Delhi High Court Burden Of Proof In Establishing Employer-Employee Relationship Rests With Party Claiming It, Delhi High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Filed By Workmen 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...
Delhi High Court
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.
Case No.- W.P.(C) 4949/2024 & CM APPL. 20278/2024
Case Name- Dr. Shashi Bhushan Vs. University of Delhi
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 542
A single judge bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Dr. Shashi Bhushan Vs. University of Delhi has held that a candidate even in the final selection list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment.
When Termination Is Found To Be Illegal, Reinstatement With Full Back Wages Shall Not Be Awarded Mechanically: Delhi High Court Reiterates
Case No.- W.P.(C) 5193/2024 & CM APPL. 21253/2024
Case Name- AIIMS vs Ashok Kumar
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.
Bombay High Court
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.
Calcutta High Court
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 20897 of 2013
Case Name- Animesh Singha Mahapatra and Ors. vs State of WB and Ors
A single judge bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Animesh Singha Mahapatra and Ors. vs State of WB and Ors. has held that once the process of recruitment starts, no change can be made to essential qualification during the subsistence of the recruitment process unless such power is reserved in the advertisement itself or under some rule governing the recruitment.
Case No.- WPST 71 of 2024
Case Name- Saurav Krishna Basu vs State of West Bengal
A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court comprising of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Saurav Krishna Basu vs State of West Bengal has held that employer is under an obligation in a disciplinary proceeding to ensure that no prejudice is caused to the employee and this obligation involves a duty to act fairly.
Workman Entitled To Payment Of Gratuity If He Proves Continuous Service Even After Declaration Of Formal Retirement: Calcutta High Court
Case Title: Sk. Ekbal @ Ekbal Sk. vs The State of West Bengal and Ors.
Case No.: WPA 23514 of 2023
The Calcutta High Court single bench of Justice Arindam Mukherjee held that the was entitled to gratuity for his continued service even after the declaration of formal retirement. The bench noted that the establishment of a period of 'continuous service' is a prerequisite for the payment of gratuity and the burden of proof lies with the Workman.
Allahabad High Court
Kerala High Court
Case Citation: 2024 LiveLaw Ker 281
Case Name: Sujatha Devi vs The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor
Case Number: OP(LC) NO. 3837 OF 2012
The Kerala High Court single bench of Justice Murali Purushothaman held that the employer was provided sufficient opportunity to defend the claim before the authority cannot approach the High Court alleging that she was not given sufficient opportunity to defend the claim.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case Title: Maharishi Daya Nand University, Rohtak vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak and another
Case Number: CWP-17397-2003 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Sanjay Vashisth upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of appellate jurisdiction under Article 226, focused on rectifying legal errors rather than factual disputes, and highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of lower courts and tribunals.
The writ was filed by the Management after it was aggrieved by the tribunal's decision in favour of the Workman, holding his termination invalid. The High Court did not find any reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision and upheld its factual findings.
Case Title: Ram Mehar Singh vs The State of Haryana and others
Case Number:RSA-2754 of 1998 (O&M)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court single bench of Justice Namit Kumar held that a workman cannot claim promotion at a date when his services were not regularized.
The bench dismissed a writ petition filed by a workman who was allegedly not promoted by the Management despite being in a higher position in the seniority list. The suit for declaration was also filed 10 years later from the date of the impugned order, which was deemed to be time-barred.
Gujarat High Court
Case Title: Range Forest Officer Versus Virjibhai Ranchhodbhai & Anr.
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 58
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.
Case Title: Jetpur Navagadh Municipality Versus Pathan Yunuskhan Jamyalkhan
LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Guj) 56
The Gujarat High Court division bench of Justice Biren Vaishnav and Justice Pranav Trivedi held that reinstatement with back wages isn't automatic for illegally terminated workers. Lump sum compensation might be provided instead, considering factors like the nature of employment and length of service.
Orrisa High Court
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 andJustice 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.
Madras High Court
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.
Case No.- W.P.No.6343 of 2022
Case Name- S. Madhavan vs M/s THG Publishing Pvt. Ltd
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.
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.
Madhya Pradesh High Court
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.
Case Title: Maushad Ali vs Telecom District Manager Sagar Sagar
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 13405 of 2014
The Madhya Pradesh High Courtsingle bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal recently dismissed a writ petition and held that since the Workman didn't work continuously for one year under an employer, provisions of theIndustrial Disputes Act, 1947 such as Section 25F and Section 25N had no application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Case Title: Managing Director M.P. State Forest Development Corporation Vs M.P. State Forest Development Corporation Employees Union
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No. 3830 of 2015
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal held that disputes related to promotion and seniority fall within the scope of industrial disputes as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Therefore, being a forum established by the ID Act, the Labour Court has the rightful jurisdiction to adjudicate on such matters.
