Judgments Reported In LLR May 2014

Dear All,

Below given Judgments are reported in the issue of May 2014 of Labour Law Reporter, one of the most popular and informative journals on Labour Law and Human Resources Management in India.

* Termination of employee for loss of confidence would be justified.P&H HC 477

* Back-wages are not automatic even when termination is held illegal.Raj. HC 511

* Labour Court will have limited power to reduce punishment when enquiry is fair and proper.P&H HC 477

* Abandonment of job presumed when employee did not respond to reminders for resuming duties.Del. HC 461

* Allegations, when levied, must be substantiated.Supreme Court 449

* Reinstatement would not be justified when the workman did not respond to repeated letters calling upon to report for duty.Del. HC 453

* No relief can be granted to a temporary workman and his termination is excluded by section 2(oo)(bb) of the ID Act.Del. HC 457

* Transfer of an employee cannot be stayed merely because of medical problem.Jhar. HC 538

* Principal employer not liable for ESI contributions in the absence of control and supervision over the employees of contractor.Mad. HC 536

* Pension will be calculated on Rs.6,500 per month in the absence of any joint request for higher contribution towards pension.Pat. HC 520

* Non production of postal receipt would not justify receipt of the document.Del. HC 461

* Abandonment of job by an employee not proved when employer fails to reply demand letter by workman and the notice by ALC.P&H HC 484

* Tiffin allowance not to attract EPF contribution when it varies on attendance.Bom. HC 470

* Principal employer not liable to pay ESI contribution for the employees of contractor working outside the premises.Mad. HC 531

* Tea allowance paid to employees on duty would not attract ESI contributions.Mad. HC 531

* Workers alleging contract labour system as sham can approach labour authorities to refer the dispute for adjudication.Cal. HC 492

* Compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, is appropriate to a terminated daily wager.Raj. HC 511

* Begging forgiveness by a delinquent employee in the enquiry would be construed as charges proved.P&H HC 477

* Compliance of 25F of ID Act is imperative even for a daily wager who has completed 240 days’ service.P&H HC 480

* ESI Corporation liable to pay compensation to employee whose name is registered even when premium is not paid.Del. HC 465

* Unless the services of workman are expressly terminated, employee-employer relationship would persist.Del. HC 461

* Reinstatement with back-wages is justified when a workman is kept out of employment on the basis of a defective enquiry.P&H HC 487

* Bonus can be claimed under ID Act if employee is eligible under the Payment of Bonus Act.HP HC 474

* Reinstatement is justified on failure to comply with mandatory provisions for termination.P&H HC 484

* Onus to prove for 240 days’ working is upon the workman.P&H HC 482

* A dismissed workman can approach Labour Court within 3 years after 45 days of raising the dispute before conciliation officer.Cal. HC 498

* Sections 33 and 33A of the ID Act aim to protect workman against victimisation.Cal. HC 503

* Payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to working journalists. All.HC 507

* High Court not to interfere in reference for adjudication pertaining to transfer.P&H HC 490

* An employee, unauthorisedly holding possession of official accommodation for 10 years, not entitled to any relief.All. HC 509

* Each day of delay for raising a dispute needs explanation.HP HC 473

* An employer not obliged to provide canteen facility while employing less than 250 workers in the factory.Bom. HC 470

* Reinstatement appropriate when termination of workman is violative of section 25F of the ID Act.Del. HC 458

* Dismissal for unauthorized absence liable to be set aside when workman was vomiting blood and admitted in the hospital.Karn. HC 546

* Statutory limit for contribution for pension cannot be stretched out by Courts.Pat. HC 520

* Labour Court would interfere in punishment only when it shocks to conscious and is disproportionate to misconduct.P&H HC 524

* Reinstatement with back-wags appropriate on termination without enquiry.Del. HC 518

* Punishing one out of two employees jointly accountable would not be justified.MP HC 528

* Punishment not justified when enquiry is prolonged for 19 years.MP HC 528

* Opportunity for hearing be given by Labour Court when the enquiry is held to be defective.Karn. HC 541

* Termination, one month notice pay and filing of application for approval not necessarily to be simultaneous.Karn. HC 543

* Reinstatement is rightly denied on closure of a unit.Del. HC 547

* Alleging denial of cross-examination of witnesses as the evidence not recorded in presence of workman is untenable.Supreme Court 449

* ‘No work, no wages’ will not be applicable when workman is wrongly kept away from work.P&H HC 487

* To prove 240 days’ working, workman can call for record from the employer.P&H HC 482

* Reference of a dispute for adjudication will be presumed on an application under section 33A(b) of the ID Act.Cal. HC 503

* Unless reference is made to particular documents on production of it would not vitiate enquiry.Supreme Court 449

