HR News

Recent Important Labour Judgments - From the Court room

1. It is the employer who has to prove that the workman was gainfully employed during the interregnum i.e. for the period he was kept out of service, on account of his dismissal from service. Raju vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Trichy & Anr. 2017 II CLR P. 484 (Mad. H.C.)

2. Ex-parte enquiry will be fair when workman did not respond to the charge-sheet, also did not attend enquiry proceedings in spite of notice and also not responded to second show cause notice. A.G. Reddy vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court-1, Hyderabad & Anr. 2017 LLR 1034 (Hyderabad H.C.)

3. Dismissal justified for causing accident resulting in to death of two passengers. Mahadeo Naik vs. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation. 2017 LLR 1090 (Bom. H.C.)

4. EPF appellate Tribunal cannot entertain an appeal beyond the period of limitation provided in Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules, it has no authority in law to pass any interim order in the same. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation vs. M/s. Him Neel Breweries Ltd. and Others. 2017 LLR 1049 (H.P. H.C.)

5. Stay granted by the court against bank guarantee upon the operation of the notice of the ESI Authority for payment of ESI contribution, damages and interest would not exempt the employer from discharging statutory liability of interest and damages. Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Vidarbha Co-operative Marketing Society Limited. 2017 LLR 1020 (Bom. H.C.)

6. The provisions of payment of gratuity act will override the other statutory rules and regulations of the company regarding gratuity and pension. Steel Authority of India Ltd. vs. The Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Asstt. Labour Commissoner (Central), Raniganj & Anr. 2017 LLR 1047 (Cal. H.C.)