Labour & Service
Juridical Debates From Banerji To Nine-Judge Bench On 'Industry' Under Industrial Relations Law
The seven decades old judicial debates on 'industry' under the Industrial Relations Law started with the interpretation of the definition Section 2 (j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The first few years of interpretative battle was around the terminology 'undertaking' in the definition. After a 'zigzag' from broader to narrower interpretation, it settled over 'triple test' in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213. However, the inconclusive debate...
Electricity Department Strictly Liable In Electrocution Cases, Proof Of Negligence Not Needed: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that the principle of strict liability is applicable in cases of electrocution and the fault of employees of the electricity company in installing and maintaining the lines is irrelevant. It held that the burden to prove injury is on the person claiming compensation. Holding that the compensation in cases of electrocution must be determined in accordance with...
State Must Prioritise Its Own Employees For Promotion Over Deputationists: P&H High Court To Chandigarh Admin
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the State is bound to consider the interest of its own employees for promotion on a higher pedestal as compared to persons brought through deputation or transfer. The Court observed that service rules must not operate to prejudice promotional avenues of existing employees in favour of external entrants.A division bench of Justices Harsimran...
State Government Can't Transfer Officers Engaged In SIR Work Without Prior Approval Of Election Commission: Chhattisgarh HC
A Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal held that the transfer of an officer engaged in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls without prior approval of the Election Commission violates Section 13CC of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, and therefore, is arbitrary. Background...
Civil Services Rules | 'Awaiting Posting Orders' Can't Be Used To Bypass Disciplinary Process For Alleged Misconduct: Rajasthan High Court
The Rajasthan High Court has set aside the Awaiting Posting Order (APO) against the petitioner who was accused of misconduct, opining that the lawful course of the action was to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, instead of bypassing the same by invoking APO order under Rule 25A of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (RSR). The bench of Justice Anand Sharma held that this was...
UP Education Act | Officiating Principal Of Aided Institution To Be Paid Salary Equal To Salary Of Regular Principal: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officiating principal of a grant in-aid institution must be paid a salary equal to that of a principal. However, it also held that holding the post of officiating principal for a long duration will not entitle them to any rights, other than the salary of the principal of the institution. Holding that U.P. Education Service Selection Commission Act,...
Non-Ministerial Posts In Special Police Battalion Fall Under State Cadre, Promotions Must Follow State-Wide Seniority: Telangana High Court
The Telangana High Court has held that posts of Police Constable, Head Constable and Assistant Reserve Sub-Inspector in the Special Police Battalions are State cadre posts governed under Andhra Pradesh Public Employment (Organisation of Local Cadres and Regulation of Direct Recruitment) Order 1975. It further held that promotions to such non-ministerial posts cannot be governed by...
CPF Option Exercised Can't Be Reversed To Claim Pension Under CCS Rules: Delhi HC
A Delhi High Court bench comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula held that an employee who has exercised an option to remain under the CPF scheme cannot later claim pension benefits under the CCS Pension Rules, as deemed conversion applies only where no option was exercised. Background Facts The petitioners are a group of former employees of the Export Inspection Council (EIC) and...
Public Advertisement Can't Replace Direct Communication To Employees For Promotion : Jharkhand HC
A Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court comprising Chief Justice M. S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar held that public advertisements cannot substitute direct communication with employees for departmental requirements, and denying promotion to eligible employees without proper notice is arbitrary. It was further held that affected employees are entitled to retrospective promotion...
Combatised BSF Person Retire At 57, Can't Claim Civilian Retirement Age Of 60 - Delhi High Court
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that a re-employed ex-serviceman appointed to a combatised post in the Border Security Force, who enjoys the benefits of that combatised cadre, is governed by the BSF's statutory superannuation age of 57 years and not by the 60-year retirement age applicable to...
Pay Parity Can't Be Claimed On Common Recruitment When Pay Commission Maintains Cadre Distinction: Delhi HC
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan held that pay parity cannot be claimed solely on basis of historical parity, common recruitment, or similar designation and overlap in functional duties, when the Pay Commission has maintained a distinction between different service cadres i.e. Secretariat and...