240 days’ service in a calendar year by a bank employee should be in one branch.
LLR Supreme Court 113
Only occupier, not all Directors, are to be prosecuted for factory offence.
LLR Pat. HC 186
A Director, who had resigned, can’t be held liable for provident fund dues.
LLR Karn. HC 158
‘Calendar year’ and ‘block of twelve months’ are interchangeable.
LLR Supreme Court 113
On judicial review, High Court should not sit as Appellate Authority.
LLR Supreme Court, 176
Dismissal of a Bank Officer should not have been interfered by the learned Single Judge.
LLR Supreme Court 172
An interim order by Tribunal, can’t be challenged.
LLR Supreme Court 115
Challenging coverage under Provident Funds without impleading employees not legal.
LLR Mad. HC 126
Provident Fund contributions not attracted on compensation to a reinstated employee.
LLR Mad. HC 133
Declaring ‘protected workmen’ is not automatic process.
LLR Ker. HC 166
Recovering Provident Fund dues without prescribed procedure is set aside.
LLR Bom. HC 122
An enquiry not necessary when removal as per conditions of appointment.
LLR HP HC 151
A bank employee abandons job for his absence more than prescribed period.
LLR Raj. HC 140
Adjudicator, not High Court, to decide disputed ‘employer-employee’ relationship.
LLR Cal. HC 148
Industrial dispute, without espousal, not maintainable.
LLR Cal. HC 148
No place, for generosity, while imposing punishment.
LLR Raj. HC 143
Gratuity cannot be withheld for want of no-objection certificate and for non-vacating of quarter.
LLR MP HC 187
Gratuity could not be withheld subject to conditions laid down in the statute.
LLR MP HC 187
Back-wages not proper when the workman did not make any effort to find employment during interregnum.
LLR Guj. HC 200
Enquiry to be interfered only when it is perverse.
LLR Gau. HC 201
Labour Court can’t travel beyond terms of reference.
LLR Del. HC 191
Consultant doctors providing services for some hours not to be covered under Provident Funds Act.
LLR Ker. HC 165
Taking cognizance of factory inspector’s complaint by a Magistrate in filling up blanks to be quashed.
LLR Jhar. HC 154
Dismissal of workman for prolonged absence is proper.
LLR Karn. HC 161
Reinstatement appropriate when transfer is illegal.
LLR Mad. HC 130
Supervisor, exercising control upon other employees, not a ‘workman’.
LLR Guj. HC 123
Enquiry by biased Enquiry Officer to be vitiated.
LLR P&H HC 138
Recovering EPF dues be only by adopting prescribed procedure.
LLR Karn. HC 158
Abandonment rightly presumed on 22 months’ absence.
LLR Del. HC 178
Holding of enquiry for long absence not imperative.
LLR Del. HC 178
Reinstatement for a long absentee not justified.
LLR Del. HC 178
Rejection of review application by the EPF Authority not proper merely because it is in the prescribed form.
LLR Bom. HC 181
It is for employer to decide as to when and where an employee should be transferred.
LLR Mad. HC 183
Assaulting and abusing a superior will amount to serious misconduct.
LLR All. HC 116
Development Officer, in an Insurance Company, will be a ‘workman’.
LLR MP HC 182
Conveyance allowance is rightly held not ‘wages’ to attract ESI contribution.
LLR Mad. HC 172
Transfer to new employer without employee’s consent not proper.
LLR Mad. HC 130
A contractor, employing less than 20 workmen, has not to obtain licence.
LLR Cal. HC 148
Holding enquiry, without prescribed procedure, not legal.
LLR P&H HC 138
Non-disclosure of material information in the application for employment is a serious dereliction.
LLR Raj. HC 143
Apprentices under uncertified standing orders to be covered under Provident Fund Act.
LLR Mad. HC 126
Mere submission of a list of “protected workmen” is not enough for declaration.
LLR Ker. HC 166
Evidence for proving misconduct can be produced if there is a request by employer.
LLR P&H HC 138
Reducing punishment by Labour Court must have reasons.
LLR Raj. HC 143
Termination of a daily wager, who completed 240 days’ service will be illegal if retrenchment compensation not offered.
LLR P&H HC 136
Court interferes with transfer only when tainted with malafide.
LLR Mad. HC 183
For coverage under ‘Chemical Industry’, as enumerated in Schedule I of EPF&MP Act, no notification is required.
LLR Guj. HC 197
Claim for gratuity upheld when employer failed to issue form ‘M’.
LLR Mad. HC 203
