Labour & Service Monthly Digest: April 2024
Rajesh Kumar
5 May 2024 9:30 AM IST
Supreme Court Financial Position Of Employer Strong Factor In Fixing Wage Structure Of Employees: Supreme Court Case Title: The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/s. VVF India Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 2744 - 2745 of 2023 (and connected matter) Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 299 While setting aside a High Court judgment over an industrial dispute, the...
Supreme Court
Financial Position Of Employer Strong Factor In Fixing Wage Structure Of Employees: Supreme Court
Case Title: The VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/s. VVF India Limited & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 2744 - 2745 of 2023 (and connected matter)
Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 299
While setting aside a High Court judgment over an industrial dispute, the Supreme Court recently reiterated that financial capacity of an employer is an important factor which cannot be ignored while fixing wage structure of employees.
The Bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar was deciding on an appeal against a judgment of the Bombay High Court directing wage revisions, when it said that though High Courts may not altogether avoid reappreciating evidence, the appropriate course in the present case would have been for the court to remit the matter back to the Industrial Tribunal.
“In the given facts where the employer seriously contested the use of the concerned units as comparable ones, and highlighted its difficult financial position, the proper course would have been to remit the matter to the Industrial Tribunal rather than entering into these factual question independently in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. This exercise would have required leading of evidence before the primary forum, the Industrial Tribunal in this case", the court said.
Delhi High Court
Case Title: Director General, Delhi Doordarshan Kendra vs Mohd. Shahbaz Khan and Others
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 506
Case No.: LPA 242/2024, CM APPL.18228/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18229/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18230/2024 (exemption) + LPA 243/2024, CM APPL.18232/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18233/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18234/2024 (exemption) + LPA 244/2024, CAV 150/2024, CM APPL.18238/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18239/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18240/2024 -Ex + LPA 245/2024, CM APPL.18245/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18246/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18247/2024 (exemption) + LPA 246/2024, CM APPL.18251/2024 (stay), CM APPL.18252/2024 (delay of 50 days) & CM APPL. 18253/2024 (exemption).
The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Rekha Palli and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain held that the scope of intervention of the High Court is very limited in matters of factual findings made by Industrial Tribunals unless they were found to be perverse or based on no evidence.
The High Court was adjudicating on the letters patent appeals filed by Delhi Doordarshan Kendra, which was accused of illegally terminating the employment of its permanent workers by falsely claiming them as 'contract workers'. It was already factually determined by the Industrial Tribunal that the Management was not authorized to employ contract workers, as it lacked a license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, of 1970.
Case No. : Civil Writ Petition No. 3940/2017
Case Name: Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 405
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Parveen Kumar vs Export Inspection Council & Ors has held that a retired officer appointed as Inquiry Officer does not fulfil the criteria of “public servant” under Rule 11(2) of the Export Inspection Employees (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1978 (EIA Rules).
Onus To Establish Employee-Employer Relationship Rests On the Claimant: Delhi High Court
Case: Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 386
Case No. W.P. (C) 2931/2024
A single-judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a writ petition in the case of Sunil Kumar & Ors. v. The State & Ors. has reiterated that the onus to establish the relationship of employee-employer between the management and the workman is on the claimant, i.e., the person who sets up a plea of existence of such relationship between the parties.
Case: Shri Nomil Rana v. The Union of India and Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 387
Case No. W.P.(C) 7385/2018
A two-judge 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 Shri Nomil Rana v. Union of India and Ors. has held that suppression of the material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by a person seeking appointment to a police post wherein he is required to maintain public order has bearing on his suitability to hold the post in question.
Therefore, this court observed that:
“The suppression of the material information regarding pendency of Criminal Case by the petitioner, who is seeking appointment to a police post wherein he is required to maintain public order, surely, has a bearing on his suitability to hold the post in question."
Case Title: Shri Sita Ram & Others vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi
Case Number:W.P.(C) 2940/2010
The Delhi High Court single bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh held that implementation of revised pay scales involves executive discretion and courts do not have the authority to intervene unless there is evidence of illegality or a glaring irregularity.
