Over the past fve decades labour laws in the country more orless remained the same and court judgments too. JudicialBusiness Manager HR Magazine11 Years of Supreme Court OnEmployer- Employee RelationsAbout !! One "iner #u$gments%1&&!-'!!(Indias Best HR aga!ineAnnual Subscription : Rs. 800/-for details contact - akaushikus @ yahoo.combusinessmanageralar@yahoo.comB-138, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar 301001 (Raj.)Indiapronouncements tried to increase the protection and wel"areto the employees to the e#tent that the employers "elt peeved.$here was a trend the judiciary loo% more at the intent o" lawthenthecontent thereo". Inthepost globali!ationseratheshi"t in judicial mindset in emphasis "rom concern "or wor%ersto the need o" discipline and productivity is stri%inglysignifcant. any judgments o" the &pe# 'ourt have come li%ebreaths o" "resh air. $hough the "ramewor% o" law is still thesamebut judgmentso" thisdecadehaveprovidedabroad(liberal and e#pansive interpretation and served the employerandtheemployeebothbystri%ingafnebalancebetweenrights and obligations.Businessanagerhas scannedabout )** judgments o" ++ years and presents one liner lawpoint e,ecting industrial relations."an$ Mar) #u$gments of t*e $e+a$e!00" #orkman has to pro$e !%0 days orking in a year before termination.!00& Educational institutions are exempted from provisions of E.P.F. Act.!00' Dismissal justified for sleeping during duty hours.!00% A teacher,is not employee, hence not entitled to gratuity.!00( Back ages on reinstatement is not automatic.!00! !ermination of orkman engaged for specific period ill not "e retrenchment.!00) A"andonment of employment "y an employee ithout holding of en#uiry ill not "e permissi"le.!000 $ontract la"our ill not "e automatically a"sor"ed on its prohi"ition "y %overnment.)*** &nlesstheservicerulessoprovideaorkmancannot "erepresented"yanadvocateinanen#uiry.)**8 'on(furnishing of en#uiry report to employee on dismissal ill not vitiate the same.)**" 'o ages to employees hen they resort to illegal strike.&BO-.O-/-$An employee a"senting fromduty ithout prior sanctionfor a"outsix months"ysending applications forleave on medical ground "ut not supporting ith medical certificates ill "e deemed to have lost the lien onthe jo" hen he has failed to avail the opportunity in replying in half(hearted ay and not reporting for duty.Hindustan Paper Corpn. v. Purnendu Chakrobarty and Ors., 1997 (2) LLN 17A"andonment of employment "y an employee ithout holding of en#uiry ill not "e permissi"le.!"ooters #ndia Ltd. v. $. $oha%%ad &a'ub, 21 LL( )*!he certifiedstandingorders providinga"andonment of employment henaorkmana"sents for )*consecutive days ill not "e legal.Business Manager HR Magazine!"ooters #ndia Ltd. v. $. $oha%%ad &a'ub, 21 LL( )*A"sence of an employee due to police detention ill not justify a"andonment of jo".O% Prakash (+ead) by L(,s v. Presidin- O..i"er, Labour Court (ohtak / 0nr., 21 LL( 1111+triking off name of a orkman for his a"sence from the rolls ill "e illegal.Laksh%i Pre"ision !"re2s Ltd. v. (a% 3ha-at, 22 LL( 9114 0#( 22 (!) 291*4 22 L#C 2915422 6L( (9))*7422 (7) LL8 )11422 (*) LLN 2)!here ill "e no violation of the principles of natural justice on the part of the management hen the orkmena"senting unauthorisedly have failed to comply ith to notice including calling them to return to duty and ontheir failure, their names ere struck off from the rolls.9ttar Pradesh !tate 3rid-e Corporation Ltd. / Ors. v. 9ttar Pradesh (a:ya !etu Ni-a% and Ors., 2* LL( 259(!C).,t ould "e proper for the management to presume voluntary a"andonment of an employee, hen he did notrespond to their calls to join duties.Viveka Nand Sethi vs Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. & Ors. 2005 LLR 64APPRENI!EApprenticesunderthe Acthavetogothroughexamination- intervie"eforetheyareto"eappointedonregular "asis.9.P. (a:ya ;idyut Parishad 0pprenti"e hakore v. !uper intendin- ?n-., @u:rat ?=e"tri"ity 3oard and 0nr., 1997(2) LLN 979.*/ "ack ages ill "e appropriate relief hen the strike as found to "e illegal.Li.e #nsuran"e Corporation o. #ndia / Ors. v. 8yotish Chandra 3is2as, 2 LL( 12750*/insteadof )**/"ackagesonreinstatementill "eappropriatehentheorkmanhadfre#uentlya"sented.Haryana 9nrban +eve=op%ent 0uthority v. +evi +aya=, 22 LL( )114 0#( 22 (!C 17174 22 L#C 194 22(97) 6L( 7274 22 (2) LLN *)1hile granting "ack ages on reinstatement to a orkman, the !ri"unal must give the reasons.Hindustan $otors Ltd. v. >apan Au%ar 3hatta"harya / 0nr., 22 LL( 92)4 22 L#C 21*4 22 (9*) 6L( 7*1422 (2) LL8 11)1Back ages on reinstatement is not automatic since it is discretionary and has to "e dealt ith in accordanceith facts and circumstances of each case.(a% 0shrey !in-h / 0nr. v. (a% 3uB !in-h / Ors., 27 LL( *1)4 27 (2) LL8 171%rantingfull ages onreinstatement ill not "e justifiedhentheemployeeasregularlyemployedelsehere.$aharashtra Cotton @ro2ers $arket 6ederation Ltd. v. Chou-hu=e Popatrao 0nnaraheb / 0nr., 27 LL( 171427 (7) LLN 5*1Business Manager HR MagazineDenial of "ack ages on reinstatement ill not "e interfered "ut in vie of the facts 2 circumstances of thecase including the financial position of the $ompany and pendency of the proceedings "efore B,F3.9.P. +ru-s / Phar%a"euti"a=s Co. Ltd. v. (a%anu: &adav / Ors., 27 LL( 1974 27 (99) 6L( 7711hen order of dismissal is set aside, granting of full "ack ages is not the natural conse#uence and dependsupon the facts and circumstances of each case.$.P. !tate ?=e"tri"ity 3oard v. !%t. 8arina 3ee, 27 LL( 5*54 27 (95) 6L( )9)4 27 (7) LL8 2**,f anemployeegot involvedincriminal caseandafter initial convictiongetsac#uittal onappeal, hilereinstating him employer cannot "e "urdened ith "ack ages.9nion o. #ndia / Ors. v. 8aipa= !in-h, 2* LL( 1,n case of reinstatement, full "ack ages in not a rule of thum".,enera% "ana+er, .ar/ana R$ad0a/s vs R*dhan Sin+h. 2005 LLR (41!hough no straight jacket formula can "e devised for "ack ages grant, "ut hen nothing is contri"uted "yorkman to industry in the period, "ack ages should not "e thron upon the employer to pay.2.3. State Brass0are C$r)n. Ltd. & 4nr. vs 2da% Narain 3anda/. 2006 LLR 24Pyament of "ack ages is not a natural conse#uence on setting aside the dismissal order.2.3S.R.5.C. Ltd. Vs. Sarada 3rasad "isra & 4nr. 2006 LLR 5(6,t is for the orkman to prove that after termination, he as not gainfully employed."*ni6i)a% C$*n6i%, S*7an)*r vs. S*rinder K*mar. 2006 LLR 6621henchargeasprovedononecount andla"ourcourt hadgivenlesser punishment, it "eingseriousmisconduct, "ack ages not arranted.8.A. !yntheti"s Ltd. vs. A.P. 0-ra2a= / 0nr. 27 # CL( 17Even in the case of illegal termination, entitlement of "ack ages can not "e automatic.+ivisiona= Contro==er, @.!.(.>.C. vs. Aadarbhai 8. !uthar. 27 LL( *14aving regard to the fact that employee has "een paid retiral "enefits, this as not a fit case for granting "ackages.3anshi +har vs. !tate o. (a:asthan. 