Landmark Labour Law Judgments February-2025

Supreme Court of India
1.    Disputes relating to payment of wages and termination are not arbitrable. 
2.    No liability of employer for abetment of suicide of employee merely on the ground of humiliation. 
3.    Non-supply of a copy of the inquiry report to any party is a violation of the POSH Act. 
4.    Allegation not taken in the show cause notice and termination order can't be taken afterward. 
________________________________________
Andhra Pradesh High Court
1.    EPF authorities have to grant a personal hearing and consider the entire material before passing an order. 
2.    Directing attachment without considering the payments to date is not justified. 
________________________________________
Bombay High Court
1.    Sleeping while on duty is gross misconduct when the employee holds a responsible position. 
________________________________________
Calcutta High Court
1.    State Government cannot maintain and supervise recruitment of workers in private establishments. 
2.    Criminal complaint for violation of EPF Act against a long-defunct establishment is not justified. 
________________________________________
Chhattisgarh High Court
1.    An inquiry under Section 7A initiated by the EPF Authority should be concluded at the earliest. 
________________________________________
Himachal Pradesh High Court
1.    The principle of vicarious liability is applicable for offenses under the EPF Act. 
________________________________________
Jharkhand High Court
1.    Dismissal of a workman holding a post of trust and confidence on the ground of negligence is proper. 
2.    Acquittal in a criminal case would not affect termination when allegations in both were different. 
3.    Order without findings on the applicability of the EPF Act is illegal. 
________________________________________
Karnataka High Court
1.    Employers must be heard while fixing/revising minimum wages and cannot be excluded. 
2.    Employer not liable for breach of settlement when a major part of the settlement has been implemented. 
3.    No precondition of depositing any part of the damages imposed u/s 14B at the time of filing of appeal. 
4.    Prohibitory Order is legal when the order under section 7A imposing dues was not challenged. 
________________________________________
Kerala High Court
1.    Gratuity cannot be paid in installments and has to be paid in a lump sum manner. 
2.    Order of the EPF Authority with factual inaccuracies is liable to be remanded back. 
3.    Mens rea is not necessary to attract offenses under the EPF Act. 
4.    Milk Allowance, paid to a group of employees, is not 'wages' under the EPF Act. 
5.    Non-payment of interest/damages by employer cannot be a reason to deny pension to an employee. 
________________________________________
Madhya Pradesh High Court
1.    Termination cannot be set aside even if the chargesheet was held to be incompetent. 
2.    Advocate can represent an employer before the Labour Court in the capacity of an Officer of an Employer's Association. 
3.    Employer can prove misconduct before the Labour Court even if no inquiry was conducted. 
________________________________________
Madras High Court
1.    Punishment can be imposed even if misconduct was committed outside the establishment's premises. 
2.    Dismissal for attempting to rape a woman is proper even if the matter was settled with the victim. 
3.    Employee can't be made to suffer the consequences of a clerical error merely because EPFO's system is computerized. 
________________________________________
Orissa High Court
1.    Interest u/s 7Q of the EPF Act cannot be imposed without service of notice to the establishment. 
________________________________________
Punjab & Haryana High Court
1.    Premises carrying out consultancy services are covered under the ambit of the ESI Act. 
2.    Tribunal can't reduce damages by 50% when the authority had assessed damages at a much lower rate. 
3.    Two units cannot be artificially clubbed together to deny infancy period benefits to the establishment. 
________________________________________
Rajasthan High Court
1.    Daily allowance is 'wages' under the Employees Compensation Act.

________________________________________
Telangana High Court
1.    No violation of natural justice when 49 opportunities were given to the establishment over 4 years. 
2.    High Court cannot extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal under the EPF Act.