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 Tribunal and the High Court erred by reappreciating evidence and acting as appellate bodies under Section 11-A; the disciplinary enquiry, its findings and the appellate concurrence were supported by some evidence and were not perverse or based on no evidence, accordingly the orders of the Tribunal and High Court setting aside compulsory retirement and directing reinstatement were set aside and the Disciplinary Authority's order of compulsory retirement was affirmed; respondent remains entitled to gratuity and pensionary benefits.
Source excerpt
Because Axis Bank had not been impleaded before the High Court and the question of priority between EPFO (under Section 11(2) of the PF Act) and secured creditors (relying on Section 35 of the SARFAESI Act) required determination, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court order and restored the writ petition directing the High Court to decide afresh after impleading Axis Bank and affording all parties a chance to exchange pleadings and be heard; the Supreme Court did not decide the merits on priority itself.
Source excerpt
The Court accepted the expert findings of IIT Bombay and NEERI that paving the main road (Dasturi Naka to Shivaji Maharaj Statue) with clay paver blocks is the best method to arrest soil erosion, and granted permission to lay clay paver blocks on that road subject to technical measures (no concrete bedding beneath clay pavers, include non-woven geotextile beneath sand bedding, cambering, contour bunds, lateral drains, rumble strips and other IIT/NEERI recommendations); it concurrently directed the State to stop the practice of hand-pulled carts/rickshaws within six months and to formulate and…
Source excerpt
On cumulative appraisal of the factual indicia found by the APFC — same industry, business operated from contiguous plots with common entry and without visible demarcation, shared telephone/fax, common website and e-mail IDs, common Registered/Head/Administrative Office, common security, overlapping directors from the same family, and common source of finance (HUF funding) — the two entities constituted one integrated unit for the purposes of the EPF Act; therefore the authorities were justified in clubbing the appellant with respondent No.3 with effect from September 1995 and the appellant i…
Source excerpt
The 25.09.2019 communication by the Deputy Secretary was not a valid order under s.25-O because the Deputy Secretary was not shown to be the 'appropriate Government' or duly authorised by notification under s.39, and the Minister did not independently apply his mind or record reasons; consequently the appropriate Government failed to make and communicate an order within the statutory period and the deeming provision of s.25-O(3) operated, rendering the application of 28.08.2019 complete and permission for closure deemed granted on expiry of sixty days.
Source excerpt
The appellant was properly held to fall within Section 2(17) as a managing agent/principal employer because company records described him as General Manager and he was responsible for supervision and control; deductions totalling Rs.8,26,696 were made from employees' wages and not remitted to ESIC, constituting an offence under Section 85(a), and the conviction and sentence as recorded (under Section 85(i)(b) with the lesser sentence imposed by the Trial Court) did not merit interference; the fine as awarded is mandatory and upheld.
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
Because the workers were employed in factories run by the trust and therefore fall within the Bonus Act and related labour statutes, and because the trust had severed its links with the Swedish Red Cross and engaged in commercial manufacturing generating surplus, the trust is not exempt under Section 32(v)(a) or 32(v)(c) of the Payment of Bonus Act; amounts paid as ex-gratia do not negate the statutory obligation to pay bonus, and the trust must pay bonus from 1996-97 onwards in accordance with the Act.
Source excerpt
Explore more
