Labour & Service Weekly Roundup: 03rd June 2024 To 09th June 2024
Rajesh Kumar
11 Jun 2024 10:30 AM IST
Delhi High Court Not Allowing Representation By A Defence Assistant Is Violative Of Principles Of Natural Justice: Delhi High Court Case Name- Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma has held that a person not being...
Delhi High Court
Case Name- Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs Ram Avatar Sharma has held that a person not being allowed to be represented by a defence assistant & non-enclosure of past record of the person in chargesheet established that an enquiry proceedings is conducted in violation of principles of natural justice
Case Name- Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd Vs Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh in the case of Group 4 Securities Guarding Ltd Vs Secretary, Labour, Govt. of NCT of Delhi has held that definition of wages under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 cannot be used to calculate bonus under Payment of Bonus Act, 1965
Case: Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors.
Case No. W.P. (C). No. 4455/2017
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh while deciding a writ petition in the case of Maya and Ors. v. Union of Indian and Ors. has held that the Court is to refrain from intervening in cases where there is an effective alternate remedy, unless there exist compelling reasons to do so.
Principle Of No Work No Pay Not Applicable If Order Of Termination Illegal: Delhi High Court
Case No.- W.P.(C) 4217/2022
Case Name- Manisha Sharma Vs Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Anr
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the case of Manisha Sharma Vs Vidya Bhawan Girls Senior Secondary School & Anr has held that an employee is entitled to backwages if order of termination was illegal and the principle of no work no pay is not applicable in such cases.
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case Name: Puvvada Venkata Mohana Murali Krishna Murthy v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Special Chief Secretary, Agriculture and Cooperation Department
Case No: W.P. No.4861 of 2018 & Connected Matters
The Andhra Pradesh High Court, in a service matter of the employees from a branch of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, held that cooperative credit societies have complete autonomy in fixing the age of superannuation.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Justice R. Raghunandan Rao went on to note that increasing the age of superannuation from June 2017 was a policy decision well within the ambit of the Bank's management, as against Section 3(1) Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Regulation of Age of Superannuation) (Amendment) Act, 2014 governing PSUs and Institutions listed in the IX and X Schedules of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014.
Bombay High Court
Case Name- Rajiv Bansal & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice N. J. Jamadar in the case of Rajiv Bansal & Ors vs State of Maharashtra and Ors has held that withholding of salary or emoluments does not fall within the ambit of offence of cheating.
Case: The Chief Officer, Pen Municipal Council & Ors. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Ors.
Case No. W.P. (C). No. 4129/2009
A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice Sandeep V. Marne while deciding a writ petition in the case of The Chief Officer, Pen Municipal Council & Ors. v. Shekhar B. Abhang & Ors. has held that regularization of services cannot be claimed merely based on long-term continuance of employment as this does not create any inherent right to regularization.
Case No.- WRIT PETITION No.8744 OF 2015
Case Name- Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr Vs The Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr
A Division bench of the Bombay High Court comprising of Justice A. S. Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain in the case of Airports Authority of India Workers Union & Anr Vs The Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Anr has held that birth of a first child before joining the service is not relevant for considering of maternity leave after joining the service. The object of Maternity Benefit Regulation under AAI Regulations is not to curb the population but to give such benefit only on two occasions during the service period.
Karnataka High Court
Case Name- H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum in the case of H Channaiah Vs Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath And Ors has held that Leave encashment cannot be viewed as discretionary bounties but as legal rights enforceable under the Constitution of India.
Case Title: Vijaya Bank AND M Ravindra Shetty
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 7791 OF 2003
The Karnataka High Court, while reversing an order of the Single bench directing reinstatement of a delinquent bank employee who was dismissed from service for lending money to fictitious persons without duly securing repayment of loans, has observed that the opinion given by the Central Vigilance Commission to the disciplinary authority need not be shared with the employee.
A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramachandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by Vijaya Bank and agreed with its contention that no error has been committed by the management in taking the opinion of Central Vigilance Officer inasmuch as such a course is internalised vide Regulation 19 of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. It said,
“The CVC is constituted under Section 3 of the Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 and it has statutory duties. One such duty is to advice the banks in matters of disciplinary proceedings. We do not subscribe to the views of learned Single Judge that the vigilance opinion should always be shared with the delinquent employee and that his say should be had on that. The object of consulting the Vigilance Commission is not in the interest of the employee but in the larger interest of the banking institution. There is no scope for assuming the contra position, in the absence of any such indication in the Regulations. In taking this view, we are mindful of the presumption that the principles of natural justice are not ordinarily excluded.”
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Name: LOVEPREET KUMAR AND ORS V. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that it is the absolute discretion of the State to prepare a waiting list in a selection process and the Court cannot ask to prepare the same.
Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "Court cannot ask to prepare waiting list. In the absence of waiting list, court cannot ask the State to fill up vacancy in case any selected candidate does not join. It is a settled proposition of law that it is absolute discretion of employer to specify terms and conditions of selection process. The Courts are not supposed to specify eligibility criteria/qualification or substitute opinion of authorities by its opinion."
Tripura High Court
Anganwadi Centers Fall Within Ambit Of “Establishment” Under Gratuity Act: Tripura High Court
Case No.- W.P.(C) No.624 of 2023
Case Name- Bina Rani Paul & Ors Vs State of Tripura & Ors
A Single Judge bench of the Tripura High Court comprising of Justice S. Datta Purkayastha in the case of Bina Rani Paul & Ors Vs State of Tripura & Ors has held that Anganwadi Centres fall within the ambit of “establishment” under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and thus Anganwadi Workers and Anganwadi Helpers are entitled to Gratuity.