27 # LL8 992.Employee ho remained under suspension "ut ac#uitted in appeal ould not "e entitled for "ack ages.3anshi +har vs. !tate o. (a:asthan and 0nr. 27 LL( 115Back ages on reinstatement not proper hen orker disputes the matter after )5 years.!tate o. Pun:ab vs. 0ni= Au%ar. 27 LL( 17*,n case of gainful employment, no "ack ages.Nationa= >her%a= Po2er Corporation vs. 8a2ahar La= and 0nother. 27 LL( 755BO-011hen for claiming "onus, alternate remedy is availa"le, approaching ith court directly ill "e rong.4.3. &$$ds vs. S. Sam*e% & Ors. 2006 LLR (12!.'. 1ater +upply and Drainage Board is not exempted under the Payment of Bonus Act.>a%i= Nadu a%i= Nadu * days of service and engaged through unlicenced-unregistered contractorsill "e deemed as employees of principal employer.se"retary, Haryana !tate ?=e"tri"ity 3oard v. !uresh / Others, te". te"., 1999 LL( *77 (!C)4 1999C# CL( 9)94 1999(51) 6L( 111!he courts are empoered to lift the veil to determine the relationship of employer and employee.!e"retary, Haryana !tate ?=e"tri"ity 3oard v. !uresh / Others et". et"., 1999 LL( *77(!C)4 1999C# CL( 9)9E#ual ages ill "e paya"le even to the casual orkers engaged through the contractor hen they are doingthe same ork.6ood Corporation o. #ndia v. !hya%a= A. Chatter:ee, 2 LL( 1297$omplaint for unfair la"our practice ill not lie for continuation of contract la"our system.Business Manager HR MagazineCip=a Ltd. v. $aharashtra @enera= Aa%-ar 9nion, 21 LL( 7)$ontract la"our ill not "e automatically a"sor"ed on its prohi"ition "y %overnment.!tee= 0uthority o. #ndia Ltd. / Ors. ?t". v. Nationa= 9nion han:avur >eBti=es Ltd. v. 3. Purshotha% / Others, 1999 LL( )2 (!C)4 1999 (52) 6L( )1&nless the service rules so provide a orkman cannot "e represented "y an advocate in an en#uiry.Cip=a Ltd. / Ors. v. (ipu +a%a 3hanor / 0nr., 1999 LL( )7* (!C)4 1999C## LLN 1724 1999(52) 6L( 22),f the set of facts for criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings are identical the latter cannot "eproceeded ith.Capt. $. Pau= 0nthony v. 3harat @o=d $ines Ltd. / 0nother, 1999 LL( *99 (!C)4 199C# CL( 172An employee has no right to representation in departmental en#uiry unless the service rules so provide.3harat Petro=eu% Corpn. Ltd., v. $aharashtra @enera= Aa%-ar 9nion / Ors., 1999 LL( 15En#uiry conductedon the"ackof employee forhistermination ill "e vitiatedandterminationill "e setaside.+ipti Prakash 3aner:ee v. !.N. 3ose Nationa= Centre .or 3asi" !"ien"es Ca="utta / Ors., 1999 LL( **7:nce domestic en#uiry is found to "e defective the employee ould "e entitled to relief.Neeta Aap=ish v. Presidin- O..i"er, Labour Court / 0nr., 1999 LL( 122'on(examinationof acustomer duringen#uiryill not "efatal inaardingpunishment toacashier formisappropriation.!tate 3ank o. #ndia v. >arun Au%ar 3ener:ee / Ors., 2 LL( 127*Examination of itnesses on the unscheduled date ill not "e violative of principles of natural justice.Business Manager HR Magazine9ttar Pradesh !tate (oad >ransport Corporation / Ors. v. (a% Chandra &adav, 2 LL( 11*Dismissal of a "us conductor for collecting excess fare "ut not issuing tickets, misappropriating money andmis"ehaving ith the checking staff after holding of en#uiry ill "e justified. !he judgment of 4igh $ourt insetting aside thedismissal on theplea that the principles ofnatural justicehave"een violatedill not "esustaina"le.9.P. !tate (oad >ransport Corporation / Ors. v. $usai (a% / Ors., 2 LL( 1Denial of opportunity to the delin#uent "y the Disciplinary Authority differing ith the en#uiry officer ill "eunjustified.!tate 3ank o. #ndia / Ors. ;. 0rvin- A. !huk=a, 21 LL( 57*1hen delin#uent does not cooperate despite opportunities, ex parte en#uiry ill "e justified.Ne2 #ndia #nsuran"e Co. Ltd. v. !.$.#. AhaDi% / Ors., 21 LL( 52)Employer can lead evidence "efore 8a"our $ourt-!ri"unal even hen no en#uiry has "een held.Aarnataka !tate (oad >ransport Corporation v. !%t. Laksh%ideva%%a, 21 LL( )29+u"sistence alloance of the orkmen can "e reduced for delaying en#uiry.3.+., !heety / Ors. v. $Fs. Ceat Ltd. / 0nr., 22 LL( 2Disalloing to adduce to itnesses ill not "e invalid if all the documents ere provided to the delin#uent.+ebotoshPa= Choudharyv. Pun:abNationa= 3ank/Ors., 22LL(11194 22L#C721*40#(22!C7271422 (9)) 6L( 7754 22 (*) LLN 521Dispensation of en#uiry resulting into dismissal of an employee for alleged misconduct must "e supportedith justifia"le material.#ndian (ai=2ay Constru"tion Co. Ltd. v. 0:ay Au%ar, 27 LL( 7774 27 (97) 6L( *22A delin#uent employee must "e given opportunity "y Disciplinary Authority disagreeing ith the findings ofthe En#uiry :fficer. Also, it ill immaterial hether any prejudice is caused or not to the delin#uent since thereill "e violation of the principles of natural justice.!tate 3ank o. #ndia and Others. v. A.P. Narayanan Autty, 27 LL( )194 27C# LL8 579'o "ias of the Disciplinary $ommittee can "e attri"uted hen eight out of eleven mem"ers fo the Disciplinary$ommittee have accorded their approval.#ndra 3hanu @aur v. Co%%ittee, $ana-e%ent o. $.$. +e-ree Co==e-e and Ors., 2* LL( 225Disciplinary Proceedings and $riminal case can go on simultaneously..ind*stan 3etr$%e*m C$r)$rati$n Ltd. &Ors. vs Sarvesh Berr/. 2005 LLR 1-:n the "asis that En#uiry :fficer is employee of company, can not "e concluded that he ill hold orkmanguilty.5he,enera% Se6retar/, S$*th8ndianCashe0&a6t$ries. 8o-ra%. 27 LL( 19'on(furnishing of en#uiry report to the delin#uent ould not vitiate the en#uiry.+ebotosh Pa= Choudhary v. Pun:ab Nationa= 3ank / Ors., 22 LL( 11194 22 L#C 721*4 0#( 22 !C 7271422 (9)) 6L( 7754 22 (*) LLN 521En#uiry officer has no poer to inflict punishment on delin#uent employee."!s. "aharashtra State Seeds C$r)n. Ltd. vs .aridas & 4nr. 2006 LLR ->6Even in a case of getting jo" on the "asis of forged certificate, for termination, en#uiry is must.P.!.?.3. and others vs. Lee=a !in-h. 27 LL( )9)A!'RIE% A!An 6occupier7 of the factory oned "y a government company need not "e a director.#ndian Oi= Corporation Ltd. v. >he Chie. #nspe"tor o. 6a"tories / Ors. et"., 1995 LL( 7196Premises7 occurring in section =;m< of the Factories Act covers open land also.La= $aha%%and / Ors. v. #ndian (ai=2ay Constru"tion Co. Ltd. / Ors., 1999 LL( 14igh $ourt or +upreme $ourt ill not #uash F,3 lodged "y the Factory ,nspector.!.$. +atta v. !tate o. @u:arat / 0nr., 21 LL( 1713I5 $/R /64O7/-$!ermination of contract employment after to years ill not amount to retrenchment.3ir=a ;GL Ltd. v. !tate o. Pun:ab and Ors., 1995 LL( 1117'on reneal of contract of service ill "e retrenchment under &.P. ,ndustrial Disputes Act in the a"sence ofrelevant provisions of la.9ttar Pradesh !tate !u-ar Corporation Ltd. v. O% Prakash 9padhyay, 21 LL( 122Pinciples of natural justice ill not apply on automatic termination of service.Har%ohinder !in-h v. Ahar-a Canteen, 0%ba=a Cantt, 21 LL( 5*9!ermination of orkman engaged for specific period ill not "e retrenchment.Haryana !tate6.C.C..