Delhi High Court Termination Order Based On Enquiry For Misconduct Behind The Back Of The Officer Is Violative Of PNJ: Delhi HC Case No.- W.P.(C) 12696/2023 Case Name- Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors vs Virender Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 558 A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta while deciding...
Delhi High Court
Case No.- W.P.(C) 12696/2023
Case Name- Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors vs Virender
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 558
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Anoop Kumar Mendiratta while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors vs Virender has held that a termination order which is based on the report of an inquiry in which misconduct of a definite nature was arrived at behind the back of the officer is violative of principles of natural justice.
Case No.- W.P.(C) 5193/2024 & CM APPL. 21253/2024
Case Name- AIIMS vs Ashok Kumar
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 547
A single bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of AIIMS vs Ashok Kumar has held that when the termination is found to be illegal, grant of reinstatement with full back wages has to be provided as per the facts and circumstances of each case and shall not be awarded mechanically.
Case Title: Kanchanjunga Building Employees Union Vs Kanchanjunga Flat Owner's Society & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 545
Case Number:W.P.(C) 6193/2008
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh reiterated the established principles to determine the status of an undertaking as an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, of 1947. The bench held that when an undertaking performs multiple functions, its predominant function has to be considered for the determination of its status.
It was further observed that associations and societies of apartment owners employ workers for personal service. Therefore, those workers would not be considered as workmen and such societies would not be considered as industry under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Case Title: Kanchanjunga Building Employees Union Vs Kanchanjunga Flat Owner's Society & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 543
Case Number:W.P.(C) 6193/2008
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that the onus of proof in establishing an employer-employee relationship rests with the party making such a claim. The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by certain Workmen hired on a contractual basis, who failed to establish a direct relationship with the Association they were working for.
Transfer, Being An Exigency Of Service, Is Neither A Matter Of Right Nor Choice: Delhi High Court
Case No.- W.P.(C) 4793/2024 & CM 19609/2024
Case Name- Pawan Kumar Mathuri. vs UOI & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 544
A Division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Saurabh Banerjee while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Pawan Kumar Mathuri. vs UOI & Ors. has held that transfer, being an exigency of service, is neither a matter of right nor a matter of choice
Kerala High Court
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 286
Case No.- MFA (ECC) NO.52 OF 2018
Case Name- Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan
A single judge bench of the Kerela High Court comprising of Justice G. Girish in the case of Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs P.T. Rajeevan has held that the right of the employee to seek treatment from the hospital of his choice cannot be curtailed by the circulars issued by employer.
Bombay High Court
Case no. – Writ Petition No. 12161 of 2019
Case Title – Dattaram Atmaram Sawant v. Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank
Leave encashment is not a bounty but right earned by employee, the Bombay High Court observed while affirming the entitlement of two former employees of Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank to encash their accrued privilege leave, despite their resignations from the bank.
A division bench of Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice MM Sathaye allowed the employees' writ petitions and directed the bank to pay the amount for leaves accumulated by two employees who resigned from the bank.
Case: Prakash S. Hande v. Hindustan Lever Limited
Case No. WP. 6125 of 200
A single bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a writ petition in the case of Prakash S. Hande v. Hindustan Lever Limited has reiterated that the burden of proving completion of 240 days of service in any calendar year rests on the Petitioner.
Case: Sau. Asha wd/o Haridas Katwale & Ors. v. The Manager (Mines), M/s Wester Coalfields Ltd. Bhadrawati & Ors
Case No. W.P. No. 7361/2023
A division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Avinash G. Gharote and Justice. M.S. Jawalkar while deciding a writ petition in the case of Sau. Asha wd/o Haridas Katwale & Ors. v. The Manager (Mines), M/s Wester Coalfields Ltd. Bhadrawati & Ors. has held that compassionate appointment can only be claimed in accordance with the existing policy and not as a matter of right.
Case No.- CWP No. 7650 of 2023
Case Name- Ashok Mallinath Halsangi & Ors v State of Maharashtra & Ors
A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Ashok Mallinath Halsangi & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Ors has held that the court in the garb of judicial review cannot sit in the chair of appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same.
