HK Kumar Digest of Important Laws

Date and Time: Friday 10 December 2021 3:29:00 PM IST
Job Number: 159617305
Documents (6)
1. Chapter 21 LEAVE
Client/Matter: -None-
2. Chapter 26 PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
3. Chapter 36 TRANSFER OF AN EMPLOYEE
4. Chapter 38 WAGES
5. Chapter 37 VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME
6. Chapter 39 MISCELLANEOUS
| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2021 LexisNexis
DIGEST OF IMPORTANT LABOUR CASES
HL Kumar: Digest of Important Labour Cases (1990-2018), 12th ed
HL Kumar: Digest of Important Labour Cases (1990-2018), 12th ed > HL Kumar: Digest of Important Labour
Cases (1990-2018), 12th ed
Chapter 21LEAVE
• Termination of a workman sans opportunity to substantiate plea of medical leave will be illegal.
Ugam Ram v Judge, Labour Court, 1998 LLR 53 (Raj HC).
• An employer can reject medical certificate and get the employee examined by other doctor at his
expenses.
Canara Bank Staff Union v UOI, (1998) 1 Ker LJ 331 : (1998) 1 Ker LJ 432 : (1998) 1 LLJ 859 : 1998
LLR 545 (Ker HC).
• Termination of an employee for over-staying of leave without retrenchment compensation will be

illegal.
General Secretary, M.P.K.K.M. Pandhayat (HMS) Junnaradeo v The Western Coal Fields Ltd, 1998
LLR 654 (MP HC).
• Termination of a workman for over-staying of leave will be set aside.
Prahlad Singh v Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal No, 1, Dhanbad, 1999 LLR
1196 (Pat HC).
• Increase of National holidays by the State Government will not be constitutional.
M.R.F. Ltd v Inspector, Kerala Government, AIR 1999 SC 88 : 1998 Lab IC 3613 : (1999) 82 Fac LR
951 : (1991) 1 LLJ 289 : 1999 LLR 235 (SC) : 1999-I LLN 1.
• Non-payment of wages to absent workers on a “bandh” called by the Government but not declared
holiday will be justified. In this case, the Government of Kerala Industrial Establishments (National &
Page 2 of 9
Festival Holiday) Act, 1990 by increasing the national holidays from three to four and festival holidays
were increased from four to nine.
Management of Nagammal Mills Ltd (Rep. by the Chairman) Nagercoil v Kumari Mavatta Noorppalai
Thozilalar-Munnetra Sangam (Rep. by its President), Nagercoil, 1999 LLR 243 : 1999-I LLN 269 (Mad
HC).
• Termination of an employee due to over-stay of leave without enquiry will be set aside.
Arun Kumar Agrawal v Chairman, State Bank of India, 2000 LLR 516 (Karn HC).
• Denial of leave on justifiable grounds will be violative of principles of natural justice.
Chhotey Lal v General Manager, 2001 LLR 144 (Del HC).
• Even when the leave is declined, the termination without enquiry will be unsustainable.
Management of Birla Textiles v Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I Delhi, 2001 LLR 471 (Del HC).
• Medical Certificate instead of ESI slip in support of leave application cannot be rejected.
Gouranga Acharjee v 3rd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, 2001 LLR 909 (Cal HC).
• When the Service Rules provide that a medical certificate is required for grant of leave and fitness
certificate is required for permitting the workman to join his duties, it was to be adhered to by a workman
and as such merely sending the medical certificate that too after one month i.e., at the time of joining will
be deemed fitness certificate and not the medical certificate and as such it will be against the Service
Rules.
Puratchi Talaivar MGR Transport Corp Ltd v Industrial Tribunal, 2004 LLR 138 (Mad HC).
• Unless the leave as applied is sanctioned by the employer to a worker, he has no right to stay away from
work and as such the Management will not be bound to grant medical leave just on production of medical
certificate by the workman who has produced the same only when he wanted to resume the duties.
Puratchi Talaivar MGR Transport Corp Ltd v Industrial Tribunal, 2004 LLR 138 (Mad HC).
Page 3 of 9
• A female teacher though on probation and not a regular employee will be entitled to maternity leave
with pay hence the order of the Management in granting such leave but without pay will not be tenable.