#. Cy"=es o. #ndia, 0%battur v. $.A. @uru%ani and Ors., 22 LL( )7,nterest on delayed payment of gratuity ill "e paya"le "y employer hen the delay is not "ecause of fault onthe part of the employee.H. @an-ahanu%e @o2da v. Aarnataka 0-ro #ndustries Corporation Ltd., 27 LL( 7)*4 27C# LLN 5)A teacher, though engaged in very no"el profession of educating the young generation "ut neither performingany skilled, semi(skilled or unskilled, manual or supervisorh, technical ork, ill not "e an 6employee7 undersection =;e< of the Payment of %ratuity Act, thus not entitled to gratuity under the Act.0h%edabad Pvt. Pri%ary >ea"hers v. 0d%inistrative O..i"er / Ors., 2* LL( 97Even though the %overnment "y its notification dated 5nd April, )99G, has extended the Payment of %ratuity Actupon the educational institutions also "ut the teachers "eing not 6employees7 under the Act ill not "e eligi"lefor gratuity.0h%edabad Pvt. Pri%ary >ea"hers v. 0d%inistrative O..i"er / Ors., 2* LL( 971orkman not entitled to take the "enefit of "oth employment contract and amended 8a under Payment of%ratuity Act. Beed #istri6t Centra% C$B$). Bank Ltd. vs. State $9 "aharashtra & Ors. 2006 888 CLR 66>+ervices rendered "y employee in different units of same esta"lishment has to "e considered for gratuitycalculation.$.C. Cha%ara:u vs. Hind Nippon (ura= #ndustria= (P) Ltd. 27 LL( 1129IN(,%R.Dandakarnya Project is an 6industry7 under section =;j< of the Act.$ana-e%etn o. +andakaranya Pro:e"t Aoreput v. e=e"o% v. !rini2asa (ao / Ors., 1995 LL( 5Agricultural Produce @arket $ommitttee is an 6,ndustry7.0-ri"u=tura= Produ"e $arket Co%%ittee v. !h. 0shok Hari Aun: / 0nr. et"., 2 LL( 12)1A housing society ill not "e 6industry7, hence its employees ill not "e 6orkman7 under ,ndustrial DisputesAct.$ana-e%ent o. !O$;ihar 0part%ent O2ners Housin-$aintenan"e!o"iety Ltd. v. ea 0sso"iation v. 0:it Au%ar 3arat, 2 LL( 7773ejection of reference that the employee is not a 6orkman7 ill not "e interfered.!e"retary, #ndian >ea 0sso"iation v. 0:it Au%ar 3arat and Ors., 2 LL( )13ejection of an industrial dispute "y ,ndustrial !ri"unal pertaining an employee discharging mainly managerialand superviosry functions should not have "een entertained "y the 4igh $orut.3ir=a Corporation Ltd. v. (a:esh2ar $ahato, 21 LL( (!u%) 1793eference of dispute for adjudication ill "e #uashed hen the respondent7s fraud in seeking employmentas detected "efore his joining.Business Manager HR Magazine3an-ai-aon (e.inery / Petro"he%i"a=s Ltd. v. !a%i:uddin 0h%ed, 21 LL( 11154igh $ourt can interfere in an order for reference of a dispute hen relevant factors are not considered.!hri $oo="hand Aharati (a% Hospita= A. 9nion v. Labour Co%%issioner and Co., 21 LL( 115)An employee raising dispute after )5 years a"out his termination ill not "e tena"le.$ana-e%ent o. $Fs. #ndian #ron and !tee= Co. Ltd. v. Prah=ad !in-h, 21 LL( 1)7An aard ill "e #uashed if a dispute is decided on affidavits and ithout evidence.3ank o. #ndia v. !e"retary, 3ank o. #ndia !ta.. 9nion, 21 LL( )*)1orkmen7s dispute can "e referred for adjudication even after long delay.!apan Au%ar Pandit v. 9.P. !tate ?=e"tri"ity 3oard, 21 LL( 9During pendency of proceeding seeking permission for dismissal of a orkman, suspension alloance ill "epaya"le.(a% Lakhan v. Presidin- O..i"er and Ors., 21 LL( 7**Permission for closure of an esta"lishment ill "e deemed to have "een granted hen no reply is receivedithin .* days from the %overnment.9nion o. #ndia / 0nr. v. !hanti=a= ;a=and, 21 LL( 991:n!ransferof managementtheorkersill "eentitledto"enefitsasavaila"letotheemployeesof thetransferee.$ana-in- +ire"tor, 0ndhra Pradesh !tate (oad >ransport Corporation v. >he Presidin- O..i"er, #ndustria= >ribuna=,(a%kote, Hyderabad and Ors., 21 LL( *)1A complaint for unfair la"our practice ill lie only hen the complainant is a 6orkman7.;ividh Aa%-ar !abha v. Aa=yani !tee=s Ltd., 21 LL( 1578a"our $ourt cannot exercise its discretion to alter the punishment henthe orkmanhas lost theconfidence as reposed "y the employer.9ttar Pradesh !tate (oad >ransport Corporation v. $ohan La= @upta and Ors., 21 LL( 11)*4igh $ourt should not interfere in the punishment unless it is shocking to conscience.>he (e-iona= $ana-er / +is"ip=inary 0uthority, !3#, Hyderabad and 0nother v. !. $oha%%ed @a..ar, 22 LL(11514 22 L#C 29714 0#( 22 (!C) 7774 22 (11) 68( *74 22 (*) LLN 22Prior permission "y the %overnment for the closure of an industrial esta"lshment is must.Orissa >eBti=e / !tee= Ltd. et". et". v. !tate o. Orissa / Ors. et". et"., 22 LL( 22)4 22 L#C )74 0#( 22 (!C)754 22 (92) 6L( 1*54 22(# LL8 5)54 22C## LLN 5)71hen there is no adjudication of the matter on merits, it can "e referred again.;irendra 3handari v. (a:asthan !tate (oad >ransport Corporation / Others, 22 LL( 15)Appropriate %overnment can not decide that an employee is not a 6orkman7.!harad Au%ar v. @overn%ent o. NC> o. +e=hi / Ors., 22 LL( )*)4 22 L#C 1*1*4 0#( 22(!C) 172*422(97) +L> 721422 (1) 68( 5)2,ndustrial disputes can "e raised even after nine years.0sstt. ?Be"utive ?n--. v. !hiva=in-a, 22 LL( 727Determination of 6employee(employee7 relationship ill not "e "eyond the scope of reference.#ndian 6ar%ers 6erti=iDer CoCoperative Ltd. v. #ndustria= >ribuna=C1, 0==ahabad and Others, 22 LL( **94 22 L#C1914 0#( 22 (!C) 17154 22 (11) 68( 14 22 (97) 6L( 294 22C## LLN 715$ourts should interfere in the administrative decisions of the employer in imposing punishment only hen thepunishment is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or is shocking.9nited Co%%er"ia= 3ank and Ors. v. P.". Aakkar, 27 LL( *714 27C# LLN 52)@erestatement "ythecourthilemodifyingthepunishmentofdismissal asimposedthatitisshockingdisappropriate ill not "e sufficient hence lia"le to "e set aside.9nited Co%%er"ia= 3ank and Ors. v. P.". Aakkar, 27 LL( *714 27C# LLN 52)Business Manager HR Magazine3ejection of earlier approval application due to non(payment of one month7s ages ill "ecome final if notchallenged.#ndian >e=ephone #ndustries Ltd. / 0nr. v. Prabhakar H. $an:are / 0nr., 27 LL( 15,n determining the relationship of employer and employee 6control7 is one of the important tests "ut is not to"e taken as sole test.(a% !in-h / Ors. v. 9nion >rritory, Chandi-arh / Ors., 2* LL( *74 27 (99) 6L( 11*For determination of concept of employment the essential ingredients areI;i< Employer( one ho orks for another for hireJ and;ii< Employee(one ho orks for another for hireJ and;iii< $ontract of employment(the contract of service "eteen the employer and the employee hereunderthe employee agrees to serve the employer su"ject to his control and supervision.Ni=-iri Coop. $kt. !o"iety Ltd. v. !tate o. >a%i= Nadu and Ors., 2* LL( 7)11hile exercising its poer under section ))A of the ,ndustrial Disputes Act to give appropriate relief in the caseof dismissal or discharge of a orkman, the 8a"our $ourt-,ndustrial !ri"unal can grant compensation in lieu ofreinstatement of the orkman.?n-ineerin- La-hu 9dyod ?%p=oyees, 9nion v. 8ud-e, Labour Court and #ndustria= >ribuna= and 0nother, 2* LL(771.@erely "ecause some persons had "een more or less continuously orking in a particular premises, ouldnot "e construed that the relationship of employer(employee has come into existence since othercircumstances ould "e relevant factors.Ni=-iri Coop. $kt. !o"iety Ltd. v. !tate o. >a%i= Nadu and Ors., 2* LL( 7)1!he "urden of proof for existence of relationship of employer and employee lies upon the person ho sets ofa plea of its existence.Ni=-iri Coop. $kt. !o"iety Ltd. v. !tate o. >a%i= Nadu and Ors., 2* LL( 7)11orkman has to prove that he has orked continuously for =>* day?s in a year.".3. :%e6ti6it/ B$ard vs .ariram et6. 