Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court set aside a dismissal as disproportionate, held a fresh punishment notice was required after de novo labour-court findings, and sustained the misconduct finding.
The appellant was not entitled to pension because he had not completed twenty years of pensionable service when reckoned from date of confirmation (being below twenty years) and had not attained fifty years of age, so he did not satisfy Rule 22(i)(a); nor was his cessation a voluntary retirement under an operative VRS but a declaration of voluntary abandonment of service, so Rule 22(i)(c) did not apply; accordingly entitlement failed and the appeal was dismissed.
Source excerpt
The appellate authority had modified the disciplinary penalty to removal from service with entitlement to terminal benefits and that order was not challenged and therefore attained finality; under Clause 6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement an employee removed for gross misconduct is entitled to superannuation benefits 'as would be due otherwise' if he satisfies the eligibility criteria in the pension regulations (eg. minimum qualifying service), and on that basis the respondent was entitled to receive pensionary/terminal benefits; consequently the High Court's direction to process and release pe…
Source excerpt
The terminations effected during pending conciliation proceedings without compliance with Sections 6E and 6N were illegal; the employer failed to prove a genuine contractor-based engagement and thus the workmen who performed perennial municipal horticultural duties under direct supervision are entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service, regularization process and 50% of back wages for the period of absence until reinstatement.
Source excerpt
The High Court's direction to prepare a list and consider regularisation was quashed because the core issues were disputed questions of fact (including whether respondents worked requisite days) that required evidence and adjudication by the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947; respondents were granted liberty to seek remedies under the ID Act and those continuing in service were protected from disturbance for six months to enable initiation of statutory proceedings.
Source excerpt
The High Court's judgment was incomprehensible and therefore set aside; the proceedings are remitted to the High Court for fresh consideration with directions to appreciate the delay and expense occasioned, to record reasons intelligible to stakeholders, and to expedite disposal; rights and contentions on merits are kept open.
Source excerpt
The Tribunal and High Court correctly found that the simultaneous termination of all drivers, coupled with offers of fresh employment without continuity, amounted to a virtual closure and was not bona fide; therefore the retrenchments were set aside and reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages (75% in the facts) was justified; Parry principle of bona fide reorganisation does not apply where retrenchment is punitive and not bona fide.
Source excerpt
The Court held that (a) there is a palpable conflict between the two-judge decision restoring the Srivastav Award and earlier larger-bench orders (E Prabavathy and related decisions) which must be harmonised under Article 142; (b) the Dogra Report (CGIT verification) is flawed for failing to carry out accurate verification, for containing inconsistencies, and for including workers governed by E Prabavathy; (c) LIC, as a public statutory employer, cannot be directed to effect mass absorption of over 11,000 workers on flawed premises without following recruitment processes consistent with Artic…
Source excerpt
Given the respondent's appointment was contractual on a fixed honorarium of Rs.500 per month and she worked approximately four years with no specific finding of unfair labour practice, the Supreme Court held that reinstatement with back wages was not warranted and substituted a lump-sum compensation of Rs.3,00,000 in lieu of reinstatement and back wages.
Source excerpt
The Court found violation of Section 25F by the employer and that the appellant was a daily-wage worker who did not adduce convincing evidence of retention or regularisation of juniors or of unfair labour practice; therefore reinstatement was not automatic and appropriate remedy was monetary compensation, which the Court fixed at Rs.3.25 lakhs (taking into account earlier payment).
Source excerpt
Explore more
