Supreme Court of India Judgements

47080 Judgements hosted as on 12/04/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Labour Cases

Labour Cases

Decided on : 06-12-2019 After having accepted the appointment in FCI as per the Office Order dated 18.09.1973, it is not open to the Appellant-Union to take up the cause of the work charge employees and claim on their behalf benefits similar to those granted to the regular employees. – Appeals dismissed.

Dec 8, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KANDLA PORT WORKERS UNION @APPELANT Vs. FCI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and Hemant Gupta, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Sections 11A and 33(2)(b) – Misconduct – Order of dismissal – Domestic enquiry -The Labour Court or Tribunal, therefore, while holding enquiry under Section 33(2)(b) cannot invoke the adjudicatory powers vested in them under Section 10(i)(c) and (d) of the Act nor can they in the process of formation of their prima facie view under Section 33(2)(b), dwell upon the proportionality of punishment, as erroneously done in the instant case, for such a power can be exercised by the Labour Court or Tribunal only under Section 11A of the Act – Appeal allowed.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH JOHN D’SOUZA — Appellant Vs. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Surya Kant, JJ. ) Civil…

Labour Cases

Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Sections 10, 10(1) and 10(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) – Section 482 – Prohibition of employment of contract labour – Non impleading recognised unions in proceedings – This in our opinion has resulted in prejudice for those who, given the opportunity, could have apprised the High Court with all facts and the detailed study/discussion by the Sub-Committees, preceding the 08.09.1994 notification.

Oct 19, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH ONGC LABOUR UNION — Appellant Vs. ONGC DEHRADUN AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. )…

Labour Cases

High Court was not justified in passing orders from time to time to secure presence of the officers. The officers of the State discharge public functions and duties. The orders are generally presumed to be passed in good faith unless proved otherwise. The officers pass orders as a custodian of public money. Therefore, merely because an order has been passed, it does not warrant their personal presence. The summoning of officers to the court to attend proceedings, impinges upon the functioning of the officers and eventually it is the public at large who suffer on account of their absence from the duties assigned to them. The practice of summoning officers to court is not proper and does not serve the purpose of administration of justice

Apr 14, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI N.K. JANU, DEPUTY DIRECTOR SOCIAL FORESTARY DIVISION, AGRA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. LAKSHMI CHANDRA — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, S. 17-B-Termination of Service–Non recovery of excess amount paid to employee–If the Court/Tribunal, eventually upholds the termination order as being legal against the workman, yet the employer will have no right to recover the amount already paid by him to the delinquent workman pursuant to order passed under Section 17-B of the ID Act during pendency of these proceedings      

Apr 9, 2019 sclaw

2019(1) Law Herald (SC) 829 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 718 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Civil Appeal Nos.…

Labour Cases

Since we have formed an opinion to dispose of this appeal by awarding to the respondent a lump sum compensation of Rs. one Lakh in lieu of his all claims arising out of this case, we do not consider it necessary to examine any legal issue arising in the case though argued by the learned counsel for the parties in support of their respective contentions.

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE REGIONAL MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA — Appellant Vs. DINESH SINGH — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari,…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – Section 10 – Claim for Regularization – Industrial reference – High Court was right in observing that the remedy of the appellant and respondent Nos. 4­6 lies in applying to the Central Government to make an industrial reference to the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10 of the ID Act

Mar 31, 2019 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUNIL KUMAR BISWAS — Appellant Vs. ORDINANCE FACTORY BOARD AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. )…

You missed

Property Matters Transfer Of Property Act

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 52 — Doctrine of Lis Pendens — Transfers of property made during the pendency of litigation are subject to the doctrine of lis pendens and are subservient to the final decision of the court — Such transfers are not void ab initio but remain invalid if the litigation goes against the transferor.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw
I B C

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 — Section 9 — Application for corporate insolvency resolution process — Existence of a pre-existing dispute — Adjudicating authority must reject the application if notice of dispute has been received by the operational creditor or there is a record of dispute — The dispute must bring to the notice of the operational creditor the “existence” of a dispute or the fact that a suit or arbitration proceeding relating to a dispute is pending — The authority needs to see if there is a plausible contention which requires further investigation and that the “dispute” is not a patently feeble legal argument or an assertion of fact unsupported by evidence — It is important to separate the grain from the chaff and to reject a spurious defence which is mere bluster — However, in doing so, the Court does not need to be satisfied that the defence is likely to succeed — The Court does not at this stage examine the merits of the dispute except to the extent indicated above — So long as a dispute truly exists in fact and is not spurious, hypothetical or illusory, the adjudicating authority has to reject the application.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw
C P C

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Section 105(1) — Challenge to interlocutory orders — Rejection of an application under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC does not preclude the party from raising that issue again in an appeal against the final decree, as per Section 105(1) CPC, unless a separate appellate remedy is expressly provided.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw
Arbitration

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Section 11 — Appointment of Arbitrator — Scope of Inquiry — Limited to prima facie existence of arbitration agreement — Questions like ‘accord and satisfaction’, limitation, dishonesty, frivolity and arbitrability of subject matter are to be left to the arbitral tribunal under Section 16, reflecting the principle of Kompetenz-Kompetenz.

Apr 12, 2026 sclaw