2005 LLR , 2005 LLR 446, 2005 LLR >->, 2005 LLR 222!henum"erof daysof orkput indifferent unitsof sameemployercouldnot "etakenasAcontinuousemploymentA.#.,."., Oi% & Nat*ra% ,as C$r)n. Ltd. & 4nr. vs 8%ias 4'd*%rehman.2005 LLR 2-54aving no limitation period in ,.D. Act, does not mean that any stale claim must "e entertained..ar/anaState C$$). Land #eve%$)ment Bank Vs. Nee%am. 2005 LLR 4(-$ivil $ourts haveno jurisdiction to entertain 8a"our Disputes.Ra7asthan State R$ad 5rans)$rt C$r)$rati$n&Ors. Vs. Cakir .*ssain, 2005 LLR 044!o seek relief under sec. 55$;=< of ,.D. act, orkman has to get his complaint adjudicated first under sec. 55;A*daysorking to get "enefit of +ec. =0;F< of ,.D. Act.S*rendrana+ar #istri6t 3an6ha/at and 4nr. vs. Jetha'hai 3itam'er'hai. 2006 LLR 250.,n the a"sence of "ack ages order "y court, same can not "e granted seprately under +ec. 55 $;=< of ,.D. Act.4.3.S.R.5.C. & 4nr. vs B.S. #avid 3a*%. 2006 LLR -1$laim of overtime is not tena"le under sec. 55$;=< of ,.D. Act.2ni$n $9 8ndia and 4nr. vs Kank*'en ?#ead@ '/ LRs. and Ors. et6. 2006 LLR 414=-5 days "reak after F9 days of employment and again reemploying ould "e unfair la"our practice and suchtermination ould amount to retrenchment if complete =>* days in a year..ar/ana State :%e6tr$ni6s #ev. C$r)n. vs. "amn%. 2006 LLR 66>Business Manager HR Magazine!hepurposeof +ec. =0FFof,.D.Act. istoesta"lishcontinuityofserviceandsecure"enefitsincaseoftransfer of undertaking from one to another employer."ana+ement, "ett*r Beardse%% Ltd. vs. * days compliance of +ec. =0% and 4 not re#uired.8aipur +eve=op%ent 0uthority vs. (a% !ahai / 0nr. 27 LL( 92%ainful employment include self employment or earning from Agriculture also.North ?ast Aarnataka (oad >ransport Corporation vs. $. 3a-an-ouda. 27 LL( 7*Engagement of meter reader under agreement and payment "ased on per meter reading, ill not "e a regularemployment and hence disengagement ill not attract retrenchment.Pun:ab !tate ?=e"tri"ity 3oard / 0nr. vs. !udesh Au%ar Puri. 27 LL( *1*8a"our $ourt and ,ndustrial 8as are not applica"le here complete machinery has "een provided under theprovisions of the $ooperative +ocieties Act.@haDiabad Ei=a !ahakari 3ank Ltd. vs. 0dd=. Labour Co%%issioner / Ors. 27 LL( **7'o relief hen dispute raised after )F years.Arishi 9tpadan $andi !a%iti vs. Paha= !in-h. 27 LL( )79Appropriate %overnment for appellant Bank, hich is a @ulti +tate $o(operative Bank, is the +tate%overnment and not $entral %overnment.3harat CoCop. 3ank ($u%bai) Ltd. vs. CoCoperative 3ank ?%p=oyees 9nion. 27 (2) LLN 11Exclusionof ordBprecedingCfrom+.=;g< of &.P. Act makesall thedifferencesofar asthiscaseisconcerned.!rira% #ndustria= ?nterprises Ltd. vs. $ahak !in-h / Ors. 27 (2) LLN 1**+ince the agreement stipulated that the Board has no o"ligation toards the employees of the previous onerof the undertaking ill not "e lia"le for providing any continuous employment.(a% Pravesh !in-h and others vs. !tate o. 3ihar and others. 27 LL( 117$ourts have to record reasons for reducing the punishment aarded "y @anagement to employee.9.P.!.(.>.C. vs. (a% Aishan 0rora. 27 LL( 7))!his decision explains difference in the interpretation of continuous service7 under &.P. ,ndustrial Disputes Actand $entral Act.!hrira% #ndustria= ?nterprises Ltd. v. $ahak !in-h. CL( ## 27 P. 7**.$ause of action, a part of cause of action arose ithin the territory of +tate of 1.B. and therefore +tate of 1estBengal as appropriate %overnment.3ikash 3husan @hosh vs. $Fs. Novaratis #ndia Ltd. / Ors. 6L( (117) 27 P. 1157Adispute"eteena$o(operative+ocietyanditsemployeeshasto"ereferredtothe3egistrar of $o(operative +ocieties since the civil courts or the la"our courts-tri"unals have no jurisdiction to entertain theproceedings.Business Manager HR Magazine+harappa vs. 3i:apur CoCop. $i=k Produ"ers !o"ieties 9nion Ltd. 27 LL( 11$losure does not mean that hole esta"lishment is closed. :nly a part, hen closed, come under the purvieof closure.+istri"t (ed Cross !o"iety vs. 3abita 0rora / Ors. 27 LL( 112)3eference of dispute after F years ould not "e maintaina"le.!tate o. $aharashtra vs. +attatraya +i-a%ber 3ira:dar. 27 LL( 1172Failure of employer to seek approval for dismissal during pendency of ,ndustrial Dispute ould render thedismissal illegal.9nited 3ank o. #ndia vs. !idhartha Chakraborty. 27 LL( 117*1orkmen do not get right of regularisation even if they complete =>* days of ork.Hindustan 0eronauti"s Ltd. vs. +an 3ahadur !in-h / Ors. 27 LL( 1229Delayed reference can only "e challenged "y employer in rit only. !ri"unal has no poer to decide.Karan Sin+h vs. :De6*tive :n+ineer, .ar/ana State "arketin+ B$ard. 200> LLR 2--4I%!'N(,!Even tried to molest amounts to molest a female employee hen the "ehaviour of the employee did not ceaseto "e outrageous.0ppare= ?Bport Pro%otion Coun"i= v. 0.A. Chopra, 1999 LL( 119%ross negligence on the part of Branch @anager of the "ank ill amount to major misconduct.!tate 3ank o. #ndia and Others v. >.8. Pau=, 1999 LL( 751(!C)4 1999(52) 6L( *97'o leniency can "e shon to a "ank employee ho has entered three increments unauthorisedly for himself.!.3.#., Hyderabad and 0nother v. !. $oha%%ed @a..ar, 22 LL( 11514 22 L#C 29714 0#( 22 (!C) 777422 (11) 68( *74 22(9)) 6L( 7,t is for the Disciplinary Authority and not court to decide as to hich punishment "e imposed.Karnataka Bank Ltd. vs. 4.L. "$han Ra$. 2006 LLR 252.Act of misappropriation of funds is sufficient for the employer to lose confidence in employee.ChairmanB6*mB".#., 5.N.C.S. C$r)n. Ltd. vs K "eera'a%. 2006 LLR 26(For negligence, department proceedings can "e initiated "utrecovery of money ould not "e legal.3*n7a' State 6ivi% s*))%iers 6$r). Ltd. vs. Sikandar Sin+h. 2006 LLR 4454igh $ourt can interfere ith punishment if disproportionate to misconduct.$ana-e%ent, Coi%batore +istri"t Centra= Cooperative 3ank vs. !e"retary, Coi%batore+istri"t Centra= CoCoperative 3ank ?%p=oyees, 0sso"iation and 0nother. 27 LL( 14INI4,4 #A$E%!he employee not covered under @inimum 1ages Actill not make claim for overtime under the said Act.$uni"ipa= Coun"i=, Hatta v. 3ha-at !in-h / Ors., 1995 LL( 295An esta"lishment ill "e excluded from the applica"ility of @inimum 1ages Act hen the ages are more thanthe prescri"ed rates.0ir.rei-ht Ltd. v. !tate o. Aarnataka / Others, 1999 LL( 15 (!C)4 1999(57) 6L( 121@inimum ages must "e paid to daily agers engaged for maintaining the agricultural fields.