Bhartiben Babulal Joshi v Administrative Officer, (2004) 100 Fac LR 1100 : (2004) 2 LLN 287 : (2004)
1 CLR 408 : 2004 LLR 233 (Guj HC).
• An employee can not avail leave as a matter of right under the Service Regulations of Delhi Vidyut
Board.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v Delhi Vidyut Board, 2004 LLR 282 : 109 (2004) DLT 564 (Del HC).
• An employee will be entitled to encashment of earned leave on his reinstatement with back-wages and
consequential benefits.
H.N. Jain v National Textile Corp Ltd, 2004 LLR 832 (All HC).
• Encashment of earned leave is not akin to allowances and as such on reinstatement, an employee cannot
be deprived of the same.
H.N. Jain v National Textile Corp Ltd, 2004 LLR 832 (All HC).
• A leave application or a medical certificate by an employee is of no consequence unless the leave is duly
sanctioned.
Delhi Transport Corp v Ramesh Chander, 2005 LLR 172 (Del HC).
• Even when the absence of a workman has been treated as leave without pay, it will be a misconduct and
he will not be absolved from disciplinary action.
• Absence from duty, without sanctioned leave for a long period, prima facie shows lack of interest by a
workman.
Page 4 of 9
• Privilege leave is intended for rest and recuperation of the employee who has rendered active service and
thereby has earned such leave.
Andhra Bank v P. Balakrishna (dead) by LRs, 2005 LLR 1013 (AP HC).
• Allowing encashment of leave to an employee, who has not actually worked, by the Single Judge is
liable to be set aside by the Division Bench.
Andhra Bank v P. Balakrishna (dead) by LRs, 2005 LLR 1013 (AP HC).
• Dismissal of a workman with long service and satisfactory reasons, for overstaying of his leave, will be
set-aside.
Permanent Magnets Ltd v Umashankar Pandey, 2005 LLR 1154 (Bom HC).
• A female employee on contractual basis, having worked for more than 80 days, will be entitled to
maternity benefit.
Bharati Gupta v Rail India Technical and Economical Services Ltd RITES), 2005 LLR 1108 (Del HC).
• When Management has not conveyed about rejection of leave, dismissal of workman for unauthorized
absence would not be tenable.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp (Coimbatore Division-II) Ltd, Formerly known as Jeeva Transport
Corp (Rep. by its Managing Director), Erode v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, 2006 LLR 1073
(Mad HC).
• Failure of employee to get himself examined by the CMO will amount to disobedience.
Sushil Kumar v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 2007 LLR 45 (P&H HC).
• A medical certificate from a private doctor would not be sufficient to ascertain sickness of employee
when medical facilities were provided.
University of Delhi v Suresh Chand, 2007 LLR 344 (Del HC).

Page 5 of 9
• Employee’s request for availing of leave during the notice period cannot be denied by employer.
Ghanshyam v Delhi Metro Rail Corp, 2007 LLR 490 (Del HC).
• Female employee, even engaged on contract basis, will be entitled to maternity benefits.
Anima Goel v Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, 2007 LLR 479 (P&H HC).
• Reinstatement of a bank employee will be set aside when his leave applications were not supported with
medical certificates.
State Bank of India through its Deputy General Manager, Dehradun v Man Mohan Sharma, 2007 LLR
575 (Del HC).
• Excess payment for encashment of leave will not be recoverable after retirement of an employee.
Koshi Punjabi v Bank of Baroda, 2008 LLR 109 (SN) (Del HC).
• When employee has applied for medical leave, it cannot be construed habitual absence.
Pandyan Grama Bank (Represented by its Chairman), Virudhunagar v Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal, Tamil Nadu, Chennai, 2008 LLR 159 (Mad HC).
• Maternity leave can’t be denied to an employee merely because consolidated salary was paid to her.
Dr. (Smt.) Hemlata Saraswat v State of Rajasthan, 2008 LLR 591 (Raj HC).
• Absconding and not reporting without prior sanction of leave can’t be presumed that the employee was
not permitted to join.
Krishna Kumar Pateria v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 LLR 547 (SN) (MP HC).
• No earned leave on reinstatement with back wages unless specifically granted.

