Current Topics

#Judgments

Top 18 Supreme Court Labour Judgments of 2018

Articles

Author

BM Editorial Team

03-Jan-2019

10000+ View        

Articles
An establishment consisting of different departments or has branches, whether situated in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment for coverage under the EPF Act. Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sansthan Sanstha vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Others. 2018 LLR 922 (S.C.)

1. Workman has no right to claim back-wages as a right. For this he has to prove that he remained unemployed or non-gainful person during the period.
The Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D. Ranchi vs. Their Workmen Rep. by District Secretary. 2018 LLR 1167 (S.C.)


2. For closure under chapter VB of I. D. Act, to decide the strength of workers, employees working as supervisors or managers would be excluded while counting 100 numbers of workmen. 
National Kamgar Union vs. Kran Rader Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. 2018 LLR 159 (S.C.)


3. Daily wager cannot claim regularization. Illegal termination may not always result in reinstatement. Compensation of 2.5 lakh is appropriate.
District Development Officer & Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amrella. 2018 LLR 225 (S.C.)


4. Documentary evidence on the record that workmen were performing work of permanent nature since long under the direct supervision and control of the principal employer justifies the regularization as regular employees of the principal employer.
Chennai Port Trust vs. The Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees' Canteen Workers Welfare Association and Ors. 2018 LLR 612 (S.C.)


5. When agreement with the contractor comes to an end thereafter wages are paid by the employer to the contract labour and such workers were performing duties like permanent workmen, regularization of contract labour is justified.
Food Corporation of India vs. Gen. Secy. FCI India Employees Union and Others. 2018 LLR 1057 (S.C.)

 

6. Once the departmental enquiry was held legal and proper, interference in punishment by the labour court by setting aside the same is not justified.
Management of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. M. Mani & Anr. 2018 LLR 2 (S.C.)


7. Labour Court has to frame preliminary issue on fairness and validity of the inquiry.
Kurukshetra University vs. Prithvi Singh. 2018 LLR 371 (S.C.)


8. The labour court award granting reinstatement with 50% back-wages will not hold good when the labour court first failed to decide the validity and legality of the enquiry, second, labour court called the parties to lead evidence on all issues including the charge of misconduct, third the labour court examined the findings of the enquiry officer without coming to conclusion that the enquiry was vitiated.
M.L. Singla vs. Punjab National Bank. 2018 III CLR 668 (S.C.)


9. An establishment consisting of different departments or has branches, whether situated in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment for coverage under the EPF Act.
Yeshwant Gramin Shikshan Sansthan Sanstha vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Others. 2018 LLR 922 (S.C.)


10. Payment on piece rate basis made to the workmen is 'wages' covered under the definition of Section 2(22) of the Act.
Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Hindustan Milkfood Manugacturers Ltd. and Others. 2018 LLR 119 (S.C.)


11. Contract employee has no legal right either to get his/her contractual period renewed/extended or to get regularized his services.
Yogesh Mahajan vs. Prof. R.C. Deka, Director, All India Insutitute of Medical Sciences. 2018 LLR 366 (S.C.)


12. Once the daily-wager employee is regularised by the employer state, he will be entitled to the gratuity for the entire period of service from daily-wager to regularised employee.
Netram Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. 2018 LLR 461; 2018 (157) FLR 477 (S.C.)


13. Employer can forfeit the gratuity to the extent of financial loss caused due to misconduct by employee. In case of offence of moral turpitude, gratuity cannot be forfeited unless criminal court holds him guilty of such offence.
Union Bank of India and Others vs. C.G. Ajay Babu and Another. 2018 LLR 1051 (S.C)


14. Payment under Section 17-B of the I. D. Act is in the nature of subsistence allowance, not refundable nor recoverable, being independent in nature does not merge with the final order.
Rajeshwar Mahto vs. Alok Kumar Gupta, G.M. M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. 2018 LLR 368 (S.C.)


15. Obtaining employment by producing fabricated documents is a grave and serious misconduct justifying punishment of dismissal.
Managing Director, NEKRTC, Karnataka vs. Shivasharanappa. 2018 LLR 164 (S.C.)


16. Dishonour of cheque issued by bank employee in favour of his brother cannot be misconduct for bank employer to issue charge-sheet and dismiss him.
UCO Bank vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla. 2018 (157) FLR P.482; 2018 LLR 344 (S.C.)


17. Even if termination of a probationer at the end of the period is due to some stigma, it will not be deemed as punitive.
Director Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences (ARIES) & Anr. vs. Devendra Joshi & Ors. 2018 LLR 579 (S.C.)


18. Dismissal justified for habitual continuous absence and dereliction of duty.
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Shri Phool Chand (Dead) Through: LRs. 2018 LLR 1169 (S.C.)