Case No.- WRIT PETITION NO. 1807 OF 2021
Case Name- Danfoss Systems Ltd vs Johnson Gomes
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Danfoss Systems Ltd vs Johnson Gomes has held that dismissal of service of a workman was disproportionate for an offence of overwriting the reason of absence on the Gatepass.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Akhtari Khatoon v. State of U.P. and Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 13833 of 2023]
Recently, the Allahabad High Court has held that unless a divorced daughter can establish that she was dependent on her father before his demise, she would not be entitled to a compassionate appointment post his demise. The Court held that the divorced daughter must also prove the factum of divorce before the authorities while seeking compassionate appointment.
“Likewise, if on the date of demise of the employee in harness, it can be shown that a married daughter is dependent upon him, or his widow and minor family members could be taken care of by the married daughter, if granted compassionate appointment, it may be a case for considering the claim and judging the validity of the prohibitive rule,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Case Title: Sehrun Nisha v. State Of Up And 3 Others [WRIT - A No. - 6402 of 2024]
The Allahabad High Court has held that gratuity would be payable to a government employee based on his years of service and not on the age at which he retires.
“Retirement at sixty years is not an entitling fact, which leads the employee to acquire a right to receive gratuity, which he otherwise does not have. An employee gets his right to gratuity according to the number of the years that he serves,” held Justice J.J. Munir.
Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Smt. Tara Devi & Anr. Vs. Bank of India & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 19235 of 2021
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Rai Chattopadhyay held that in case an employee is untraceable for more than seven years and their death is presumed, the terminal benefits should be extended to the heirs of the employee.
The bench held that:
“This Court is of the view that having not denied service of the said missing person with the respondent Bank for years together the Bank cannot shut the doors on the face of his legal heirs when time comes for the Bank authorities to compensate adequately, the legal heirs of the person, in absence of the said person. The greater objective of supporting the family of an employee who may not be in a position to earn and support the family, cannot be sub-served for some technical reasons.”
Case: Rita Ghoshdastidar v. St. Joseph & Mary's School and Ors.
Case No. WPA 19024 of 2014
A single bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya while deciding a writ petition in the case of Rita Ghoshdastidar v. St. Joseph & Mary's School and Ors. has held that a writ petition challenging the termination of a teaching staff member from a private unaided educational institution is not maintainable if dispute primarily involves private contractual matters.
Case No.- WPA 8705 of 2024
Case Name- M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Arindam Mukherjee while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. has held that non-rendering of uninterrupted service due to accident would not amount to break in service for the purposes of Section 2A of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (Gratuity Act).
Case No.- WPA 24009 of 2019
Case Name- Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Vs. UOI & Ors
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Amrita Sinha while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal Vs. UOI & Ors has held that an employee has no right to be promoted but he has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case No. : W.P.No.8648 of 2019
Case Name : Shaik Mahaboob John vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh
A division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur, Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. Raghunandan Rao, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of Shaik Mahaboob John vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, held that merely participating in the selection process does not automatically ensure an absolute entitlement to appointment, however, valid and prima facie reasons are required before the cancellation of such a selection procedure.
Case Title: The National Insurance Company Limited, Anantapur vs G Sivamma And 3 Others and Others
Case Number: CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 1112/2010
The Andhra Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Nyapathy Vijay held that once the employer himself deposed about the salary particulars, it is not open for the insurance company to insist on quantification of compensation under Workmen Compensation Act as per the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Management Of Nwkrtc, Gadag Division Vs Manjunath
Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 107562 OF 2014 (L-KSRTC)
The Karnataka High Court single bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held that the right to claim interest could be considered a pre-existing right or benefit only if explicitly determined in the contract of employment or in the resolutions governing service conditions. However, it held that neither the contract of employment nor the service conditions of the Workman outlined the payment of interest on delayed service benefits.
Furthermore, the bench held that an application under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in the Labour Court would require a prior adjudication or recognition by an employer of the claim of the Workman to be paid wages at the rate which they claim.
Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 deals with the recovery of money due from an employer to a workman.