Page 6 of 9
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp, Nagpur v Leeladhar, 2009 LLR 363 (SN) (Bom HC).
• Onus lies upon the employee to prove that he has actually sent an application for leave.
• Sanction of leave can’t be presumed merely on sending application.
• Refusal to grant leave by an employer should not be presumed to have been granted.
M.P. State Electricity Board v S.K. Yadav, AIR 2009 SC 2039 [LNIND 2008 SC 2439]: (2009) 2 SCC 50
: 2009 LLR 814 (SN) (SC).
• Withdrawal of encashment of casual leave is liable to be restored since it has become a customary right.
Ambur Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd v Ambur Co-op Sugar Mills National Workers’ Union, 2009 LLR 813 (SN)
(Mad HC).
• Encashment of special leave cannot be denied merely because the employee is not able to go out of
station for medical treatment.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp v Shaikh Mehaboob Jainuddin, 2009 LLR 1279 (SN) (Bom
HC).
• Remaining on leave or remaining absent by a workman does not prove that he is incapable of
performing his duties.
Groz-Beckert Asia Pvt Ltd v Presiding Oficer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union Terriotory,
Chandigarh, 2009 LLR 1304 (P&H HC).
• Reduction of earned leave from 32 to 18 is not valid in the absence of “notice of change” as prescribed
under section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Page 7 of 9
Management of Salem District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai, 2010 LLR 435 (Mad HC).
• Earned/privilege leave is intended for rest and recuperation and is available only after working.
Central Bank of India v Shyam Lal Jain, 2010 LLR (SN) 893 (Del HC).
• An employee, under suspension, will not be entitled to earned leave.
• Reduction of earned leave from 32 to 18 is not valid in the absence of “notice of change” as prescribed
under section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Management of Salem District Co-op Milk Producers Union Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal,
Chennai, 2010 LLR 435 (Mad HC)
• Earned/privilege leave is intended for rest and recuperation and is available only after working.
• An employee, under suspension, will not be entitled to earned leave.
• Mere submission of application cannot be presumed the grant of leave.
Hindalco Industries Ltd v Suman Lata Tuteja, 2011 LLR 1197 (Del HC).
• Leave application is either to be rejected or accepted.
Management of Delhi Transport Corp v Dhan Singh, 2012 LLR 339 (Del HC).
• Casual workers also entitled to maternity leave.

Page 8 of 9
Management, Glem Brook Estate, Salem v Plantation Officer, Plantation Office, 2012 LLR 420 (Mad
HC).
• Employer cannot arbitrarily reject leave application.
Management of Delhi Transport Corp v Ramesh Chander, 2012 LLR 389 (Del HC).
• Rejection of leave application is required to be informed to the workman.
• Entitlement of leave is a valuable right of the employees.
• Leave is to be earned by an employee while working.
R.A. Banga v State Bank of India, 2012 LLR 733 (P&H HC).
• Staying away from work, without availing leave, not justified.
Management of Singareni Collieries Co Ltd, Ramagundam & Godavarikhani, Krimnagar v Industrial

Tribunal-1, Hyderabad, 2012 LLR 1162 (AP HC).
• Mere submission of application for leave does not mean that it is sanctioned.
Bir Singh v Delhi Transport Corp, 2014 LLR 1128 (Del HC).
• Treating absence as leave without pay would not be sanctioned leave.
Delhi Transport Corp v Bir Singh, 2016 LLR 61 (Del HC).
• Termination of a woman employee during maternity leave for unauthorised absence to be set aside.
Page 9 of 9
Zee News Ltd v Smt. Sonika Tiwari, 2016 LLR 328 (Bom HC).
• Plea of illness without a medical record is not tenable.
Santokh Singh v The Punjab State Electricity Board, 2016 LLR 353 (P&H HC).
• A probationer will remain on probation till confirmation.
Mahinder Singh v Indian Airlines Ltd, 2016 LLR 1128 (Del HC).
• Mere submitting of leave application does not mean that it has been granted.
Delhi Transport Corp v Rajender Kumar, 2017 LLR 390 (Del HC).
End of Document
Cases (1990-2018), 12th ed
Chapter 26PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972
(i) APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT
• The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 will also apply to employees working in a temple.
