Can Only Invoke Section 33C(2), ID Act, For Computation Of Pre-Existing Benefits; Not To Decide New Issues: P&H HC

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Jagmohan Bansal struck down the order of the Labour Court that ordered payment of overtime wages to a pump operator. The workman filed a claim under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) stating that he had worked for 12 hours a day for almost a decade, but was paid only for 8 hours....

Delayed Payment Of Gratuity, Employer Liable To Pay 10% Interest As Per Central Government Notification : Jharkhand HC

A single judge bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising of Justice Anubha Rawat Choudhary held that employers are liable to pay interest at 10% rate if they delay in payment of gratuity, as per the notification issued by the Central Government in consonance with Section 7 (3-A) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. Background Facts The respondent employee was working for the...

'Employee Is Entitled To Medical Reimbursement In Case Of Emergency Even If Hospital Isn't Empanelled Under Any Scheme', Delhi High Court

A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Jyoti Singh held that the Petitioner was entitled to claim medical reimbursement even if the hospital was not the one empanelled under CGHS in case the admission to such hospital was done during an emergency. The Bench held that the Petitioner could not be denied reimbursement as she was severely injured and could not...

Employee's Compensation Act, 1923; To Absolve Liability, Insurer Must Prove Negligence By Employer In Verifying Employee's Driving License: Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Nitin B. Suryawanshi overturned a Labour Court order that dismissed a compensation claim under the Employee's Compensation Act, 1923. The claim was filed by the family of a truck driver who succumbed to an accident at work. The court established that the deceased was indeed employed by the Respondent. Further, it refused...

Special Allowance For Bank Employees On Deputation Cannot Be Excluded From Pay Fixation: Bombay HC

Bombay High Court: Justices Mangesh S. Patil and Prafulla S. Khubalkar ruled that employees of nationalized banks deputed to Debts Recovery Tribunals (DRTs) are entitled to include “special allowance” for the purpose of fixation. The court quashed part of a 2020 government communication that excluded the allowance from pay fixation. It held that the 2020 communication...

Candidate Not Responsible For State's Mistake In Issuing Experience Certificate, Cannot Be Denied Appointment: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court observed that the State could not take advantage of its own wrong of issuing an incorrect experience certificate to the petitioner and then making her run from pillar to post, and rejecting her candidature for the post of Auxiliary Nurse & Midwives based on such mistake.The bench of Justice Arun Monga was hearing a petition filed by a candidate for the post of...

Part-Time Service Recognized For Pension Benefits Under Old Scheme: Bombay HC

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench: A division bench of Justices Nitin W. Sambre and Vrushali V. Joshi held that part-time teaching service should count towards pension benefits under the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. It confirmed that the petitioner, who moved from part-time to full-time teaching, was entitled to pensionary benefits starting from his first appointment...

Sleeping On Duty Is Misconduct; Employee's Past Service Record Relevant In Deciding Quantum Of Punishment: Bombay HC

Bombay High Court: A single-judge bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne quashed a Labour Court's order directing reinstatement along with back wages to a worker dismissed for sleeping on duty. The High Court observed that while sleeping on duty was indeed a misconduct, the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate. It held that an employee's past record of service is relevant in deciding...

Employee Can't Be Terminated For Non-Disclosure Of FIR That He Was Not Aware Of: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, Justice Neeraj Tiwari of the Allahabad High Court has held that a government employee cannot be removed from service for not disclosing that an F.I.R. was filed against them, if they themselves were not aware of the fact.“This Court is also of the same view that in case at the time of filing of affidavit...

'Leave Encashment Can't Be Denied Merely Because Chargesheet Was Filed Against Petitioner': Delhi High Court

A Single Judge Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Jyoti Singh held that as per the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972, the Petitioner could not be denied the grant of Leave Encashment under Rule 39(3) of the said Rules. The Petitioner was charge-sheeted for allegedly participating in a one-day protest and could not be denied the benefit of grant of Leave Encashment as no harm was...

Filing Of Affidavits Or Self-Serving Documents Insufficient To Prove Employer-Employee Relationship: MP HC

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single judge bench of Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke dismissed a petition filed by Ashok Singh Tomar. Tomar challenged the Labour Court's order that dismissed his claim for reinstatement and back wages after he was terminated. The High Court ruled that Tomar provided insufficient evidence to establish an employer-employee relationship. It noted that just...

Employer Has Right To Lead Evidence Even After Faulty Domestic Enquiry: MP HC

Madhya Pradesh High Court: A single bench of Justice Vivek Jain dismissed a petition filed by a workers' union against an award of Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT). The award was passed in favour of a dismissed worker. He was dismissed on account of unauthorized absence and the CGIT had upheld his dismissal. The Court held that an employer can lead evidence before a tribunal...