* Contractual employees will not be covered by Rules and Regulations of Haryana Government.P&H HC 477

* 240 days’ working will stand proved when workman was paid through cheque.P&H HC 480

* High Court, in writ jurisdiction, interferes only when Award of the Labour Court is prima facie erroneous.P&H HC 487

* Even casuals/daily wagers, having worked for 30 days’ are entitled to get bonus.HP HC 474

* Last drawn wages during pendency of dispute is payable to a workman entitled to reinstatement under section 33A of the ID Act.Cal. HC 503

* Taking full fare but issuing ticket for less amount would justify conductor’s dismissal.Supreme Court 449

* Enquiry will be fair and proper when workman is furnished with required documents to cross-examine the witnesses.P&H HC 477

* Industrial Tribunal not Labour Court to decide matters pertaining to bonus.HP HC 474

* Allegation of victimization, when levied, must be proved.Del. HC 547

Thank you Mr. Keshav for sharing the LLR May 2014.
Today's New Learning from this thread : Payment of Bonus Act is not under the purview of Labour Court and it will be dealt by Industrial Tribunal.
Please correct if I am wrong.

Dear Boss,

Thank you very much for your participation in this discussion.

I have been posting the judgments as reported in LLR every month since last year or two with expectation that the members of this forum will read it, apply their mind and discuss on various judgments or seek some details on it so that there will be a sharing of knowledge amongst us. But this postings have very limited views with no discussion up till now.

The matters listed in third schedule under the ID Act falls under the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals and the following matters are listed in the third schedule:

1. Wages, including the period and mode of payment;

2. Compensatory and other allowances;

3. Hours of work and rest intervals;

4. Leave with wages and holidays;

5. Bonus, profit sharing, PF & Gratuity;

6. Shift working otherwise than in accordance with Standing Orders;

7. Classification by grades;

8. Rules of discipline;

9. Rationalization;

10.Retrenchment and closure; and

11.Any other matter that may be prescribed.

According to the above, bonus matter is under the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal.and not under the Labour Court.

Respected Keshav Korgaonkar Sir,
Thanks for posting a summary of judgments reported in the issue of May 2014 of Labour Law Reporter, which we find quite informative & useful. Now-a days very few people have time and patience to go through bulky book consisting of judgements. One can choose the judgement from your summary and can go through the relevent full judgement, if need be.
I always read your mail very thorougly and with much interest. I appreciate your way or manner of explanation to the querries, which is upto date and understandable.
Regards,
BS Kalsi
member since August 2011

I appreciate the compilation done with brevity. It would have more informative if the reference was quoted in completeness.

Respected Keshavji,
Cordially appreciate your serious efforts towards Education HR Professionals.
Sir, In practice I find many of these Facts remain unnoticed at employee and employer level both.Your genuine contribution therefore is really a grate help to HR Professionals to spread the knowledge and bring awareness.
Thanks for sharing.
Bijay

Dear Kogaonkar ji,
I appreciate your efforts to apprise the readers about the latest decisions being reported in LLR much before the same reaches to the subscribers.
I will request to to keep it up .
I would further like to request to post gist of most important decisions if not otherwise prohibited by LLR to publish such matter.
Chandok AK
RPFC ( Retd.)
www.akchandok.com

Subject - Re: Judgments Reported In LLR May 2014 - under Labour Laws
Dear Korgaonkarji,
Thanks for sharing a summary of judgments reported in the issue of May 2014 in the Labour Law Reporter. This is no doubt very useful & helpful for all HR Professionals. To understand and application in the practical field is a big challenge for HR Personnel.
To know updated LLR, it will not only enhance knowledge but also apply in the work place as and when required in order to improve quality services by HR Personnel.
I fully appreciate your effort in extending qualitative services given by you for those who are in the field of HR. Please keep it up.
Thanking you once again & Regards,
Sibabrata Majumdar
Management Consultant Legal & HR
Kolkata, Mb:9830023706

Keshav Korgaonkar Sir
Please let me know if employer or employee not satisfied with orders of Industrial Tribunals (Bonus, profit sharing, PF & Gratuity;) ,whether they can go to labour courts and other high courts ?

Dear Anonymous friend,
Sh Keshav Korgaonkar Sir has very well explained in his mail dated April 30,2014,that the matters listed in third schedule under the ID Act falls under the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunals and he has given the complete list of the matters falls within the ambit of the third schedule. Similarly in the Second schedule,the matters have been listed which falls under the jurisdiction of Labour Court. As such one should not be confused with Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts enumerated under the ID Act. Both are parallel courts dealing with different matters mentioned in the respective schedules. If either of the parties is not satisfied with orders of Industrial Tribunal or Labour Court, the Appeal lies in the High Court of the respective State.
BS Kalsi
Member since August 2011