Administrator, Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri v Jagannath Padhi, 1992 LLR 737 : 1992 (2) Lab IC 1621
: (1992) 2 LLJ 863 [LNIND 1991 ORI 58] (Ori HC).
• Employees of Municipal Committee of Haryana will not be covered under the Act.
Municipal Committee Tohana v The Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity, 1994 LLR 444 :
1994 (69) Fac LR 102 : 1994-II LLN 277 : 1994-I CLR 1000 : 1994 (84) FJR 481 (P&H HC).
• An educational institute will be covered under the Act. (The Act has also been amended w.e.f 3 April
1997 that educational institutions are covered by the Act w.e.f. 3 April 1997).
Shri Gurudev Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Gurukul Ashram v Madhav, (1994) 2 LLN 552 : 1994 Lab IC
1542 : (1995) 2 Mah LJ 50 : (1996) 1 LLJ 515 : 1994 LLR 894 : 1994-II LLN 552 (Bom HC).
• Panjarapol will not be covered under the Act.
Wadhwan Mahajan Panjarapole v B.D. Bhavasar, (1998) III LLJ (Supp) 427 : 1995 LLR 18 : 1995 (70)
Fac LR 457 : 1995-I LLN 105 (Guj HC).
• An unaided school will be covered under the Act.
Ramgopal v Shikshan Sansthan Jaipur, 1996 LLR 527 (Raj HC).
• A polytechnic in which activity of imparting knowledge of training is carried on systematically would be

Page 2 of 64
an establishment within the meaning of section 1 (3) of the Act and its employees will be entitled to
gratuity.
V. Venkateswar Rao v Chairman Governing Body, SMVM Polytechnic Tanuker, 1997 (77) Fac LR 428
(AP HC).
• Payment of Gratuity Act, will apply to Municipal Corporation even if it is covered under CCS Pension
Rules.
Municipal Corp of Delhi v Dharam Prakash Sharma, (1998) 7 SCC 221 [LNIND 1998 SC 665] : AIR
1999 SC 293 [LNIND 1998 SC 665]: 1998 LLR 881 (SC).
• An employee having worked for more than 240 days in the fifth year will be eligible for gratuity.
Mettur Beardsell Ltd, Madras v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Madras, 1998 LLR 1072
(Mad HC).
• Gratuity to an employee of an educational institution cannot be denied when the Government has issued
a notification in 1997 when the Act has been extended upon such institutions.
Nitin A. Mehta v Mehta Prafullaben Dalpatral, (2001) 1 LLJ 1348 : 2001 LLR (Sum) 414 (Guj HC).
• Coffee curing work will not be seasonal work under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Coorg and Mysore Coffee Co v Deputy Labour Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority, Hassan, 2000
Lab IC 3748 : (2001) 1 LLJ 781 : 2001 LLR 214 (Karn HC).
• Payment of gratuity will apply to the Universities and the Colleges whether affiliated or not.
D. Laxmi v Andhra Pradesh Agricultural University, (2002) 1 LLJ 69 : 2002 LLR 252 : 2002 Lab IC 42
NOC (AP HC).
• A charitable hospital will be covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, even if it has no profit motive.
Good Samaritan Rural Development Project v T.A. Ramaiah, 2003 LLR 151 : 2003-I LLJ 357 (Mad
HC).
Page 3 of 64
• Educational institutions will be covered under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
P.D’Souza (Ms.) Head Mistress, Fatimadevi English High School v Nymphia Pereira, 2003 LLR 428
(Bom HC).
• An “establishment” under Payment of Gratuity Act, has a wide meaning and includes commercial
establishments as well as non-commercial establishments and no limited meaning can be given to the
word “establishments” which has been referred in section 1 (3)(b) of the Act, hence the Indian Red Cross
Society will be liable to pay gratuity to its employees.
Indian Red Cross Society v Vidyaben H. Vyas, (2004) 1 LLJ 802 : 2004 LLR 288 : 2004 (100 Fac LR
511 (Guj HC).
• Payment of Gratuity Act, will not be applicable to High Court Bar Association since it is neither a shop
nor an establishment.
