Key HR Legal Insights

Source: https://www.icim.in/

 

 

Employment & Termination

• Unauthorized Absence Equals Abandonment: The Kerala High Court held that prolonged unauthorized absence constitutes valid grounds for presuming job abandonment. (S. Vinod v. Kerala State Electricity Board)
• Dismissal Justified for Workplace Misconduct: An employee who left duty to comb his hair and later assaulted a senior officer was lawfully dismissed. (Rangrao v. Maharishi Babasaheb Kedar Sahakari Sut Girni and Others)
• Termination for Creating Reign of Terror Upheld: The Karnataka High Court ruled that hospital employees who create a reign of terror can be dismissed without formal enquiry. (R. Umesh v. T.R. Siddappa and Others)

 

 Disciplinary Action & Enquiry

• Charge Sheet Must Clearly Convey Allegations: The Kerala HC emphasized the importance of clearly informing an employee about charges. (SUT Hospital v. Labour Court, Kollam and Another)
• Labour Court Must Remain Uninfluenced: The conduct of an enquiry officer should not bias the Labour Court. (Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd. v. M.K. Thiagarajan)
• Right to Defence Assistant Depends on Certified Orders: Entitlement to a defence assistant in disciplinary enquiries depends on the company's Certified Standing Orders. (Packiyalakshmi v. Joint Registrar/Managing Director, The Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Another)

 

 EPF & ESI Compliance

• Contractual Trainees Not Considered Apprentices: The Calcutta HC clarified that contractual trainees are not apprentices under the Apprentices Act. (Central Tool Room & Training Centre v. EPFO and Others)
• All Branches Count as a Single Establishment: For EPF purposes, all departments and branches are considered a single establishment. (Yeshwant Gramin ShikshanSansthan Sanstha v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Others)
• Employer Must Prove Number of Employees: The responsibility to establish employee count lies with the employer. (Shiva Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. EPFO and Others)
• EPF Exemption Doesn’t Remove Legal Obligation: Section 17 exemption does not exempt an employer from the coverage of the Act. (Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. RPFC and Another)
• Unreasoned EPF Orders Can Be Set Aside: Orders passed by EPF authorities without due diligence can be struck down. (Filmnagar Culture Centre v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner)

 

 Industrial Disputes & Tribunals

• No Service Condition Changes During Dispute: It is illegal to alter the service terms of a workman during the pendency of an industrial dispute. (Peb Steel Lloyd (India) Ltd. v. Nitin Sonwane)
• Workman Must Prove Unemployment to Claim Back Wages: A dismissed workman must demonstrate that they were not gainfully employed. (Bhartiya Paryatan Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Dinesh Chandra Sharma and Others)
• Continuity of Service Valid for Gratuity: Continuity granted by an Industrial Tribunal is valid for gratuity purposes. (Delhi Transport Corporation v. Ashok Kumar)
• Industrial Disputes Outside Writ Jurisdiction: Disputes between workmen and employers must be decided by adjudicatory bodies, not by writ courts. (Lakhwinder Singh and Others v. Medical Superintendent)

 

 Women & Labour Rights

• Maternity Leave for Casual Workers: Even casual workers are entitled to maternity benefits. (Management, Glem Brook Estate, Salem v. Plantation Officer, Plantation Office)
• Sexual Harassment Complaints Require Transparency: A copy of the complaint must be shared with the accused. (Dr. Ajay S. Sekher v. Internal Complaints Committee)

 

 Leaves, Wages & Bonuses

• Privilege Leave Not an Absolute Right: The Rajasthan HC ruled that employees cannot demand privilege leave as a matter of right. (Smt. Shashi Bala Meena v. Punjab National Bank and Others)
• Bonus Claims Not Maintainable via Writ Petition: The appropriate statutory forum must be used. (Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Others)
• No Specific Bank Mandate for Wage Deposits: There is no legal compulsion to use a particular bank for depositing employees’ wages. (Malabar Cancer Centre Society v. Dinesh Kumar)

 

 Labour Law Enforcement & Workplace Conduct

• Restrictions on Protests Near Employer’s Site: Courts upheld bans on strikes or dharnas within 500 meters of employer premises. (Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes and Others)
• Misappropriation Equals Grave Misconduct: Any misuse of funds for personal gain constitutes serious misconduct. (Central Warehousing Corporation v. Madan Mohan)
• Overtime Claims Must Be Admitted by Employer: Overtime is payable only if the employer acknowledges the additional work. (Currency Note Press and Another v. N.N. Sardesai and Others)

 

 Procedural & Administrative Legal Points

• Ex-Parte Orders May Be Revoked on Valid Grounds: But revocation may be subject to cost. (Basti Wakilanwali Cooperative House Building Society Ltd. v. Balwant Singh and Another)
• Industrial Tribunals Function Beyond Civil Procedure Code: Their powers arise from the Industrial Disputes Act. (Goda Dhar Das v. Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. and Others)

 

 Additional Key Rulings

• Transfer That Alters Workman’s Status Is Illegal: A transfer that promotes a workman to a supervisory role may be unlawful. (The Managing Director, Power Soap and Abirami Soap Works v. PuthiyaJananayakaThozhilalar Munani)
• Pension Date of Birth Cannot Be Altered via Writ: High Courts will not allow pension-related DOB corrections through writ petitions. (Tripta Devi & Others v. EPFO & Others)
• Civil Suit Against Trade Union Not Maintainable: Trade unions cannot be directly sued through civil courts. (Sri A. Soundararsan and Another v. The Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.)
• Coverage Under ESI Must Be Based on Records: ESI coverage without verifying relevant records requires fresh review. (Kashinath and Sons v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Another)
• No IPC Bar Under Factory Act for Criminal Action: Factory Act provisions do not limit penal actions under IPC. (Vijay Parekh v. State of Madhya Pradesh)
• Appeals in Accident Cases Limited to Legal Questions: Compensation orders can be challenged only on substantial legal issues. (Shahajahan and Another v. Shri Ram General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another)
• Natural Justice Requires Separation of Roles: One cannot be both complainant and judge in the same matter. (M/s. Indus Towers Ltd. v. RPFC - II and Others)
• Punishment Must Match Misconduct, Not Mere Loss of Confidence: Misappropriation justifies serious disciplinary action. (Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation v. BhikhalalGondbhaiShekhwa and Others)