punjab National Bank, 2011 LLR 708 (Del HC).
2. An apprentice cannot refuse the offer of employment after successful completion of training period.
   Sanjay Kumar v. Union of India, (1994) 54 DLT 403: 1994 LLR 557: (1994) II CLR 916: 1994-II LLN 339 (Del HC).
3. A belated request for change in the date of birth cannot be considered and hence is liable to be rejected.
   Gurcharan Singh Sethi v. Union of India, (2002) IV LLJ Supp 213: 2000 LLR 764 (Del HC).
4. An employee provided with accommodation by employer will be a licensee and not a tenant.
   Emmanuel Prem Masih v. Delhi Diocesan Trust Association, 2000 LLR 1028 (Del HC).
5. Persons involved in theft, forgery, etc., are not to be rewarded by Labour Courts by reinstatement merely on acquittal in criminal trial.
   All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. O.P. Chauhan, 2007 LLR 435 (Del HC).
6. During adjudication, the question with regard to validity of an enquiry will be treated as a preliminary issue.
   UCO Bank v. The Presiding Officer, 1999 LLR 1136 (Del HC).
7. Once the principal employer signs the list of employees of contractors, he cannot say beneficiaries were not identified.
   Ansal Housing & Construction Limited vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Delhi, 2019 LLR 812 (Del. HC).

 

Allahabad High Court / Uttar Pradesh

1. No back wages can be awarded if the concerned workman fails to assert before the Industrial Tribunal about his unemployment during pendency of the industrial dispute.
   Hridyanand v. G.P. Stores, Allahabad, 1996 LLR 433 (All HC).

 

Madras High Court / Tamil Nadu

1. EPF Authority has to prove when the order was delivered to the petitioner for filing of an appeal.
   Equitas Small Finance Banking Limited vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, 2020 LLR 900 (Mad. HC).
2. High Court in writ jurisdiction can modify the punishment.
   Sayed Khadar Mohiuddin v. Chairman, T.N. Public Service Commission, (1997) II LLJ 111: 1999 LLR 88 (Mad HC).
3. In the absence of any provision pertaining to transfer of a workman, notice of change in service conditions will be imperative.
   Chennai Port and Dock Workers Congress (INTUC) v. Union of India, (2002) 94 FLR 1072: 2002 LLR 1090 (Mad HC).
4. There is no right vested with employees to seek to work overtime.
   Petroleum Employees Union v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., 2015 LLR (SN) 331: 2015 (144) FLR 161 (Mad HC).
5. An employee having worked for more than 240 days in the fifth year will be eligible for gratuity.
   Mettur Beardsell Ltd., Madras v. Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras, 1998 LLR 1072 (Mad HC).

 

Karnataka High Court

1. A charge-sheet to an employee for his involvement in other business will not be vague when the names of business firms and addresses which are being carried on by him are mentioned in it.
   Davendra Kumar v. N.G.E.F. Ltd., 2000 LLR 705 (Karn HC).
2. The object of a charge-sheet is that the delinquent must know what he is charged with and have adequate opportunity to meet the charges and defend himself by giving a proper explanation.
   G.V. Aswathanarayana v. Central Bank of India, by Chairman, Bombay, 1993 LIC 637: 2003 LLR 937 (Karn HC).
3. Industrial Tribunal is empowered to grant interim relief during pendency of dispute.
   Powercell Battery India Ltd. v. R. Servesh, 2012 LLR 510 (Karn HC).
4. Withholding increment during suspension of an employee will not be valid.
   Andhra Bank, Central Officer, Hyderabad v. M.L. Gopichander, 2000 LLR 946 (Karn HC).

 

Punjab & Haryana High Court

1. Period of sickness of an employee will be counted as ‘continuous service’.
   Durga Prasad, Faridabad v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court I, Faridabad, 2001 LLR 1036 (P&H HC).

 

Kerala High Court

1. Recovery of ESI contributions, without show cause notice and inspection report, is not tenable.
   Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation v. Managing Director, M/s. Qetcos Ltd., 2008 LLR 1117 (SN) (Ker HC).

 

Rajasthan High Court

1. Refusal by a driver to work on weekly off on emergent duty will justify his dismissal.
   Mohan Singh v. Jaipur Metals & Electrical Ltd., Jaipur, (1996) II LLJ 551: 1996 LLR 448 (Raj HC).

 

Supreme Court of India

1. Gravity of misconduct must be measured in terms of its nature while imposing punishment.
   General Manager Appellate Authority v. Mohd. Nizamuddin, (2006) 7 SCC 410: 2006 SCC (L&S) 1663: 2006 LLR 1238 (SC).