High Court Bar Association v Deputy Labour Commissioner, Allahabad, 2004 LLR 1087 (All HC).
• Municipal Committee is covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act, as extended to the Local Bodies.
Rukmani w/o Baru Ram v State of Haryana, through the Secretary to Government of Haryana Local Self
Government Department, Chandigarh, 2005 LLR 860 (P&H HC).
• Non-applicability of some other Acts in a Society will not exclude the Gratuity Act.
Madhya Pradesh State Co-op Union Ltd v J.L. Kashyap, 2007 LLR 383 (MP HC).
• An establishment, not employing 10 or more persons, will not be covered under Payment of Gratuity
Act.
Zameer Ahmed v Appellate Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, 2007 LLR 807 (Del HC).
• Gratuity Act, will be applicable upon Kerala State Electricity Board even when the employees were
getting pension benefits.
Kerala State Electricity Board v Mohan Kumar, 2008 LLR 931 (Ker HC).
Page 4 of 64
• Municipal Corporation, having better pension scheme, is rightly exempted from Gratuity Act.
Vadodara Mahanagarpalika Naukar Mandal v State of Gujarat, 2008 LLR 1116 (SN) (Guj HC).
• Non-Governmental educational institutions are bound to pay gratuity to its employees.
Shri Agarwal Shiksha Samiti v Moti Chand Jain, 2009 LLR 401 (Raj HC).
• A society to serve as a Post-graduate School for advance teaching will be covered by the Payment of
Gratuity Act.
Institute of Economic Growth v Controlling Officer, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 2010 LLR 536
(Del HC).
• Controlling & Appellate Authorities have rightly held that Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation
will be covered by the Gratuity Act.
Gujarat Industrial Development Corp, Gandhinagar v Pranjivan H. Chavda, 2010 LLR (SN) 782 : 2010
(125) Fac LR 759 (Guj HC).
• Gram Panchayat under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act is covered by Gratuity Act.
Gram Panchayat, Shivad v Rang Lal, 2010 LLR 1089 (Raj HC).
• An educational institution run by a registered Trust shall be covered by Gratuity Act.
Amravati Nagar Vachanalaya, Amravati v State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Labour,
Mumbai (Mantralaya), 2010 LLR 1034 (Bom HC).
• Delhi Development Authority is an “establishment” under Gratuity Act.
Delhi Development Authority v Kundan, 2010 LLR (SN) 1131 (Del HC).
• Gratuity Act will be applicable upon a Library.

Page 5 of 64
Administrative Officer T.M.S.S.M. Library and Research Centre, Thanjavur v Appellate Authority under
Payment of Gratuity Act (The Joint Commissioner of Labour), 2011 LLR 351 (Mad HC).
• A teacher being entitled to gratuity can get it w.e.f. 3 April 1997.
Mahendra Singh Chhabra v Appellate Authority, Payments of Gratuity Act, Indore, 2011 LLR 980 (MP
HC).
• A temple is also covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Management of Sri Venkatramana Temple v Sri Hale Mariyamma Temple, Kapu, 2013 LLR 163 (Karn
HC).
• Gratuity Act will apply when there are 21 employees.
Kraft Palace v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 2013 LLR 254 (All HC).
• Gratuity Act, 1972 is not restricted to only commercial establishments.
Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State, represented through its Honorary Secretary v Bankanidhi Mishra,
2013 LLR 810 (Ori HC).
• Gratuity Act section can even apply to non-commercial establishments, covering temple or other
religious or charitable institutions.
E. Gopal v Arulmigu Dhandayuthapaniswamy Temple, 2013 LLR (SN) 892 : 2013 (II) LLN 709 (Mad
HC).
• Payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to working journalists.
Gandiv Hindi Daily v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 LLR 507 (All HC).
• The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 also applies to Trusts or Societies, whether charitable or not.
Page 6 of 64
Management of Chevalier T. Thomas Educational Trust, Chennai v The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu,
2014 LLR (SN) 998 : 2014 Lab IC 2673 (Mad HC).
• Gratuity Act also applies to charitable trusts.
Board of Trustees, Haryana Rajya Bal Bhawan v The Appellate Authority, 2015 LLR 249 (P&H HC).