The case involved allegations against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for failure to implement an enhanced pay scale for its technicians, as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. It was held that the petitioners (technicians) were not entitled to the enhanced pay scale since it couldn't be construed as a legally vested right.
Bombay High Court
Case Title: Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Shri Dattatraya Ganpat Bankhele
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2574 of 2017
The High Court of Bombay single bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne held that lengthy periods of absence from duty without proper leave documentation are unjustified, regardless of the plausibility of the reason behind the absence.
The High Court acknowledged that the Labour Court's decision of reinstatement of the absent employee with 25% back wages could not be reversed as the employer failed to challenge it. However, the Industrial Court was unjustified to increase the back wages to 100%, in the absence of concrete reasons.
Abandonment Of Service Needs To Be Established By Conduction Of Enquiry: Bombay High Court
Case No.- Writ Petition NO. 1025 OF 2024
Case Name- Bhushan Industries vs Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Bhushan Industries vs Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav has held that abandonment of service is a question of fact that needs to be established by conduction of an enquiry.
The court observed that considering the sequence of events and the correspondences between the Respondent and the Petitioner, it cannot be said that the Respondent refused to report for duty. The Petitioner never wanted the Respondent to join his duties.
The court further observed that abandonment of service is a question of fact that needs to be established by conduction of an enquiry. If the Petitioner actually believed that the Respondent has abandoned his services, at least a show cause notice ought to have been issued to the Respondent. Since correspondence was on going between the Petitioner and the Respondent, it was possible for the Petitioner to conduct an enquiry accusing the Respondent of absconding from his duties.
Case No.- WRIT PETITION NO. 4616 OF 2019
Case Name- M/s. Premsons Trading (P) Ltd vs Dinesh Chandeshwar
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of M/s. Premsons Trading (P) Ltd vs Dinesh Chandeshwar Rai has held that voluntary abandonment of employment can only be proved if the employer had issued a notice to the workman directing him to resume his duties.
Madras High Court
Case Title: S. Keerthana v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 149
Case No. W.P. (MD). No. 10177/2023
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R. Vijayakumar while deciding a writ petition in the case of S. Keerthana v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department & Ors. has held that a near relative of an officer of a co-operative society cannot be appointed to any post in the service of such society.
The court observed that although there was a vacancy for the post of Manager on the date of the notification, the said post was deleted from the cadre strength and as such the Petitioner should not have been permitted to appear in the examination and an order of appointment should not have been issued to a non-existing vacancy. Further, the court observed that the Petitioner's father was working as an Assistant Manager in the same Co-operative Union at the same time of the recruitment process which is a clear violation of Rule 149(5) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Rules which states that “No person who is a near relative as specified in rule 63, of a member of the board or an officer of a society shall be appointed to any post in the service of such society.”
Case Name: S.Sujatha vs The Director Of Collegiate Education
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 145
Case No. : W.P.(MD) Nos.1345, 1433 and 4573 of 2024
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Honourable Mrs. Justice L. Victoria Gowri while deciding Writ Petitions in the case of S. Sujatha vs The Director of Collegiate Education has held that age relaxation can be provided to a person to compete in the recruitment process by giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the department for a significant period of time.
The court relied on the case of State of Karnataka v. Umadevi wherein the Supreme Court had permitted persons who have worked for ten years or more in duly sanctioned posts to participate in selection process by waiving the age relaxation and giving the weightage for having been engaged or worked in the department for a significant period of time.
Case Title: M. Anantha Babu vs. The District Collector & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 147
Case No. W.P. No. 27139 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.28615 of 2021
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice R.N. Manjula while deciding a writ petition in the case of M. Anantha Babu v. The District Collector & Ors. has reiterated that compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely on the ground that the child was from the second wife of the deceased employee.