Case Title: Maharishi Panini Sanskrit Evam Vedic University Vs Kumari Rajani Verma
Case Number: Misc. Petition No. 570 of 2021
The Madhya Pradesh High Court single bench of Justice Anil Verma held that the termination of the Worklady's services was justified due to unsatisfactory performance and loss of confidence in the Management, nullifying the Labour Court's award of reinstatement and back-wages.
The bench noted that the Worklady was not a permanent employee, therefore, formal disciplinary proceedings were not required before her termination. Further, the Management was an educational institute which is distinct from an Industrial Establishment. Therefore, the work conditions of the Worklady were subject to the Madhya Pradesh University Act and other circulars.
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.
The High Court noted that Section 20(1) of the Minimum Wages Act gives the relevant government the authority to designate any Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, any officer of the State Government functioning as a Labour Commissioner for a specific region, any officer of the State Government not ranking lower than Labour Commissioner, or any officer possessing experience as a Judge of a Civil Court or as a stipendiary Magistrate, through notification in the official gazette, to adjudicate claims pertaining to payment below the minimum wage rates within a designated area. Thus, it held that any Commissioner, officer not lower than Commissioner rank, or officer with judicial experience can be appointed to handle such claims.
Patna High Court
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.
Uttarakhand High Court
Case Title: Naveen Ram vs State of Uttarakhand & others and Connected Matters.
Case Number: Writ Petition (S/S) No.662 of 2024 and Connected Matters.
The Uttarakhand High Court single bench of Justice Pankaj Purohit held that High Courts are not executing courts for the purposes of giving effect to the reliefs granted by the Labour Courts. Matters of implementation and execution fall within the domain of Labour Courts only, in line with Order 21 of the CPC, 1908.
Manipur High Court
Case No.- WP(C) No. 532 of 2020
Case Name- Smt. W. Manileima Devi. vs State of Manipur & Ors
A single judge bench of the Manipur High Court comprising of Justice Ahanthem Bimol Singh while deciding a Writ Petition in the case of Smt. W. Manileima Devi. vs State of Manipur & Ors. has held that no recovery can be made from retiral benefits of an employee holding Class-III post on grounds of excess payment.
Central Administrative Tribunal
Departmental Proceedings And Proceedings In Criminal Case Can Proceed Simultaneously: CAT Jabalpur
Case Title: Bhuneshwar Prasad Sharma vs Union of India and ors.
Case Number: Original Application No.203/1140/2018
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur bench of Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) and Kumar Rajesh Chandra (Administrative Member) held that departmental proceedings and proceedings in criminal case can proceed simultaneously, as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. It held that the purpose of departmental enquiry and of prosecution are two different and distinct aspects.
Case Title: Indrajit Choudhary & Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.
Case Number: O.A./350/01134/2023
The Central Administrative Tribunal Kolkata bench of Suchitto Kumar Das (Administrative Member) held that a Government employee has no vested right to a particular duty. It held that assigning duty to an employee is the prerogative of the employer who has to take decisions in this regard based on available resources, rules in force and financial implications.
Case Title: Rajendra Ram vs Chief Managing Director and Others
Case No.: Original Application No. 330/00511 of 2019
The Central Administrative Tribunal (Allahabad) single bench of Justice Om Prakash (Judicial Member) held that recovery of overpayment cannot be initiated by the Management unless fraud or misrepresentation can be proven on the part of the Workman.
The matter pertained to a Workman who mistakenly entered the wrong date in his promotion form. Thereafter, the Management initiated the recovery of his past increments without giving a show cause notice or considering the Workman's representation. The Tribunal held that the Workman was a Group-C employee and had not committed any fraud or misrepresentation. Therefore, the recovery from his salary was held to be invalid.
Case Title: Smt. Rekha Gupta and Others vs Union of India and Others.
Case Number: Original Application No. 330/575 of 2022
The Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad bench of Justice Rajiv Joshi and Dr. Sanjiv Kumar held that the period spent by the employees in other regions prior to transfer on compassionate ground, has to be counted for the purposes of eligibility for consideration of promotion.
Case Title: Dr. Prabhas Ranjan Pradhan vs Union of India and Others.
Case Number: OA No. 524 of 2023
The Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack bench of Sudhi Ranjan Mishra (Judicial Member) and Pramod Kumar Das (Administrative Member) held that wages are earned right and not a charity. It held that payment of due wages is a fundamental right of a worker under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The bench held that the act of the Management in availing the services of the applicant and then not paying him his salary is depriving him of his right to livelihood and is violative of Constitution of India.
Case Title: Shakuntala Devi and Anr vs Union of India and Others.
Case Number: Original Application No. 330/00766/2021
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad bench of Justice Om Prakash held that the Management cannot deny the interest on delayed payment of ex-gratia amount to the employee for a mistake or delay committed by its official. It held that there is no reason that the employee or family members of the employee should be put into financial disadvantage if delay in actual payments is caused by a course of events which were not caused by her but were attributable to the Management.