(ii) APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY
• Deposit of gratuity is mandatory for filing of appeal against the order of Controlling Authority.
Onward Trading Co, Madras v Dy. Commissioner of Labour, Madras, 1990 LLR 28 (Mad HC).
• Employer preferred the appeal within time but without producing the certificate of deposit of gratuity
amount as awarded by the Controlling Authority under section 7 (4) of the Act. The Appellate Authority
ordered the appeal to be consigned as it was not in accordance with law - Writ Petition - Praying
permission to deposit the amount and for admission and decisions of appeals on merit - Prayer allowed -
Suitable directions given for deposit of gratuity as ordered by the Controlling Authority.
Sahakari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd Baitalpur, Distt. Deoria through its Secretary v The Controlling
Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Dy. Labour Commissioner, Gorakhpur, (1993) 67 Fac LR
99 : (1993) II LLJ 1108 : 1993 LLR 448 (All HC).
• Filing of an appeal against the order of an authority under the Act, after the prescribed period of
limitation will not be maintainable.
Shri Gurudev Ayurved Mahavidalaya Gurukul Ashram v Madhav, 1994 LLR 894 : 1994-II LLN 552
(Bom HC).
• The Appellate Authority cannot condone the delay beyond 120 days of the order of the Controlling
Authority under the Act.
Western Coalfields Ltd v Controlling Authority, 2000 Lab IC 3458 : (2000) 86 Fac LR 312 : (2000) 4
LLN 500 : (2000) II LLJ 965 : 2000 LLR 881 (MP HC).
• An appeal will lie against the Controlling Authority even when the interest amount over the gratuity has
not been deposited by the employer.
Page 7 of 64
Gloster Jute Mills Ltd v Deputy Secretary, Labour Department, (2002) 3 CLR 393 : (2003) 1 LLN 215 :
2002 LLR 1215 (Cal HC).
• An appeal against the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, shall not lie after 120 days.
Warangal Dist. Co-op Society Ltd, Warangal v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act,
1972/Dy. Commissioner of Labor, Warangal, (2002) 101 FJR 192 : (2003) 1 LLN 976 : 2003 LLR 242
(AP HC).
• For filing of an appeal by the employer against the order of Controlling Authority, deposit of gratuity as
awarded by the Controlling Authority is a condition precedent hence High Court directed the employer to
deposit the granting amount as quantified by the Controlling Authority.
Christian Medical College and Hospital, Vellore v Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals), Chennai,
(2003) 3 CTC 158 [LNIND 2003 MAD 873] : (2003) 2 Mad LJ 793 : (2003) III LLJ 650 : 2003 LLR 1017
: 2003 (98) FLR 1153 (Mad HC).
• For filing an appeal by an employer against the order of the Controlling Authority, the amount of
gratuity as directed must be deposited since it contains a condition precedent under the Payment of
Gratuity Act.
Indian Red Cross Society v Vidyaben H. Vyas, (2004) 1 LLJ 802 : 2004 LLR 288 : 2004 (100 Fac LR
511 (Guj HC).
• An appeal against the order passed by the Controlling Authority can be filed within a period of 60 days
and can be extended after condonation of delay by another 60 days e.g., in all, within 120 days and not
beyond that period since no further condonation of delay is permissible in the absence of applicability of
the Limitation Act, to the provisions of Payment of Gratuity.
Indian Red Cross Society v Vidyaben H. Vyas, (2004) 1 LLJ 802 : 2004 LLR 288 : 2004 (100) Fac LR
511 (Guj HC).
• While filing of an appeal against the Controlling Authority awarding gratuity, the employer will be
liable to deposit the amount of gratuity and not the interest thereto.
Standard Stonewares and Tiles v Appellate Authority, (2004) III CLR 204 : (2004) III LLJ 403 : 2004
LLR 724 (Ker HC).
Page 8 of 64
• The Appellate Authority under the Gratuity Act, can condone the delay of 60 days when there is a
sufficient cause.
Commanding Officer, Naval Base v The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 2004
LLR 1044 (Ker HC).
• On appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority, the appellant has to deposit the entire amount
of gratuity as directed.
Process Pumps Pvt Ltd, Bangalore v The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Region I, Bangalore, 2006 LLR
391 (Karn HC).