$ahat%a Phu=e 0-ri"u=tura= 9niversity and Ors. v. Nasik Ei==a !heth Aa%-ar 9nion and Ors., 21 LL( 9*,n the a"sence of specific scheduled employment in @.1. notification, security grards in Kerla are not entitledto minimum ages.Lin+e+$0ed #ete6tive & Se6*rit/ Cham'er 3vt. Limited vs. "/s$re Kiri$skar Limited & Ors. 2006 LLR >21PR'BAI'NERBusiness Manager HR Magazine,ncase hen the employee as a"sent fromduty fromthe datemuchprior tothe expiry ofthe maximumperiodpro"ationand remaineda"senteven thereafter a longtime ruleofdeemed confirmation illnot "eapplica"le.Chie. @enera= $ana-er, !tate 3ank o. #ndia / 0nr. v. 3i:oy Au%ar $ishra, 1997 (5) !C 7554 1995 LL( 27!he services of a pro"ationer can "e terminated even"y an innocuous order ithout holding an en#uiry.Li.e #nsuran"e Corporation o. #ndia and 0nr. v. (a-havendra !esha-iri (ao Au=karni, 1995 LL( 25*!ermination of a pro"ationer ithout holding of an en#uiry ill not "e invalid.Os2a= Pressure +ie Castin- #ndustry, 6aridabad v. Presidin- O..i"er / 0nr., 1995 LL( 7*1!ermination of a pro"ationer on the ground of three letters alleging misconduct ill "e #uashed.+ipti Prakash 3aner:ee v. !.N. 3ose Nationa= Centre .or 3asi" !"ien"e Ca="utta / Ors., 1999 LL( *77 (!C)4 1999C#CL( 752!ermination of a pro"ationer during pro"ation period ill neither "e punishment nor cast a stigma.@an-ana-ar Ei=a +u-dh 9tpadak !ahkari !an-h Ltd. / 0nother v. Priyanka 8oshi / 0nother, 1999 LL( 9)7 (!C)41999(7) LLN )71Pro"ationer cannot "e terminated ar"itarily.;.P. 0hu:a ;. !tate o. Pun:ab / Ors., 2 LL( *77!ermination of a promotee pro"ationer after expiry of the pro"ation period ithout disciplinary proceedingsill "e illegal.Aarnataka !tate (oad >ransport Corporation / 0nr. v. !. $an:unath e"t., 2 LL( 517An employee on pro"ation can "e terminated summarily.Arishnadevaraya ?du"ation >rust v. L.0. 3a=akrishna, 21 LL( 21!ermination of a pro"ationer for unsatisfactory ork ill not "e stigmatic.Pa2anendra Narayan ;er%a v. !an:ay @andhi Post @raduate #nstitute o. $edi"a= !"ien"es, Lu"kno2 / 0nr., 22LL( 117!ermination of a pro"ationer ill not "e stigmatic even hen certain dra("acks are referred in the order.!hai=a:a !hiva:irao Pati= v. President Hony. Ahasdar 9@! !antha / Others, 22 LL( *97!ermination of a pro"ationer ill not "e stigmatic hen his ork as found unsatisfactory and as arnedalso.$athe2 P. >ho%as v. Aera=a !tate Civi= !upp=y Corporation Ltd. and Ors., 27 LL( 7*94 27(91) 6L( 1111@erely the sho cause notice levying certain allegations against the pro"ationer "ut the termination letter not"eing "ased upon those allegations, it ill not "e stigmatic.$athe2 P. >ho%as v. Aera=a !tate Civi= !upp=y Corporation Ltd. and Ors., 27 LL( 7*94 27 (91) 6L( 1111Pro"ationer has no right to continue in the post."ana+ement $9 Ka%)atr* Vid/a Samasthe ?R@ and 4nr. vs S.B. ,*)ta and 4nr. 2005 LLR 0(-!ermination of pro"ationer even "y stigmatic order ill not "e illegal.4'hi7it ,*)ta vs. S.N.B. Nati$na% Center, Basi6 S6ien6e & Ors. 2006 LLR 545Pro"ationer or Ad(hoc appointee has no right to continue on the post.;idya ;ardhaka !an-ha and another vs. &.+. +eshpande and others. 21 LL( 1277Discharge simplicitor is valid for inefficient pro"ationer.?"*ni6i)a% C$mmittee, Sirsa vs "*nshi Ram. 2005 LLR ->@RE%I$NAI'NA college Principal cannot continue to serve after acceptance of her resignation.Co%%itteeo. $ana-e%ent, +ayanand 0ryaAanya+e-reeCo==e-e$oradabadandOrs. v. +ire"tor, Hi-her?du"ation, 0==ahabad and Ors., 1995 LL( 977'on(communicationof acceptance does not make resignationinoperative providedthere isinfact anacceptance "efore the ithdraal.North Eone Ca=tura= / 0nr., v. ;edpathi +inesh Au%ar, 27 LL( )574 22(97) 6L( 55Business Manager HR MagazineA resignation must "e unconditional and ith a clear intention to relin#uish a jo".Prabha 0tri (+r.) v. !tate o. 9ttar Pradesh / Ors., 27 LL( 274 22C# LLN 712@erelythat theemployeehasattendeddutyandmarkedattendanceill not nullifytheacceptanceofresignation on the date of resignation as tendered ith immediate effect.North Eone Cu=tura= "entre v. ;edpathi +inesh Au%ar, 27 LL( )574 27(97) 6L( 55Employee can ithdra his resignation "efore valid acceptance "y employer.Srikantha S.". vs "!s Bharat :arth "$vers Ltd. 2005 LLR (5Even after acceptance of resignation, "ut"efore date of relieving, employee can ithdra the resignation.Srikanth S.". vs "!s. Bharath :arth "$vers Ltd. 2006 LLR 4-(,nvolvedinthechargeof mis"ehavingiththegirl student, resignation"ylecturer andacceptance"ymanagement, can not "e said to "e done under force.!e"y., >e"hni"a= ?du"ation 9.P. / Ors. vs. La=it $ohan 9padhyay / 0nr. 27 LL( 112REIN%AE4EN3einstatement of an employee ho challenged dismissal after five years ill not "e justified.Li.e #nsuran"e Corporation o. #ndia / Ors. v. 8yotish Chandra 3is2as, 2 LL( 12753einstatement ithout "ack ages ill "e appropriate relief hen the orkmen are negligent.Aanhaiya=a= 0-ra2a= v. >he 6a"otry $ana-er, @2a=ior !u-ar Co. Ltd., 21 LL( 1773einstatement of an employee for misappropriation or loss of confidence ill "e set aside.9ttar Pradesh !tate (oad >ransport Corporation v. $ohan La= @upta and Ors., 21 LL( 11)*Denial of reinstatement and ages ill "e unjustified on illegal termination.;ikra%aditya Pandey v. #ndustria= >ribuna=, 21 LL( 1971hen an industrial !ri"unal is dicided after =0 years, compensation instead of reinstatement ill "eappropriate relief.!ain !tee= Produ"ts v. Naipa= !in-h and Ors., 21 LL( )11$ompensation in lieu of reinstatement ill "e appropriate relief to a +ecurity %uard hose retention involvedconfidence of the employee and only three years of his service ere left.O% Prakash (+ead) by L(s v. Presidin- O..i"er, Labour Court, (ohatak / 0nr., 21 LL( 11113einstatement ith0*/"ack(agesill "eappropriatehendismissal of aorkmanforassaultinghissenior is not proved.Hindustan $otors Ltd. v. >apan Au%ar 3hatta"harya / 0nr., 22 LL( 92)4 22 L#C 21*4 0#( 22 (!C) 2171422 (11) 68( 224 22 (9*) 6L( 7*1%ranting notional increments to a orkman on his reinstatement ill amount to premium on the misconduct.0.P.!.(.>.C. and 0nr. v. !. Narsa-oud, 27 LL( 22)3einstatement of orkmen ill "e appropriate relief to the casual orkers ho ere employed for more than=>*days"ythe!elecomDepartment for digging, layingca"les, erectingpolesandconnectedorkin"elgaum in )9F0(FG.!.$. $i=a:kar / Ors. v. >e=e"o%, +istri"t $ana-er, $arnataka, 27 LL( *74 27 (97) 6L( 153einstatement ith =0/ "ack(ages of a orkman as aarded "y 8a"our $ourt and upheld "y the 4igh $ourtill "e convertedintopaymentof compensationhen the @anagement has "een suffering losses andthereinstatement of the orkman after a long period ould neither "e just nor e#uita"le "esides that it ill add toexcessive manpoer than the re#uirement.Haryana >ouris% Corporation Ltd. v. 6akir Chand et". et"., 27 11214 27 (99) 6L( 521For $ourts, not alays mandatory to order reinstatement.:m)%$/ers, "ana+ement $9 Centra% 3 & # 8nst. Ltd. vs 2ni$n $9 8ndia & 4nr. 2005 LLR -2,n vie of "ad "lood "eteen employer and orkman, compensation ould "e right in lieu of reinstatement. K.C. Sharma vs #e%hi St$6k :D6han+e & Ors. 2005 LLR 4>Business Manager HR Magazine3einstatement ith "ack ages rong in the a"sence of proof of =>* days orking "y orkman.S*rendrana+ar #istri6t 3an6ha/at and an$ther vs Jetha'hai 3itam'er'hai. 2006 LLR >5Daily ager neither engagedunder service rules nor havingany appointment letter is not entitledinreinstatement. State $9 ".3. & Ors vs 4r7*n%a% Ra7ek 2006 LLR -(3einstatement against the terms of reference can not "e sustained. State Bank $9 Bikaner and Jai)*r vs. Om 3rakash Sharma. 