Category: Labour Cases

Employees Provident Fund And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 1(3)(B) – Establishments of factories – Clause (a) of sub-Section (3) is applicable only to those factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I – Clause (b) of sub-Section (3) is applicable to all other establishments which are not covered by clause (a) of sub-Section (3) provided such establishments are notified by a notification issued by the Central Government which is published in the official Gazette

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THANKAMMA BABY — Appellant Vs. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KOCHI, KERALA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ.…

Employees Compensation Act, 1923 – Compensation – the driver was consistently driving the vehicle, there is every reason to assume that long spells of driving was a material contributory factor, if not the sole cause that accelerated his unexpected death at a young age – Such an untoward mishap can reasonably be described as an accident, only attributable to the nature of employment – Compensation granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. DARIYAO KANWAR & OTHERS — Appellant Vs. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and…

Government of Kerala covering Medical institutions which included nursing homes, diagnostic centres and pathological laboratories employing 20 or more persons were brought under the ambit of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 – High Court rightly held that the provisions of Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 will be applicable to the respondent establishment w.e.f. 06.09.2007 and not from 22.11.2002.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH E.S.I. CORPORATION, REP. BY THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR — Appellant Vs. M/S. ENDOCRINOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY LAB — Respondent ( Before : Hima Kohli and Rajesh…

Determination of disability – the disablement would be taken as total for the purposes of award of compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act regardless of the injury sustained being not one as specified in Part I of Schedule I of the Act – The proviso to clause (l) of sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act does not dilute the import of the substantive clause – Rather, it adds to it by specifying categories wherein it shall be deemed that there is permanent total disablement.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH INDRA BAI — Appellant Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, JJ. ) Civil…

HELD government employees cannot claim double overtime allowance as per the Factories Act, if the service rules do not provide for it – whether employees working as supervisors at the Security Printing & Minting Corporation of India (a company under the Ministry of Finance responsible for minting currency notes) are entitled to double overtime allowance as per the Factories Act 1948 – No

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SECURITY PRINTING AND MINTING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. VIJAY D. KASBE AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before…

If an application is filed by an individual, there is a specific requirement of furnishing permanent address of the applicant as per Form-A. If an application is to be filed by a group of persons all the applicants are required to furnish their addresses as per Form-B annexed to Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules 1937.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. KASHIRAM VERMA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 – Section 1(6) – Demand notice – Sub-section (6) of Section 1 therefore, shall be applicable even with respect to those establishments, established prior to 31.03.1989/20.10.1989 and the ESI Act shall be applicable irrespective of the number of persons employed or notwithstanding that the number of persons employed at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE ESI CORPORATION — Appellant Vs. M/S. RADHIKA THEATRE — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Back wages – Merely because the reinstatement order was under challenge and there was a stay of the order of reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court, it cannot be a ground to deny the wages to the employee when ultimately the order of reinstatement came to be confirmed and attained the finality.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH D.N. KRISHNAPPA — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

You missed