The court further relied on the Supreme Court Judgement of Mukesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. The Union of India (UOI) and Ors. which has clearly stated
“The purpose of compassionate appointment is to prevent destitution and penury in the family of a deceased employee……. Once Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regards a child born from a marriage entered into while the earlier marriage is subsisting to be legitimate, it would not be open to the State, consistent with Article 14 to exclude such a child from seeking the benefit of compassionate appointment”
Contract Appointment Of Protection Officer, Can't Continue Beyond Term: Madras High Court
Case No.- W.P.No.32200 of 2023
Case Title: Pandiammal vs Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Mad) 148
A single judge bench of the Madras High Court comprising of Justice G.K.Ilanthiraiyan while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Pandiammal vs Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department & Ors has held that Protection Officer appointed on contract basis cannot be termed to be appointed under Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 (DV Rules) merely because she was allowed to continue her service after completion of tenure of contract.
Allahabad High Court
Case Title: Charan Pal Singh vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court Second Up Ghaziabad And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 264
The Allahabad High Court single bench of Justice Dinesh Pathak held that the Labour Court has been given ample power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to examine the correctness of the finding returned by the Inquiry Officer in passing the discharge or dismissal order.
The High Court held that Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act denotes the power of the Labour Courts/ Tribunal/ National Tribunal to give appropriate relief in case of discharge or dismissal of workman. It held that while examining the matter for granting relief to the workman, Labour Court is entrusted power to examine the legality and validity of the discharge/dismissal order.
Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The Divisional Controller (South), N.W.K.R.T.C. vs Vasant B Jogi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 200
Case Number: WP No. 105424 of 2023
The Karnataka High Court single-judge bench of Justice Shivshankar Amarannavar held that when an industrial dispute is pending in an adjudicatory body, the employer must seek approval from the Tribunal for the dismissal of the worker, as mandated by Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. If any approval is not sought and granted, such dismissal would be deemed void.
The issue before the High Court was whether the Corporation's failure to adhere to the provisions of Section 33(2)(b) of the ID Act prior to issuing the dismissal order renders the said order void and non-est. The High Court noted that this issue was conclusively settled by the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Jaipur Zila Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Vs. Ram Gopal Sharma and Others [AIR 2002 Supreme Court 643], where the SC held that not making an application under Section 33(2)(b) for seeking approval of dismissal is a clear case of contravention of the provisions to the Section 33(2)(b) and dismissal order becomes inoperative or void. Further, the High Court noted that the decision in Divisional Controller, NEKRTC vs. Raghavendra, and held that mere non-compliance with Section 33(2)(b) does not warrant interference by the High Court if the charges against the employee have not been contested and if the Labour Court's findings have not been duly considered.
Case Title: Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari vs The Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 49982/2018 (L-TER) C/W Writ Petition No.6531/2019 (L-RES)
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 198
The High Court of Karnataka single bench of Mrs Justice K.S Hemalekha held that persons carrying managerial and supervisory responsibilities do not fall within the scope of 'workman', as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Once it is determined that the person is not a 'workman' under the Act, the labour court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate whether their termination was proper or not.
No Further Enquiry Can Be Ordered Unless A Case Is Made Out: Karnataka High Court
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
Case Title: Chairman Central Board Of Direct Taxes AND K Chandrika
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.4730 OF 2022
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Chairman of Central Board of Direct Taxes challenging an order of Central Administrative Tribunal's whereby it quashed the 'charge sheet' in the disciplinary enquiry against Assistant Income Tax Commissioner and directed it to hold 'Review DPC' within two months to consider her case for promotion.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice G Basavaraja dismissed the petition and said “Enquiry Officer has already found her 'not guilty' vide report dated 14.03.2014. Therefore she cannot be subjected to any 'further enquiry'. An argument to the contrary falls foul of fair play and established canons in the realm of law.”
Case: Smt. K. C. Nagalambike and Ors. v. The Managing Director KSRTC & Ors
Case No. W.P. No. 29984/2019
A single-judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice S.G. Pandit while deciding a writ petition in the case of Smt. K. C. Nagalambike and Ors. v. The Managing Director KSRTC & Ors. has held that compassionate appointment cannot be sought as a matter of right and at the same time compassionate appointment cannot be sought against a particular post.
Case No. : Civil Writ Petition No. 42748/2014 (L-KSRTC)
Case Name: T.Y. Subramani vs Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C.
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice K.S. Hemalekha while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of T.Y. Subramani vs Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. has held that by mere passage of time, a fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity, and equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in such cases as a person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner.
