Category: Labour Cases

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

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.