• Appellate Authority under Gratuity Act, cannot waive the condition precedent for depositing the
determined amount.
Prakash Rao v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Hyderabad, 2008 LLR 876 (AP HC).
• Condonation of delay for filing appeal after 120 days of order of Controlling Authority not permissible.
Indian Bank through Assistant General Manager v Baba Sakharam Kharbade, 2008 LLR 921 (Bom HC).
• A person aggrieved by order of the Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, can file appeal
instead of writ.
Motor Car Beedi Factory v Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 2009 LLR 684 (SN)
(AP HC).
• On filing appeal, the wages as by Controlling Authority directed are to be deposited.
Vijay Picture Palace v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 LLR 507 (All HC).
• An appeal against the Controlling Authority and Gratuity Act beyond limitation, would not be quashed
when the order was not timely served.
Jagdish Bhuinya v Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd, 2010 LLR (SN) 780 : 2010 II LLJ 508 (Jhar HC).
Page 9 of 64
• Appeal pertaining to gratuity filed beyond 120 days rightly rejected by the Appellate Authority.
Pitamberdas Ramchandra Vatwani v Girishkumar Tulsighai Makwana, 2010 LLR (SN) 1023 (Guj HC).
• For filing appeal under Gratuity Act, no extention by such subsequent period of 60 days.
Administrative Officer T.M.S.S.M. Library and Research Centre, Thanjavur v Appellate Authority under
• Limitation for filing gratuity appeal is to be counted from receipt of order.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority under
the Payment of Gratuity Act, Bangalore, 2012 LLR 838 (Karn HC).
• Deposit of awarded gratuity is must for filing appeal.
Commissioner, Trichirapalli Corp, Trichirapalli v Appellate Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act
and Joint Commissioner of Labour, Madurai-20, 2013 LLR 730 (Mad HC).
• The appellate authority has no power to condone the delay over and above 60 days.
Indamer Co Pvt Ltd v Krishan Lal Chopra, 2014 LLR (SN) 440 (Del HC).
• Employer is required to deposit the amount of gratuity only as determined by the Authority under the
Act and not the interest for filing appeal against the order of the Controlling Authority.
National Textile Corp Ltd v Sanjay Sengupta, 2014 LLR (SN) 663 : 2014 (141) Fac LR 173 (Cal HC).
• An appeal filed beyond the period of 120 days from the date of receipt of the order of the Controlling
Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is barred by limitation.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp, Kolar v Dy. Labour Commissioner and The Appellate Authority
under Payment of Gratuity Act, 2015 LLR (SN) 213 (Karn HC).
• Limitation Act not applicable for filing appeal under the Gratuity Act.
Page 10 of 64
Krishan Kumar Kashyap v The Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 2015 LLR 356 (Del
HC).
• An appeal is to be filed within 60 days from the date of order or from the date of receipt of the
order/knowledge of the order.
Kelawani Trust Vadodara v Bhartiben D. Shah, 2015 LLR (SN) 555 (Guj HC).
• An appeal filed under the Gratuity Act without deposit of the amount payable is rightly dismissed.
Divisional Controller, North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corp, Bagalkot Division, Bagalkot v
Jamedabi, 2015 LLR (SN) 1006 : 2015 (146) Fac LR 227 (Karn HC).
• Appeal against Controlling Authority lies only on deposit of decreed amount.
H.M.T. Watches Ltd v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), 2016 LLR 483 (Karn HC).
• Condonation of delay for appeal under Gratuity Act can be within additional 60 days.
The Management, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp (Madurai) Ltd v The Controller Under the Payment
of Gratuity Act, Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Dindigul, 2017 LLR 943 (Mad HC).
• Deposit of determined gratuity is a condition precedent for filing appeal against Controlling Authority.
Hindustan Fertilizer Corp Ltd v UOI, 2017 LLR 1058 (Cal HC).
(iii) WITHHOLDING/FORFEITURE OF GRATUITY
• Gratuity, as payable to an employee, can be forfeited only when he is terminated from service for wilful
omission and riotous and disorderly behaviour involving moral turpitude etc., as stipulated under section 4
(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, hence, withholding of gratuity by the employer of an employee retired
from service will not be justified.
