Key Labour Law Insights
1. SUPREME COURT (SC) JUDGMENTS
1. Home-based workers are also eligible for PF
Case: Office In-charge, Sub Regional PF Office vs. Godavari Garments Ltd.
Summary:
Even workers who work from their homes and not inside the factory are considered employees for the purpose of Provident Fund. Employers must include them and deposit PF.
2. Contractor’s workers to be regularised when controlled by principal employer
Case: Chennai Port Trust vs. Canteen Workers Welfare Association
Summary:
If workers hired through a contractor are actually doing regular work and are controlled by the principal employer, they must be treated as regular employees.
3. Teachers can claim gratuity retrospectively
Case: Savita Gulati vs. Directorate of Education
Summary:
Teachers are eligible for gratuity and can claim it even for past service before the law was specifically amended to include them.
2. PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Workman abandoning job when duty was offered
Case: Punjab Steel Forging & Agro Industries vs. Industrial Tribunal
Summary:
If an employer offers work and the employee refuses and instead demands back wages, it amounts to abandonment of service. Dismissal is justified.
2. Counting 240 days of service for daily wagers
Case: Jaspal @ Yashpal vs. Maharaja Aggarsain Institute
Summary:
When calculating 240 days of service for job protection, even unpaid weekly off days must be counted.
3. DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Self-serving affidavit cannot prove employment
Case: Shambhu vs. Sugan Drycleaners
Summary:
Just submitting an affidavit claiming employment does not prove employee-employer relationship. Proper evidence is required.
2. Compensation cannot be granted if employee was drunk during accident
Case: Naeem vs. Mohd. Salim
Summary:
If an accident occurs while the employee is under the influence of alcohol or drugs, compensation cannot be claimed.
3. Charitable hospital cannot be exempted from Bonus Act
Case: Moolchand Hospital vs. Workers
Summary:
Even if a hospital is charitable and exempt from income tax, it still must comply with the Bonus Act.
4. EPF assessment cannot be done merely on the balance sheet
Case: United News of India vs. Regional PF Commissioner
Summary:
Authorities cannot raise PF demand only by looking at the company’s balance sheet. They must conduct a proper inquiry.
4. MADRAS HIGH COURT (TAMIL NADU)
1. Dismissal justified for threatening or abusing senior officials
Case: Madras Cricket Club vs. Labour Court
Summary:
Assaulting, threatening or using abusive language against senior staff is serious misconduct that justifies dismissal.
2. Employee insured under ESI cannot claim compensation under EC Act
Case: S. Palanivel vs. Deputy Commissioner of Labour
Summary:
If an employee is covered under ESI, they cannot file a separate claim for compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
3. Transfer to a subsidiary not valid without proper clause
Case: Tasty Nut Industries vs. Labour Court
Summary:
An employee cannot be transferred to another establishment unless the employment conditions clearly allow such transfers.
4. Acquittal in criminal case does not remove negligence
Case: Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp. vs. Sivakumar
Summary:
Even if a driver is acquitted by a criminal court, the employer can still take disciplinary action for negligence.
5. BOMBAY HIGH COURT (MAHARASHTRA)
1. Gratuity calculation only on Basic + DA
Case: Saint Xaviers High School vs. Shailaja Deshpande
Summary:
Gratuity must be computed only on the basic salary and dearness allowance, not on allowances.
2. Suspension allowance must be paid during suspension
Case: Arup Prasad Karri vs. Eastern Coalfield Ltd.
Summary:
If suspension allowance is not paid, the disciplinary enquiry becomes invalid.
3. Improper extension of probation
Case: Catholic Urban Co-operative Society vs. Bawatis Salu
Summary:
Probation cannot be extended repeatedly without proper performance evaluation.
4. Long unauthorised absence—formal enquiry not mandatory
Case: Vilas Ganpati Patil vs. Suyog Backwell
Summary:
If an employee remains absent for a very long period without reason, the employer may take action even without a detailed enquiry.
6. UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Maternity benefit allowed even on third delivery
Case: Urmila Masih vs. State of Uttarakhand
Summary:
Maternity leave cannot be denied simply because the employee is having her third child.
7. HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
1. Workers cannot stage protests within 500 meters of employer premises
Case: Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. vs. Workmen
Summary:
Courts can restrict striking workers from holding demonstrations near the employer’s premises to maintain order.
2. Date of birth disputes require proper evidence
Case: Tripta Devi vs. EPFO
Summary:
If documents show different dates of birth, the dispute must be resolved based on proper evidence and not assumptions.
8. MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Special allowance not part of basic wages
Case: Carewell Security Services vs. EPFO
Summary:
If an allowance is paid only to those who work more than 48 hours a week, it is not part of “basic wages” for PF calculations.
9. ANDHRA PRADESH / TELANGANA HIGH COURT
High Court will not interfere with interim Labour Court orders
Case: Nutrine Confectionery Employees' Union vs. State
Summary:
The High Court generally does not interfere with temporary or interim orders issued by Labour Courts.
10. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
EPF Enforcement Officer only collects information
Case: Sri Durgaoarameshwari vs. EPF Enforcement Officer
Summary:
The Enforcement Officer’s job is to collect basic information; final decisions regarding PF liability must be taken by the PF Authority.
Prosecution of Directors/managers invalid if company not made party
Case: Ramesh Mehra vs. Umesh
Summary:
Employer officials (directors/managers) cannot be prosecuted unless the company itself is also made an accused.
11. GUJARAT HIGH COURT (via HP decision on company registered)
Special allowance given only for 48-hour schedule is not basic wage
Case: Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. vs. Workmen
Summary:
If an allowance depends on special working conditions (like 48-hour weekly duty), it cannot be treated as basic wages for PF.
12. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Privileged leave cannot be claimed as a matter of right
Case: Shashi Bala Meena vs. Punjab National Bank
Summary:
Privilege/earned leave is to be sanctioned by the employer based on administrative requirements. Employees cannot demand it as a right.
13. CALCUTTA HIGH COURT (WEST BENGAL)
POSH Act: Woman of any age can be an aggrieved woman
Case: Pawan Kumar Niroula vs. Union of India
Summary:
Under the POSH Act, a complainant can be of any age and may or may not be an employee of the organisation.
Payment for work beyond normal hours is overtime
Case: ESIC vs. Kesoram Industries
Summary:
Any payment made for extra working hours must be treated as overtime, even if named differently.
Order requiring deposit under EPF Act does not stop recovery
Case: Precision Polyplast vs. RPFC
Summary:
Just because the employer deposits dues for filing an appeal does not automatically stop the PF department from initiating recovery unless the court grants a stay.
14. GAUHATI HIGH COURT (ASSAM)
Special allowance for specific work schedule not part of basic wages
Case: Numaligarh Refinery Ltd. vs. Workmen
Summary:
Special allowances tied to special conditions cannot form part of basic wages for PF purposes.