2006 LLR >4>1hen a Deptt. is closed and issue as raised after F years, reinstatement not justified in case of daily ages. 4ssistant :n+ineer, C.4.#. K$ta vs. #han K*n0ar. 2006 LLR ((51orking ==G days in four years of service ill not attract retrenchment compensation hence no reinstatement.Ra7asthan 5$*rism #eve%$)ment 6$r)$rati$n Ltd. & 4nr. vs. 8nte7am 4%i Ca9ri. 2006 LLR 1423einstatement not justified to daily ages earner, moreover hen he did not completed =>* days. ..2.#.4. vs. Ja+ma% Sin+h. 2006 LLR 14>'o reinstatement to daily ager. "ana+er ?N$0 Re+i$na% #ire6t$r@ R.B.8. vs. ,$)inath Sharma & 4nr. 2006 LLR 15(3einstatement ith "ack ages su"stituted ith lumpsum compensation, here dispute raised after )= years. 2.3. State R$ad 5rans)$rt C$r)$rati$n vs. "an Sin+h. 2006 LLR 53einstatement not justified hen dispute raised after F years. 4ssistant :n+ineer, C.4.#. K$ta vs. #han K*n0ar. 2006 LLR 2201henaproject schemeunder hichorkmanasappointed, cametoanend, heisnot entitledtoreinstatement.!tate o. (a:asthan vs. !ar:eet !in-h and 0nother. 21 6L( 958eniency of la"our court is reinstating orkman dismissal for assault, ould "e unarranted and encourageindiscipline.$Fs >ata ?n-ineerin- / Lo"o%otive Co%pany Ltd. vs. N.A. !in-h. 27 LL( 19,t ill "e a futile exercise of judicial levie to direct "an to reinstatement officer, ho as lost condidence.!uresh Pathre==a vs. Orienta= 3ank o. Co%%er"e. 27 LL( 1**Person for FF days can not "e granted permanent status and reinstated in jo". Doing so ould not "e onlyillegal "ut also a case of misplaced sympathy.(e-iona= $ana-er, !tate 3ank o. #ndia vs. $ahat%a $ishra. 27 CL( # )9*1here termination challenged after nine years, compensation ould "e proper and not reinstatement.!tate o. Pun:ab / Ors. vs. +es 3andhu. 27 LL( **93einstatement ith full "ack ages not to "e granted automatically.Haryana 9rban +eve=op%ent 0uthority vs. O% Pa=. 27 LL( )521henthereislongpassageoftimeandcompanysufferedlosses, compensationinlieuofreinstatementould "e proper.6aDi=ka Coop. !u-ar $i==s vs. 8atinder Au%ar @upta / 0nr. 27 LL( 177Automatic reinstatement on illegal termination is no more a good la. Factors hether orker as casual,temporary or permanent are also to "e considered.$adhya Pradesh 0d%inistration vs. >ribhuban. 27 LL( 75)3einstatement not tena"le hen orkman statement of employment is contradictory.Pun:ab !tate ?=e"tri"ity 3oard / Ors. vs. #nder:it !in-h. 27 LL( 5)At one point, relief of reinstatement as automatic in case of "reach "ut no there is a change in the trend inrecent decisions.$adhya Pradesh 0d%inistration vs. >ribhuvan. CL( ## 27 P. 19*3einstatement toa!emp. clerk, horaiseddispute after )Fyears ( illegal. $ourt shouldtake intoconsideration the relevant factors "efore aard.Arishi 9tpadan $andi !a%iti, $an-=ore vs. Paha= !in-h. 27 LL( 1121Business Manager HR MagazineFor misconduct of assaulting - a"using +uperior and strike, reinstatement ill not "e proper.9.3. @adhe / Ors. et". et". vs. @.$., @u:arat 0%bu:a Ce%ent Pvt. Ltd. 27 LL( 1175Employee can ithdra his resignation "efore valid acceptance "y employer. Srikantha S.". vs "!s Bharat :arth"$vers Ltd. 2005 LLR (51hen charges are of grievous nature, sentiments and compassion have no role to play. S/ndi6ate Bank andOrs. vs Venketesh ,*rer$ K*rati. 2006 LLR -23einstatement of orkman of seasonal esta"lishment is improper. ,an+a Kisan Sahkari Chini "i%%s Ltd. vs. JaivirSin+h. 200> LLR 2603einstatement of an employee a"senting for 0F= days in .=F days is to "e set aside.!yndi"ate 3ank v. >he @enera= !e"retary, !yndi"ate 3ank !ta.. 0sso"iation / 0nr., 2 LL( 1593einstatement of anemployee ill not "e justifiedhenthere are specific findings a"out charge ofmisappropriation.8anatha3aDar (!outhAanara Centra= CoCoperativehe!e"retary, !ahakariNoukarara !an-ha, 2 LL( 1271'o reinstatement hen loss of confidence proved.Bharat .eav/ :%e6tri6a%s Ltd. vs ". Chandrasekhar Redd/ and Ors. 2005 LLR 25(!ermination of a trainee having put in more than =>* days7 service ill not "e retrenchment.Aa=yani !harp #ndia Ltd. v. Labour Court No. 1, @2a=ior and 0nr., 21 LL( 512!ermination ithout retrenchment compensation for each year of service ill "e illegal.+eep Chandra v. !tate o. 9ttar Pradesh and 0nr., 21 LL( 7123einstatement of an employee ill "e unjustified hen the employer loses confidence in him.North ransport Corporation v. Narayana !idra% Ein-ade and 0nr., 21 LL( 1277,n the a"sence of cogent evidence of the termination of so(called trainees having orked for one and a halfyears, that too hen there as no permanent employee and the management itness categorically stated thatthese orkers ere engaged in production of goods, the trainees ill "e treated as 6orkmen7, and entitled toreinstatement.>ra%bak (ubber #ndustries Ltd. v. Nashik he Presidin- O..i"er / 0nr., 1997 LL( 511hile retrenching a orkman, it is mandatory re#uirement to pay one month7s ages in lieu of notice hen aorkman is asked to go and could not "e asked to collect his dues aferards.!o%asundara% v. Liyakat 0=i / 0nr., 1995 ## LL8 *19Even a daily rated orkman discharged from service ithout complying section =0(F of the ,.D. Act ill "eillegal and the orkers ill "e entitled to reinstatement ith 0*/ "ack ages.$.C.+. v. Praveen Au%ar 8ain / Ors., 1995 ## LL8 17*!he appropriate remedy tochallenge permissionfor retrenchment is reference for adjudication"efore,ndustrial !ri"unal and not "y filling of a rit petition.Narkesari Prakashan Aar%a"hari !an-h v. Narkesari Prakashan Ltd. and 0ny., 1999 LL( 721 (!C)4 1999 (51) 6L(1*9Anotice of change must precede to the introduction of rationaliHation of an industry resulting intoretrenchment of orkmen.Lok%at Ne2spapers Pvt. Ltd. v. !hankaraprasad, 1999 LL( 5)9 (!C) 1999(7) LLN )75Business Manager HR MagazinePermission for retrenchment ill "e imperative for employees engaged in 3ailay Project.La= $oha%%ad / Ors. v. #ndian (ai=2ay Constru"tion Co. Ltd. / Ors., 1999 LL( 1Principle of 6last come first go7 ill apply even in the case of daily ager.!a%ishta +ube v. City 3oard, ?ta2ah / 0nother, 1999 LL( *1 (!C)4 1999C# CL( 5)*Encashment of che#ue "y a orkman containing amount of retrenchment compensation ill not "e a aiverto challenge the validity of retrenchment.Nar !in-h Pa= v. 9nion o. #ndia / Ors., 2 LL( )771hile examining validity of retrenchment, the !ri"unal can decide the "onafides of closure.8.A. !y%theti"s v. (a:asthan >rade 9nion Aendra / Ors., 21 LL( 197@erely asking a orkman to collect his dues ill not amount to compliance of section =0F of the ,ndustrialDisputes Act pertaining to simultaneous payment of retrenchment compensation.!ain !tee= Produ"ts v. Naipa= !in-h and Ors., 21 LL( )11+ection =0F of the ,ndustrial Disputes Act, )9>G nohere speaks of the retrenchment compensation "eing paidor tendered to the orker along ith one month7s notice, it is re#uired to "e made at the time of retrenchment.Pra%od 8ha / Ors. v. !tate o. 3ihar / Ors., 27 LL( *19!he casual orkers ere not project orkers hence compliance of provisions of section =0F of the ,ndustrialDisputesAct providingfor payment of retrenchment compensationat thetimeof their terminationasimperatvie.!.