The court observed that by mere passage of time a fraudulent practice would not get any sanctity. The court relied on the case of Union of India vs. V.M.Bhaskaran wherein the Supreme Court had held that merely because the respondent- employees have continued in service for number of years on the basis of such fraudulently obtained employment orders cannot create any equity in their favour or any estoppel against the employer.
Calcutta High Court
Case No.- WP. CT 154 of 2023
Case Name- Md. Farid Vs. Union of India & Ors
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Uday Kumar while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Md. Farid Vs. Union of India & Ors has held that an employee is entitled to interest on the withheld amount of gratuity upon acquittal in the criminal proceedings pending against him on the date of his retirement.
Case: Sankar Mandal v. Union of India
Case No. WPA 3225/2016
A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury while deciding a writ petition in the case of Sankar Mandal v. Union of India has held that non-disclosure of information cannot form the sole ground for the competent authority to discharge the employee.
The court observed that an employer while passing an order of discharge from service for giving false information may take into consideration the criminal antecedents and has a right to consider continuance of such candidate. However, the court, inter alia, relied on the case of Pawan Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., wherein the Supreme Court held that an employee could not be arbitrarily discharged from service on ground of mere suppression of material or false information. The court further reiterated the holding in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., wherein the Supreme Court held that “although empanelment creates no right to appointment, there cannot be any arbitrary denial after empanelment as well.”
Case: Ram Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.
Case No. WPA 4419/2019
A single-judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Partha Sarathi Sen while deciding a writ petition in the case of Ram Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India has held each candidate selected for the post of Constable in RPF must be free from all vices, possess a sense of sufficient responsibility, and be truthful, dutiful, vigilant as well as honest. Therefore, the furnishing of wrong information for securing a job amounts to fraud upon the employer.
Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case No. : L.P.A. No. 126 of 2015
Case Title: State of H.P. and another vs. Jai Ram Kaundal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 13
A division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, while deciding Letters Patent Appeal in the case of State of H.P. and another vs. Jai Ram Kaundal, held that once a person is appointed against Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe quota, then later they cannot claim reservation under ex-serviceman quota.
Case No. : LPA No. 96/2021
Case Title: UCO Bank & Ors. vs Chaman Singh
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 12
A division bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge, while deciding Letters Patent Appeal in the case of UCO Bank & Ors. vs Chaman Singh, has held that service provided by an employee for the period of three months and above shall be treated as one half year (6 months) for the purpose of calculating total service period.
Case No.- CWP No. 5170 of 2023
Case Title: Suneet Singh Jaryal vs State of HP & Anr
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 10
A single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Satyen Vaidya while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Suneet Singh Jaryal vs State of HP & Anr has held that the state government cannot withhold pensionary benefits for an indefinite period on the pretext of financial constraints.
The court also observed that
“Once, the government has announced the grant of aforesaid benefits to its employees, the same can neither be subsequently denied nor delayed for indeterminate period more particularly on the pretext of financial constraints.”
Case No.- CWP No.1275 of 2024
Case Title: Usha Rani vs State of HP & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (HP) 11
A single judge bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice Ranjan Sharma while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Usha Rani vs State of HP & Ors. has held that to determine the eligibility for appointment as Anganwari Workers, the family annual income of the female candidate must be under Rs. 8000 per annum and not the individual annual income of the female candidate.