Madras High Court
Case No. : Writ Petition No.136 of 2024
Case Name: Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 202
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and K. Kumaresh Babu, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Union of India vs. S. Radhakannan, held that upon the death of the employee, the purpose of compassionate appointment is to reduce the immediate financial hardship faced by their family.
Case No. : W.P.Nos.290 of 2019 and 24441 of 2018
Case Name : C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 199
A single bench of the Madras High Court comprising Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of C. Subramani vs. Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Transport Department, held that when an employee changes regions and accepts the lowest administrative rank, their seniority in the transferred region is counted from the transfer date, not the original date of entry into service.
Case No. : W.P.No.34295 of 2017
Case Name: Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 193
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mr. Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, while deciding Writ Petition in the case of Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry, held that Employees are not automatically entitled to pension benefits based on deductions made under the GPF scheme.
Case No.- W.A(MD).No.298 of 2024
Case Name- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors
A division bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice D. Krishnakumar and Justice R. Vijayakumar while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO vs President Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Ors has held that , Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is empowered to reduce or waive damages imposed on the employer as per the EPF Act and EPF Scheme.
Case No.- W.P.(MD) No.9156 of 2024
Case Name- C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 189
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R.N.Manjula while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of C. Chandran. vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Tirunelveli) Ltd & Ors. has held that non-consideration of a representation made to a statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty.
Case No.- W.P.No.6343 of 2022
Case Name- S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 185
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice N.Mala while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd. has held that a question that is referred to a labour court under section 17(2) of the Working Journalists Act cannot be construed as an Industrial Dispute under section 2(k) of the ID Act.
Case No.- W.A(MD)No.479 of 2024
Case Name- State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 184
A Division Bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Suresh Kumar and Justice G. Arul Murugan while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of State of TN & Ors Vs. C. Arnold has held that application for compassionate appointment can be made by a minor under Rule 6 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules, 2023. However appointment to such an applicant can be given only once they attain the age of majority.
Patna High Court
Case No.- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17450 of 2015
Case Name- Kuraisa Begum Vs. B. R. A. Bihar University & Ors
A single judge bench of the Patna High Court comprising of Justice Anil Kumar Sinha while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Kuraisa Begum Vs. B. R. A. Bihar University & Ors has held when a temporary employee is absorbed under some policy containing a cut-off date, seniority is considered from the date of such absorption.
Case No.- Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3455 of 2012
Case Name- Bikrama Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Ors
A single judge bench of the Patna High Court comprising of Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Bikrama Singh & Anr Vs. State of Bihar & Ors has held when there is no misrepresentation or fraud leading to wrong pay fixation or pay, no recovery can be made from employees.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case Title: The Factory Manager Rccpl And Anr vs. the State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 16946 Of 2021
The Madhya Pradesh High Court (“High Court”) single bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner is not a competent authority to decide the claims arising out of payment of less than the minimum rates of wages under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. It held that the Assistant Labour Commissioner is not competent to decide the complaint filed by the Inspector under the Minimum Wages Act.
Case Title: Smt. Priyanshi Garg Vs Union Of India And Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 5487 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that dismissal of a woman during her absence from employment or pregnancy has to be dealt by the prescribed authority only, before whom, an efficacious alternative remedy, by way of an appeal, as provided under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 lies.
Case Title: Namrata Golhani Sahu Vs Labour Commissioner And Ors.
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 28164 of 2023
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that even if the application for maternity benefits was erroneously submitted by an employee before the Labour Commissioner, it is the duty of the Commissioner to refer the same to the Inspector as provided under Section 17 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961
Case Title: Rajbhan Dwivedi and Others vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through its Principal Secretary School Education Department and Others
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 3137 of 2024
The Madhya Pradesh High Court division bench of Chief Justice Ravi Malimath and Justice Vishal Mishra held that while Guest Faculty members may continue their services, they cannot demand regularization as an inherent right, emphasizing the contractual nature of their employment and the absence of specific rules or regulations governing their regularization.
