Landmark Labour Law Judgments 2025

Delhi

  1. Failure to report for duty can be construed as abandonment of job.
    Dev Narayan v. The Management of M/s. Auto Precision (Delhi High Court)
  2. Murder of worker near his residence after duty is an ‘accident' for compensation.
    Delhi Tourism & Transportation Development Corporation & Anr. v. Suraj Mukhi & Anr. (Delhi High Court)
  3. An employer in its discretion may discharge the employee simplicitor for loss of confidence.
    Nanak Chand v. M/s. Indian Port Association (Delhi High Court)
  4. Report of Internal Committee will be deemed as enquiry report for disciplinary action under Sexual Harassment Act.
    Sarita Verma v. New Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
  5. Mere framing of charge of moral turpitude in enquiry would not justify forfeiture of gratuity.
    Rajiv Saxena v. Chief General Manager & Others (Delhi High Court)
  6. Principal employer engaging new contractor should ensure the employment of workers of ex-contractor.
    Sh. Hansraj and Ors. v. The Employee's State Insurance Corporation (Delhi High Court)

 

West Bengal (Calcutta High Court)

  1. Contractual trainees are not apprentices under the Apprentices Act, 1961.
    Central Tool Room & Training Centre v. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation and Others
  2. Small earnings by workmen are not to be considered gainful employment.
    Parvez Alam v. Vijay Shree Pvt. Ltd.

 

Gujarat

  1. By an oral appointment, it cannot be inferred that the worker was engaged for the fixed term.
    Karsan Shivaji Sanghar v. Ashapura Mines Chem Limited
  2. Termination of a probationer on completion of the extended period of probation is not retrenchment.
    Barad Vajesing Rambhai v. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd.

 

Telangana

  1. Full back wages are awarded on reinstatement when false charges were levied upon an employee.
    D.M., TSRTC v. Gollamandala Subba Raju & Another

 

Bihar (Patna High Court)

  1. An employer cannot escape from applicability of EPF unless EO's report is rebutted.
    Khemka Enterprises v. Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Labour, Govt. of India
  2. Mere gate passes not sufficient for treating contractor's workers as employee of principal employer.
    Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Barauni v. The Union of India
  3. Failure of employer to respond to notice by EPF justifies presumption of non-cooperation.
    Shiva Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Ors.

 

Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)

  1. A person who issues charge sheet can also be presenting officer in the enquiry.
    The Management ELGI Equipments Ltd. v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore and others
  2. Right to demonstration by the workers is subject to reasonable restrictions.
    Chennai Yetrumathi Valaga Uzhiyargal Matrum Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam v. Commissioner of Labour, Chennai and Others
  3. Punishment of dismissal not to be interfered with when a driver has been found guilty of theft of employer's material.
    G. Kumar v. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court Vellore and Another
  4. The conduct of the Enquiry Officer shall not influence the mind of the Labour Court in deciding the issue.
    The Management of Tamil Nadu Petro Products Limited v. M.K. Thiagarajan
  5. Burden to prove functional integrality between two companies is upon EPF Authority.
    Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v. I.P. Rings Ltd. and Another
  6. No relief is to be given by Labour Court to a worker when misappropriation is proved in a proper enquiry.
    Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Presiding Officer, Chennai & Anr.
  7. Payment of ex-gratia cannot necessarily be termed as bonus.
    Managing Director, Vinayaka Missions Medical College and Hospital v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Puducherry and Another

 

Karnataka

  1. Mere submission of letter is not sufficient to seek status of ‘protected workman'.
    Krishnappa M. v. Bharat Electronics Ltd.
  2. Customary bonus paid in past at the discretion of employer cannot be claimed as a right.
    Pharmaceutical Chemical & Allied Employees Union v. The Management of M/s. J.L. Morrison (India) Limited
  3. Failure of employer to prove charges makes punishment untenable.
    Divisional Controller, North-East Karnataka Road Transport v. Hanumanthappa
  4. Resignation cannot be accepted before one month in absence of notice period.
    Basavaraj v. The N.W.K.R.T.C.
  5. Transfer of an employee cannot be thwarted due to personal difficulties or language problems.
    M/s Toyota Tsusho India Pvt. Ltd. v. Sri Victor Soundar
  6. An employee having accepted terms contained in the appointment letter cannot demand better service conditions.
    Karnataka State Medical and Sales Representatives Association v. Astra Zeneca Pharma India Ltd.

 

Himachal Pradesh

  1. No EPF liability without determining employer-employee relationship.
    M/s Bio Veda Action Research Company v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II

 

Chhattisgarh

  1. Coverage of establishment under ESI without ascertaining records needs fresh consideration.
    Kashinath and Sons v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation and Another

 

Odisha

  1. Mere sending letters without request for medical leave is not sufficient for granting of leave.
    Sri Narasingha Biswal v. Management of the Chief General Manager, Talcher Area of M.C.L.

 

Maharashtra (Bombay High Court)

  1. Extending the probation period three times without reference to the performance is not proper.
    Catholic Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Bawatis Salu Madatis

 

Madhya Pradesh

  1. Non-submitting resignation to the concerned authority would not be justified.
    Depot Manager, IOCL and Others v. Vidyawati Ramswaroop Verma and Others

 

Kerala

  1. EPF authority can recover dues from employer to be credited to the account of the employee.
    Kochummen T.T. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another

 

Supreme Court of India

  1. Settlement, unless more beneficial for workers, cannot override certified standing orders.
    Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v. M/s. Jet Airways Ltd.