Uttarakhand High Court
State Can't Take Benefit Of Its Own Wrong By Denying Pensionary Benefits To Employee, Who Served For Three Decades: Uttarakhand High CourtCase No. : Special Appeal No. 153 of 2022
Case Name: State of Uttarakhand & Ors vs Prakash Chandra Harbola & Ors
A division bench of the Uttarakhand High Court comprising of Hon'ble Chief Justice Ms. Ritu Bahri and Hon'ble Justice Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, while deciding a Special Appeal in the case of State of Uttarakhand & Ors vs Prakash Chandra Harbola & Ors has held that the State cannot be permitted to take the benefit of its own wrong by denying the pensionary benefits to the employee, who rendered continuous service for almost three decades. As a welfare State, the State as such ought not to take such steps.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Bhimnath R Yadav and Ors. Vs Trivedi Crafts Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 50
Case No.: R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 196 of 2023 in R/Special Civil Application No. 9410 of 2013 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 2 of 2022 in R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 196 of 2023
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivedi summarily dismissed an appeal filed against Trivedi Crafts, an Ahmedabad-based marble dealer. The bench perused Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act and Rule 80B of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1996 and held that the procedural requirements of retrenchment were duly followed by providing notice in the prescribed form and offering one month's wages to the affected workers in lieu of notice.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case No. : Civil Writ Petition No. RSA-4995 of 1999
Case Name: State of Punjab and Ors vs Ex. Constable Amarjit Singh
A single judge bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court comprising of Justice Namit Kumar while deciding an appeal in the case of State of Punjab and Ors vs Ex. Constable Amarjit Singh has held that discipline is the first requirement of a disciplined force and the very act of absence from duty by a member of a disciplined force is gravest act of misconduct under Rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR), where the term “misconduct” includes any wrongful act which is disruptive of discipline.
The court observed that the absence of respondent from duty for 44 days while undergoing basic training, without giving any leave or information show the lack of discipline, which was the first requirement of a disciplined force. The court relied on the case of State of Punjab and others v. Chamkaur Singh wherein the Punjab And Haryana High Court held that the act of absence from duty by a member of disciplined force without giving any information shows the lack of discipline. The court also relied on the case of State of U.P. and others vs Ashok Kumar Singh and another wherein the Supreme Court held that disciplined force demand strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department.
Orrisa High Court
Case No. : W.A. No. 1179 of 2023
Case Name: State of Odisha & Ors vs Banamali Samal & Ors
A division bench of the Orissa High Court, comprising Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh (Chief Justice) and Mr. M.S. Raman (Judge), while deciding an Appeal in the case of State of Odisha & Ors vs. Banamali Samal & Ors held that the service of a government servant does not qualify for pension unless he is appointed and his duties and pay are regulated by the government or under the orders of the government.
Patna High Court
Case No. : L.P.A. Nos. 185 of 2018 & 1792 of 2018
Case Name: Ganesh Mahto vs The State of Bihar
In L.P.A. No. 185 of 2018
A division bench of the Patna High Court comprising of Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Arun Kumar Jha, while deciding Letters Patent Appeals in the case of Ganesh Mahto vs The State of Bihar, held that employees are not entitled to salary attached to the post for which they are appointed on Ad hoc basis, unless and until they were occupying the post in a substantive capacity.
Rajasthan High Court
AAI Is An Extended Hand Of GOI; No Backdoor Entries Can Be Permitted While Absorbing Workers: Rajasthan High Court
Case No.- Civil Writ Petition No. 4586/1999
Case Name- Hari Shankar Sharma & Ors. vs UOI & Ors
A single judge bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Justice Sameer Jain while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Hari Shankar Sharma & Ors. vs UOI & Ors. has held that AAI is an extended hand of the Government of India, thus no backdoor entries can be permitted while absorbing and regularizing workers in the same.
The court further observed that
“the respondent-Airport Authority of India is an extended hand of the Government of India and therefore, whilst absorbing and regularizing workers, no backdoor entries can be permitted. Rather, a due selection process in the public domain by way of an advertisement ought to be carried, in light of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
Case Title: Ghar Singh vs University of Jammu & Ors
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 75
A single judge bench of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court comprising of Justice Sanjeev Kumar while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Ghar Singh vs University of Jammu & Ors has held that a Casual Labourer is labour whose employment is intermittent and sporadic, where as a Daily Wager renders continuous service and is paid on a daily basis.
Chattisgarh High Court
Case No.- WPS No.3314 of 2011
Case Name- Tapash Choudhary & Ors vs DG, CRPF & Ors
A single judge bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising of Justice Rajani Dubey while deciding a Civil Writ Petition in the case of Tapash Choudhary & Ors vs DG, CRPF & Ors. has held that an Enquiry Officer cannot act as Presenting Officer and cross-examine witnesses as it is against the principles of natural justice.
