Labour Law Judgements -January 2016


  • Dismissal of a factory worker, for sleeping during duty hours, is justified. Gau. HC 47
  • Contract labour can be engaged when not prohibited by the government. Del. HC 19
  • Unauthorised absence, would justify dismissal from service. Del. HC 66
  • Pre-deposit of damages is not mandatory in appeal in EPF Tribunal.Supreme Court 55
  • Termination sans enquiry will be illegal. Del. HC 10
  • Non-supply of Enforcement Officer’s Report will vitiate the order of RPFC. Bom. HC 4
  • EPF Tribunal can reduce damages for delayed deposit of PF dues. Bom. HC 5
  • Dishonesty of a workman would justify dismissal from service. Del. HC 63
  • Contractor’s workers cannot claim regularization with principal employer. Karn. HC 36
  • Contract labour system can be quashed only by notification by appropriate government.
    Del. HC 19
  • Dismissal not disproportionate for adopting ‘go slow’ tactics, etc. Del. HC 72
  • Transfer from one place to another is justified in transferable posts. Gau. HC 45
  • ESI certificate may be doubtful if disease is not indicated. Ori. HC 29
  • Successor of defaulter will be liable to pay dues and damages. Ker. HC 34
  • Pre-requisite deposit of the amount determined for filing appeal is applicable only under section 7A of the EPF&MP Act. Del. HC 7
  • Prosecution under Factories Act, beyond prescribed limitation, is untenable.
    Jhar. HC 43
  • A driver, after illegal termination, be paid compensation instead of reinstatement since he cannot remain unemployed. Del. HC 10
  • Adjudicator is bound by terms of reference and cannot go beyond them. Del. HC 12
  • Enquiry Officer not to be changed merely because he allowed attested copies to be exhibited. Del. HC 8
  • Only informing retrenched workman to collect his dues, is not compliance of section 25-F of ID Act. Guj. HC 23
  • Denial of back-wages is justified if the employer has proved that workman was gainfully employed. Del. HC 66
  • An enquiry conducted on principles of natural justice cannot be interfered. Del. HC 72
  • Judicial review on punishment when it shocks to the conscious of court.  Del. HC 72
  • Contractor will be employer when paying wages to his workers. Del. HC 19
  • Reinstatement with back-wages justified on termination without retrenchment compensation.P&H HC 27
  • Unless the decision of provident fund officer is pursuant to corruption, no disciplinary action can be taken. Cal. HC 52
  • Reinstatement not justified in absence of employer-employee relationship. P&H HC 25
  • Workers of contractor cannot claim reinstatement with principal employer. Del. HC 12
  • A contract system is not sham when contractor’s workers did not plead it so. Del. HC 12
  • Employer-employee relationship depends upon various factors including who pays wages and exercises control. Karn. HC 36
  • Compensation payable when the employee meets with accident by obeying order of the employer.  Supreme Court 57
  • On rejection of application for approval of dismissal, workman will be entitled to reinstatement with back-wages. Del. HC 63
  • Transfer of a law paid employee, though having transferable post is ‘victimization’.Gau. HC 45
  • Back-wages payable on non rebuttal by employer of unemployment of workman.HP HC 50
  • On quashing of order of Provident Fund Authority, enquiry can be held again.Karn. HC 40
  • Mere working in the premises of principal employer not sufficient to establish relationship of employer-employee. Del. HC 12
  • Residing in the quarter allotted by employer is sufficient to establish employer-employee relationship. Karn. HC 36
  • Collecting full fare and issuing tickets of less denomination by bus conductor is a serious misconduct. Del. HC 63
  • Refusal to give agreed output and deliberately working slow will justify dismissal.Del. HC 72
  • A party must be heard before an order by the PF Authority. Bom. HC 2
  • No relationship of employer-employee would exist between principal employer and contract labour engaged through contractor(s). Del. HC 19
  • Interference by High Court only when there is perversity in the Award. P&H HC 27
  • High Court not to interfere in an Award unless there is perversity. Del. HC 66
  • Gratuity rightly forfeited if the workman is guilty of moral turpitude. Guj. HC 81
  • Treating absence as leave without pay would not be sanctioned leave. Del. HC 61
  • Failure to comply with transfer order is a major misconduct justifying dismissal from service.Gau. HC 45
  • Condonation of delay for prosecution untenable without justifiable reasons. Jhar. HC 43
  • Workmen to prove that they are employees of the principal employer. Karn. HC 36
  • Removal of workman for habitual absence, after enquiry, is justified. Del. HC 61
  • To prove ‘employer-employee’ relationship, worker has to lead evidence. Bom. HC 58
  • Management to prove charges when enquiry findings are held improper. Del. HC 66
  • Any conduct, inconsistent with the faithful discharge of duties, would be a misconduct.Del. HC 72       
  • A non-speaking order, passed by an authority, is to be quashed. P&H HC 26