Punjab & Haryana High Court
Case Title: Pappu Giri and Ors vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, Panipat, and another
Case Number: CWP17142-2014(O&M) and Connected Matters
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth held that in the absence of any material in the shape of the affidavit, showing the need for the transfer of the workman from the original place to a new place, it cannot be termed that the decision taken by the Management is fair one and beyond any doubt.
Case Title: Hira Lal Karakara vs State of Punjab and others
Case Number: CWP-602-2023
The Punjab and Haryana High Court bench of Justice Namit Kumar held that where there is an inordinate delay in retirement benefits and the delay is not justifiable, the employee will be entitled to interest. It held that an employee will be entitled to the interest on an amount which was retained by the employer without any valid justification.
Case Title: Gopal Krishan vs State of Punjab and Others
Case Number:CWP-17945-1997 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth held that the workman's withdrawal of the civil suit implied permission to pursue a remedy under labour law. The bench noted that the Industrial Tribunal refused to grant relief to the Workman based on the fact that he pursued the same matter in a civil court earlier.
The High Court held that time spent in proceedings before the civil court would not count towards the period of limitation. Further, the workman should not be punished for devoting his time before the wrong forum as usually it is based on some misconception or ill-advise.
Case No. : LPA-900-2024 (O&M)
Case Name : Jai Bhagwan vs State of Haryana & others
A division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Lapita Banerji, while deciding Letters Patent Appeal in the case of Jai Bhagwan vs State of Haryana & others, held that the discretionary jurisdiction of the courts cannot be employed to prolong an employee's tenure beyond the period specified as per their accepted date of birth by the employers.
Findings Of Inquiry Officer Are Not Binding On Punishing Authorities: Punjab And Haryana High Court
Case Title: Rachhpal Singh vs State of Punjab and Others
Case Number:RSA-1316 of 1994 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Namit Kumar held that the punishing authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Further, it held that while deciding a case where the disciplinary enquiry is conducted for the alleged misconduct against the public servant, the Court has to determine:
(a) Whether the enquiry was held by the competent authority; (b) whether rules of natural justice are complied with; and, (c) whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence and authority has power and jurisdiction to reach finding of fact or conclusion.
Tripura High Court
Payment Of Gratuity Act Applicable To Anganwadi Workers And Helpers: Tripura High Court
Case Title: Smt. Bina Rani Paul & Ors. v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Case No.: W.P. (C) No. 624 of 2023
The Tripura High Court recently held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to the Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers working in the State.
In this context, the single judge bench of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha quashed the memorandum dated August 11, 2023 issued by State's Social Welfare & Social Education Department to the extent that the claim of gratuity was denied to certain Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) engaged under Intensive Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS scheme) at different Anganwadi centres in Tripura.
Plea Of Automatic Reinstatement Upon Setting Aside Of The Dismissal Order Is Not Tenable: Tripura HC
Case No.- WA No. 17 of 2024
Case Name- Rajesh Das vs Society for Tripura Medical College & Ors
A Division bench of the Tripura High Court comprising of Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh and Justice S.D. Purkayastha while deciding a Writ Appeal in the case of Rajesh Das vs Society for Tripura Medical College & Ors has held that plea for automatic reinstatement upon setting aside of the dismissal order is not tenable.
Gauhati High Court
Case Title: Binoy Kumar Sinha Vs The Asstt. General Manager Admin. State Bank Of India And Ors.
Case Number: Case No. : WP(C)/1331/2014
The Gauhati High Court single bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma dismissed a writ petition noting that neither an advertisement was issued, nor any selection process was followed before engaging the employee as an occasional daily wager. It further held that State Bank of India (SBI) is State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Therefore, it would have to make appointments through advertisement and a proper selection process, in terms of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Manipur High Court
Case No.- WP(C) No. 112 of 2019
Case Name- K Yangla vs State of Manipur & Ors
A single bench of the Manipur High Court comprising of Justice Ahanthembimol Singh while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of K Yangla vs State of Manipur & Ors has held that Consent Certificate given by employee agreeing to deductions of Government Dues from retiral benefits does not absolve authorities from basing such deduction on legally valid and tenable grounds.