$. Ni=a:kar / Ors. v. >e=e"o%, +istri" $ana-er, $arnataka, 27 LL( *74 27C## LL8$oncept of =. orking days hile paying retrenchment compensation is not applica"le.@uru 8a%besh2ar 9niversity, Hisar vs. +hara% Pa=. 27 (112) 6L( 55!ermination of the orkmen having not orked for =>* days in the preceding year "ut having orked for theearlier years ill amount to illegal retrenchment and for non(payment of retrenchment compensation, they ill"e entitled to reinstatement since the &.P. ,ndustrial Disputes Act does not provide 6preceding7 )= months.9.P. +ru-s / Phar%a"euti"a=s Co. Ltd. v. (a%anu: &adav / Ors., 27 LL( 1974 27 (99) 6L( 7714 27 (7)LL8 11*'on(payment of retrenchment compensation to a orkman ho has not orked for =>* days ill not renderhis termination illegal.?ssen +einki v. (a:iv Au%ar, 27 LL( 117%RI"E 5 +'!"-',Declaration of lock(out ill not "e illegal hen the employees resort to illegal strike.H.$.>. Ltd., et". v. H.$.>. Head O..i"er ?%p=oyees, 0ssn. / Ors., et"., 1997 LL( 7)5'o ages to employees hen they resort to illegal strike.H.$.>. Ltd. et". v. H.$.>. Head O..i"e ?%p=oyees, 0sso"iation / Ors., et"., 1997 LL( 7)5A sympathy strike resorted to "y the orkers ill "e illegal.(a:a (a% $aiDe Produ"ts et". et". v. #ndustria= Court o. $.P. / Ors., 21 LL( )7%AN(IN$ 'R(ER%An employee cannot "e thron out of service "y simple notice even if +tanding :rders so stipulate.9ptron #ndia Ltd. v. !ha%%i 3han / 0nr., 1995 LL( 75)4 1995 (79) 6L( 277!here ill"eno illegalityin +tanding :rders permittingrepresentationof a delin#uent employee"yfelloorkman.3harat Petro=eu% Corpn. Ltd. v. $aharashtra @enera= Aa%-ar 9nion / Ors., 1999 LL( 15%,%PEN%I'N3espondentorkingasclerk(cum(typist inthe"ank. ,nvolvedinacriminal caseinstituted"y$.B.,.(Bankplacedhimuner suspension. +uspensionchallenged. 4eldthat theveryfact that theinvestigationasconducted "y the $.B.,. hich resulted in the filing of a charge(sheet alleging various offences having "eenBusiness Manager HR Magazinecommittted"y the respondent, as sufficient for the "ank toconclude that pendingprosecution, therespondent should "e suspended. !he 4igh $ourt as not right in #uashing the suspension order.0==ahabad 3ank o. 0nr. v. +eepak Au%ar 3ho=a, 1997 LL( 15+uspension of a "ank employee during pendency of disciplinary proceedings ill not "e illegal.!tate 3ank o. #ndia / Ors. v. Harbans La=, 2 LL( 51,nterference "y 4igh $ourt in suspension of an employee ill not "e justified.Ne2 #ndia #nsuran"e Co. Ltd. ;. !.$.#. AaDi% / Ors., 21 LL( 52)1hen the !ri"unal has held that there as no valid and proper en#uiry against a teacher and in a rit petitionthesingleDudgeremittedthematter"acktoanEn#uiry$ommittee"yappointingaDistrictDudgeasanEn#uiry :fficer, the teacher shall "e deemed to "e under suspension pending en#uiry and he ill "e entitled tosuspension alloance.!ree 9::ini, 8.!.;.;. !an-ha v. (.H.$. Channabasava !2a%y, 27 LL( 1114 27 (7) LLN 577'on(payment of suspension period during pendency of the en#uiry ill not vitiate the proceedings hen thedelin#uent neither asked the concerned authorities nor did plead "efore the $ourt "esides that he failed toesta"lishthat anyprejudiceascausedorthat heasinanyayincapacitatedfor participatingintheproceedings.#ndra 3hanu @aur v. Co%%ittee, $ana-e%ent o. $.$H +e-ree Co==e-e and Ors., 2* LL( 225'on payment of suspension alloance can not automatically "ecome a ground to vitiate en#uiry, unless it isproved that it has caused prejudice to delin#uent employee.2.3. State 5eDti%e C$r)$rati$n Ltd. vs 3.C. Chat*rvedi and Ord. 2005 LLR 1>%E+E4ENA settlement arrived during conciliation proceedings ould "e "inding upon to parties and also upon theorkers joining thereafter.P. ;irudha"ha=a% and Ors. v. >he $ana-e%ent o. Lotus $i==s and Ors., 1995 LL( 2*Pay roll check off facility given to the union "y the management under a settlement, cannot "e ithdran "ythe management during the settlement.$ana-e%ent o. A.!.(.>.C. v. A.!.(.>.C. !ta.. / 2orkers, 6ederation / 0nr., 1999 LL( 79(!C)4 1999(51) 6L( 797Adjudication and not rit petition ill "e proper to determine the validity and fairness of a settlement.$ayurakshi Cotton $#==s / Ors. v. Pan"hra $ayurakshi Cotton $i==s ?%p=oyees, 9nion / Ors., 2 LL( *))A settlement ith a recognised union during conciliation proceedings ill "e "inding on all the orkmen ofthe esta"lishment.Nationa= ?n-ineerin- #ndustries Ltd. v. !tate o. (a:asthan / Ors., 2 LL( 225A settlement can "e arrived "efore the conciliation officer even on a holiday.Nationa= ?n-ineerin- #ndustries Ltd. v. !tate o. (a:asthan / Ors., 2 LL( 225!he o"ject of a settlement is to ensure industrial peace.Nationa= >eBti=e Corporation (0PAA$) Li%ited v. !ree &e==a%%a Cotton, .A. (an-ara:an v. @overn%ent o. >a%i= Nadu / Others, 27 LL( 5174 27 (95) 6L( 717!he 4igh $ourt has incorrectlyapplied the provisionsof section == of the ,ndustrialDisputes Act,)9>G inholdingthat no notice of strike as necessary on the part of the orkmen-union hereas the legalconse#uences of not giving of such notice may "e, it cannot "e said in the circumstances, that the orkersere admittedly on strike as a matter of fact.9ttar Pradesh !tate 3rid-e Corporation Ltd. / Ors. v. 9ttar Pradesh (a:ya !etu Ni-a% / Ors., 2* LL( 2591hen after strike, majority of orkers reported for duty after settlement, punishment of increment stoppage tothose ho refused to join duty, as justified and legal.$an-e%ent, Coi%batore+istri"t Centra= CoCoperative3ank and!e"retary, Coi%batore+istri"t Centra= CoCoperative bank e%p=oyees, asso"ation and another. 27 (11*) 6L( 271ER4INAI'N!ermination of an employee for unsatisfactory performance appointed temporarily ill not "e sustaina"le.(a:asthan 0du=t ?du"ation 0sso"iation / 0nr. v. Au%ari 0shoka 3hata"harya / 0nr., 1995 LL( 1)1!ermination of an employee for making false claim of 43A ill "e justified.+ire"tor @enera=, #ndian Coun"i= o. $edi"a= (esear"h / Ors. v. +r. 0ni= Au%ar @hosh / 0nr., 1995 LL( 511'o(payment of retrenchment compensation even to a daily ager ill render the termination illegal.!tate o. 9ttar Pradesh and 0nr. v. (a:endra !in-h 3uto=a and 0nr., 2 LL( )27!ermination of even a casual orkman ithout en#uiry ill "e illegal and as such entitled to reinstatementith "ack ages.Nar !in-h Pa= v. 9nion o. #ndia / Ors., 2 LL( )77!ermination of a Bank employee a"senting for )9* days ithout holding an en#uiry ill not "e violative ofprinciples of natural justice.Pun:ab and !ind 3ank / Ors. v. !akattar !in-h, 21 LL( 1))!ermination of an employee after )0 years of service as stipulated in the +tanding :rders ill "e legal.Har%ohinder !in-h ;. Ahar-a Canteen, 0%ba=a Cantt, 21 LL( 5*98oss of confidence must "e pleaded and esta"lished hile terminating the orkman.Aanhaiya=a= 0-ar2a= v. >he 6a"tory $ana-er, @2a=ior !u-ar Co. Ltd., 21 LL( 177&nlessastigmaiscast, theterminationof either temporaryemployeeor apro"ationer shouldnot "einterfered.0ndhra Pradesh !tate 6ederation o. CoCoperative !piniin- $i==s Ltd. and 0nr. v. P.;. !2a%inathan, 21 LL( )1!erminationof pro"ationaryservicesof ateacher for givingfalsedeclarationa"out hisinvolvement incriminal cases in attestation form for o"taining employment has "een held to "e valid.Aendriya ;idya=aya !an-athan / Ors. v. (a% (atan &adav, 27 LL( *774 27 (97) 6L( 117427 (2) LLN 7*)427 (2) LL8 )27!ermination of services of the orkman ill relate "ack to the date of original order of termination hen the8a"our $ourt gives its approval.?n-ineerin- La-hu 9dyo- ?