Category: Labour Cases

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…

Prohibition of employment of contract labour – In the absence of any notification under Section 10 of the CLRA Act and in the absence of any allegations and/or findings that the contract was sham and camouflage, both the Industrial Tribunal as well as the High Court have committed a serious error in reinstating the contesting respondents

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KIRLOSKAR BROTHERS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. RAMCHARAN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and Hima Kohli, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

High Court ought to have considered the writ petition preferred by the workman on merits and ought to have given some findings on the order passed by the Labour Court rejecting the 33(C) (2) application – Order passed by High Court is quashed and set aside – Matter is remitted back to the High Court.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S MITRA S.P. (P) LTD. AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DHIREN KUMAR — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. )…

Minimum Wages – when the earlier notification was issued after following the due procedure as required under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, 1948, the same procedure ought to have been followed even while varying and/or modifying the notification – Hence, the notification could not have been modified by such an Errata Notification

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH GOMANTAK MAZDOOR SANGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF GOA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil…

Territorial jurisdiction – Preliminary issue – When the issue touches the question of territorial jurisdiction, as far as possible the same shall have to be decided first as preliminary issue – Labour Court did not commit any error in deciding the issue with respect to the territorial jurisdiction as a preliminary issue in the first instance.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH V.G. JAGDISHAN — Appellant Vs. M/S. INDOFOS INDUSTRIES LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : M. R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

It is a fundamental principle of law that a party who is in enjoyment of an interim order, is bound to lose the benefit of such interim order when the ultimate outcome of the case goes against him. HELD in view of the efflux of time and taking into account the fact that few employees are now no more, we direct the Management not to effect any recovery, if payment has already been made to any of the respondents or their families.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. RAJESH CHANDRA SHRIVASTAVA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Hemant Gupta…

You missed