Jharkhand High Court
Case Title: K. Kannan and Anr vs The State of Jharkhand and Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 69
Case Number: Cr.M.P. No. 628 of 2012
The Jharkhand High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi held that the period of limitation under the Factories Act is strictly 3 months from either the date of the offence or the date on which the occurrence came to the Inspector's knowledge. Further, there exists no provision for the condonation of delay for the filing of such complaints.
It was also observed that the Judicial Magistrate did not apply his judicial discretion appropriately after taking cognizance of the matter. Consequently, the High Court quashed the proceedings against the occupiers of a factory.
Orrisa High Court
Case Title: Jawaharlal Mohanta vs State of Odisha & others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.20977 of 2010
The Orrisa High Court bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that the date from which regularization is to be granted to an employee is a matter to be decided by the employer keeping in view several factors. The bench held that it depends on the nature of the work, the number of posts lying vacant, the financial condition of the employer, the additional financial burden caused, the suitability of the workmen for the job, the manner and reason for which the initial appointments were made, etc.
Case Title: Madhusmita Dutta vs State of Orissa & others
Case Number: W.P.(C) No. 13296 of 2006
The Orissa High Court single bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that the principle of “no work, no pay” cannot be universally applied, especially when the employer is at fault for not utilizing the services of the respective employee.
Case No.- WP(C) No.9460 of 2024
Case Name- Govind Nag vs State of Orissa & Ors
A single bench of the Orissa High Court comprising of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Govind Nag vs State of Orissa & Ors has held that mere implication of the name of the officer in a vigilance case could not stand in way of accepting an application for voluntary retirement of the officer.
Case No.- WPC (OAS ) NO.50 of 2018
Case Name- Madan Raul vs State of Orissa & Ors
A single bench of the Orissa High Court comprising of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Madan Raul vs State of Orissa & Ors has held that date of birth recorded in the HSC Pass Certificate is to be taken as the Date of birth for all purposes.
Case Title: Narendra Kumar Nayak @ Narendra Nayak vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.1296 of 2006
The Orrisa High Court (“High Court”) division bench of Chief Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh and Justice M.S. Raman held that upon the expiry of a temporary scheme, the reengagement of a casual labourer cannot be ordered by the court.
Case Title: All Odisha Bharati Infratel Contractual Technicians Union (AOBICTU) BBSR vs Union Of India and Others.
Case Number: WP(C) No.7552 of 2024
The Orrisa High Court single bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra dismissed a writ petition against private companies based on the reason that private companies do not classify as the State, as defined under Article 12 of the Indian Constitution. The employees were set at liberty to pursue the matter in an appropriate forum.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Shalibhadra Adinath Enterprise and Shalibhadra Apartment Through Member Versus Kanan Maruday Padaram
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 59
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 13526 of 2021
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Justice Mauna M. Bhatt held that personal services which are not in nature of a commercial activity render the serving Association outside the ambit of the definition of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The bench noted that services rendered to the members of a society, formed solely for their benefit, do not qualify as industrial activities.
Case Title: Range Forest Officer Versus Virjibhai Ranchhodbhai & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 58
Case Number: R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 381 Of 2024 In R/Special Civil Application No. 7322 Of 2009 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 Of 2024 In R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 381 Of 2024
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that once the termination of a Workman is declared illegal, the remedy is limited to either reinstatement or a lumpsum compensation.
Considering the impracticality of reinstatement due to passing of substantial time after termination and the Workman's proximity to retirement age, the High Court held it appropriate to award a lump sum compensation to the Workman.
Case Title:Manilal Manglaji Zariya & Ors. vs State Of Gujarat & Ors.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 57
Case Number: R/Special Civil Application No. 6844 of 2024
The Gujarat High Court single bench of Justice Nikhil S. Kariel held that in accordance with Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act, daily-wage workmen who have completed a specific tenure are entitled to permanency.
It further noted that once permanency is granted, these workmen are also entitled to additional benefits such as pensions and higher pay scales which are available for regularly appointed workmen. Thereby, the bench directed the Forest Department to assess the services of the aggrieved Workmen and grant them permanency upon receiving individual applications.