%p=oyees, 9nion v. 8ud-e, Labour Court and #ndustria= >ribuna= and 0nother, 2* LL(771!ermination justified for hitting and injuring +uperior :fficer."adh/a 3radesh :%e6tri6it/ B$ard vs Ja+dish Chandra Sharma 2005 LLR 420, 2005 LLR 0(51orkman can get relief only hen he proves that he has orked for =>* days in )= months preceeding thedate of his termination.S*rendrana+ar #istri6t 3an6ha/at vs #ah/a'hai 4marsin+h. 2005 LLR 222Dischargefor allegations against seniorsjustified. Ex(parteen#uiryandtri"unal order neednot to"einterfered.State Bank $9 8ndia vs K.C. 5harakan and Others. 2006 LLR 00!ermination of orkers appointed on ad(hoc "asis cannot "e illegal. 'o reinstatement re#uired.Business Manager HR MagazineRe+i$na% "ana+er, S.B.8. vs Rakesh K*mar 5e0ari. 2006 LLR 201&nauthorised a"sence from the duty "y conductor for 5 years justifies terminnation.N$rth :astern Karnataka R.5. C$r)n. Vs. 4sha))a & 4nr. 2006 LLR >44!ermination of ad(hoc appointee ould "e illegal, hen re(appointed time and again "y giving notional "reaksof )(= days..ar/ana State :%e6tr$ni6 #eve%$)ment C$r)$rati$n Ltd. vs. "amni. 2006 CLR 88 3. 04>$ivil $ourt has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of termination.Ra7asthan State R$ad 5rans)$rt C$r)$rati$n and $rs. vs. Ramdhara 8nd$%i/a. 2006 LLR 1(An employer can terminate the service of an employee for a misconduct in the a"sence of any statutory ruleshaving provision for termination.Pun:ab . ill not amount to change in service conditions under the ,ndustrial Disputes Act.$ana-e%ent o. Cip=a Ltd. v. !hri 8ayaku%ar (. / 0nr., 1995 LL( 17!ransfer of an employee "y a non competent authority ill "e illegal hence reinstatement of the employee ill"e justified.(honeCPou=ene (#ndia) Ltd. v. !tate o. 9ttar Pradesh and Ors., 2 LL( 1257+talling transfer of a "ank employee "y 4igh $ourt ill not "e tena"le.!tate 3ank o. #ndia v. 0n:ayan !anya=, 21 LL( )*5$ourts ill not interfere in matters of transfer unless it is mala fide.Nationa= HydroC?=e"tri" Po2er Corporation Ltd. v. !hri 3ha-2an 0nd 0nr., 21 LL( 1222!ransfer of an employee is an incident of service conditions and no employee can have a right to remain atone place.Nationa= HydroC?=e"tri" Po2er Corporation Ltd. v. !hri 3ha-2an and 0nr., 21 LL( 12223efusal to accept transfer order "y an employee ill not "e justified since he can challenge his transfer afterjoining.$ana-e%ent o.0ddisons PaintsandChe%i"a=sLtd.v. he 0ssa% #ndustria= +eve=op%ent Corporation Ltd. / Ors., 2 LL( 11*1:ption for voluntary retirement can "e ithdran in the a"sence of contrary provision.!ha%bhu $urari !inha v. Pro:e"t and +eve=op%ent #ndia Ltd. and 0nother, 22 LL( 1)4 0#( 222 !C 17*1422(9*) 6L( 2294 22(2) LL8 *7:nce a cut off date is fixed for the purpose of calculating the "enefits under the Eoluntary 3etirement +chemeand thereafter an employee is continued in service and if that period happens to "e three months or more, thatitself shall "e treated as notice period and the employee shall not "e entitled for notice period pay again.0.P.!.#.+.C. Ltd. and 0nr., v. (. ;araprasad and Ors., 27 LL( 774 27 (95) 6L( 1*:nceanemployeracceptstheEoluntary3etirement+cheme Applicationofanemployee, thelatercannotithdra from the scheme even if he continues in service "eyond the cut off date due to lack of funds to settlehis dues.;i"eCChair%an and $ana-in- +ire"tor, 0P!#+C Ltd. and 0nr., v. (. ;araprasad and Ors., 27 LL( 77Eoluntary3etirement +chemeiscontractual innatureandthecontractual rightderived"ytheemployeesconcerned, could"eaived"yacceptingapart of the"enefit andassuchtheycannot "epermittedtoappro"ate and repro"ate nor can they "e permitted to resile from thier earlier atand in opting for the +cheme.Pun:ab Nationa= 3ank v. ;irendra Au%ar @oe= and Others, 2* LL( 2174 2* (1) 6L( 171!he sentence, Baccepted a part of "enefit under the +chemeC, ould include the ithdraal of the "enefit andutilisation thereof and as such "y no stretch of imagination, unilateral deposit of a part of "enefit under theschemeintothe"ankaccount, thattooafterithdraaloftheapplication,ould construethattheyhaveacceptedthe part of the "enefit under the Eoluntary 3etirement +cheme andassuchthe employeesconcerned having accepted the "enefit accruing under the +cheme "y ithdraing and utilisation thereof, arenot permitted to appro"ate and repro"ate.Pun:ab Nationa= 3ank v. ;irendra Au%ar @oe= and Others, 2* LL( 2174 2* (1) 6L( 171After ithdraal of E3+ payment from Bank A-c, employee?s option of ithdraal from E3+ not valid.Bank $9 8ndia and $thers vs 3a%e Ram #hania 2005 LLR. 1>EmployeecanithdratheE3+option"eforeacceptance$ontrarytoE3+terms2conditionandsuchcondition ould not "e valid..ind*stan C$))er Ltd. & 4nr. vs. Banshi La% is Ors. 2006 LLR 1>1ithdraal of E3+ option "y employee "efore acceptance ill "e justified.3*n7a' and Sind Bank and $thers vs "$hinder 3a% Sin+h and $thers. 2006 LLR 05E3+ optee is not orkman under ,.D. Act, hence not entitled to approach any forum or authority under ,.D. Act.C:45 Ltd. vs 4nand 4'asahe+ .a0a%der & Ors. 2006 LLR --5E3+ optee can not raise a claim for a 4igher salary revised for employees ith retrospective effect..:C V$%*ntar/ Retd. :m)%$/ees 0After receiving E3+ "enefit, employee can not ithdra his application on the plea that it as given underpressure.Business Manager HR Magazine,/anendra saha/ vs. "!s. 5ata 8r$n & Stee% C$. Ltd. 2006 LLR 154:nce an employee has opted for voluntary retirement, its ithdraal ill not "e alloed after its acceptance"y the employer.>u=ip !tar Hote=s and Others vs. 9nion o. CentaurC>u=ip ?%p=oyees and Others. 27 LL( 12Employee can ithdra his E.3.+. option "efore acceptance "y employer.6ood Corporation o. #ndia / Ors. vs. (a%esh Au%ar. 27 LL( 11278&2/1!he controversy a"out #uantum of 6ages7 has "een set at rest "y the +upreme $ourt in holding that 6fullages last dran7 means the ages at the time of termination of service and not hen the aard as passed.+ena 3ank v. Airitikar >. Pate=, 1995 LL( 1Directors of $ompany are not personally lia"le for Payment of ages.3.C. 4+ar0a% vs 3a/ment $9 G.6a"tory $ana-er, C#$$CO * days in preceding one year.Krishna Bha+/a Ja%a Ni+am Ltd. vs. "$hammed Ra9i. 2006 LLR 0(0Employees engaged and continued for years together cannot "e termed as temporary or casuals.$inera= ?Bp=oration Corporation ?%p=oyees, 9nion vs. $inera= ?Bp=oration Corporation Ltd. / 0nr. 21 ### CL(9)18egal Asst. ,s not a orkman under &.P.,.D. Act.$uir $i==s 9nit o. N.>.". (9.P.) Ltd. vs. !2aya% Prakash !rivastava and another. 27 (112) 6L( 51),ndustrial 3elations Executive is not a orkman under ,.D. Act. amendment in sec. =;s< of the Act has to "eread prospective and not retrospective.C. @upta v. @=aBo !%ith A=in Phar%a"euti"a= Li%ited. 27 CL( 571, 27 (11*) 6L( )5)4I%!E++ANE',%!he +upreme $ourt in a +pecial 8eave to appeal can correct the incorrect decision of the 4igh $ourts.