Taxmaco Ltd v Shri Ram Dhan, (1993) 1 LLN 129 : (1992) 2 CLR 256 : (1993) III LLJ (Supp) 208 :
1992 LLR 369 : 1992 (65) Fac LR 742 (Del HC).
Page 11 of 64
• Withholding of gratuity of an employee compulsorily retired from service will not be justified.
Brundaban Sahu v O.S.R.T. Corp Ltd, (1993) 1 LLN 129 : (1992) 2 CLR 256 : (1993) III LLJ (Supp) 208
: 1992 LLR 696 (Ori HC).
• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld even if disciplinary proceeding is pending against him.
Gopalkrishna v Karnataka Soaps & Detergents Ltd, 1996 LLR 306 (Ker HC).
• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld even if he fails to surrender employer’s land.
Travancore Plywood Ind. Ltd v Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, (1996) II LLJ 85 : 1996 LLR 397
(Ker HC).
• Gratuity of an employee dismissed for wilful slowing down of work cannot be withheld since there is no
such bar in the Act.
Permoli Wallace Ltd Bhopal v State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) 88 FJR 652 : (1996) II LLJ 515 : 1996
LLR 414 (MP HC).
• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld by an employer.
Lt. Col. A.V. Tiwari (Retd.) v The Secretary Ministry of Welfare, Govt of India, 1996 LLR 1092 (All HC).
• Compensation of Rs 50,000 will be payable for withholding gratuity for three years.
Mohammad Zaheeruddin Siddiqui v Executive Council, A.M.U, 2000 LLR 458 (SC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity of a terminated employee can be done only to the extent of damages or losses.
K.C. Mathew v Plantation Corp of Kerala Ltd, 2000 Lab IC 1519 : 2000 LLR 1280 (Ker HC).
• Gratuity of an employee can be withheld only in case of his dismissal and not otherwise.
Page 12 of 64
K.C. Mathew v Plantation Corp of Kerala Ltd, 2000 Lab IC 1519 : (2000) 4 LLN 450 : (2000) II LLJ
637 : (2000) 4 LLN 450 : (2000) II LLJ 637 : 2001 LLR 123 (Ker HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity is permissible if an employee is dismissed for misappropriation.
BOI v Kamlakar Vishwambhar Joshi, 2001 Lab IC 3770 : (2001) 3 CLR 32 : 2001 LLR 1229 (Bom
HC).
• No deductions can be made from gratuity except shortage or assessed misappropriation.
P.D. Chiyanna v Karnataka Agro Industries Corp Ltd Bangalore, 2001 Lab IC 19 : (2001) 85 Fac LR
814 : 2001 (III) CLR 846 : 2001 LLR 250 (Karn HC).
• (i) Loss of property has to be ascertained (ii) Disorderly conduct must be supported by evidence of
activities creating misbehaviour to damage machinery, furniture etc., while forfeiting the gratuity of an
employee.
Bapalswamy (since dead) by LRs v Management of Usha Martin Industries, 2001 (II) LLJ 1060 (Karn
HC).
• Gratuity of an employee will not be forfeited on subsistence allowance.
P.D. Chiyanna v Karnataka Agro Industries Corp Ltd, (2001) Lab IC 19 : (2001) 85 Fac LR 814 : 2001
LLR 250 (Karn HC).
• Deduction of gratuity with employee’s consent cannot be challenged.
Kuttan Pillai v State of Kerala, (2001) II CLR 900 : (2001) 3 LLN 618 : (2002) 92 Fac LR 387 : 2001
LLR 1145 (Ker HC).
• A notice must be issued to the employee before forfeiting his gratuity.
J.P. Micheal D’Souza v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Bangalore, 2002 LLR 7
(Karn HC).
• Mere pendency of criminal case shall not disentitle an employee from receiving gratuity.
Page 13 of 64
Rajendra Kumar Nangia v Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilizers Ltd, (2002) 1 LLJ 648 [LNIND 2001 BOM
716] : 2002 LLR 266 (Bom HC).
• In the absence of specific order against an employee, his gratuity cannot be forfeited.
1. Ahmedabad Municipal Corp v Elivina Samuelbhai Christian, (2002) 1 LLJ 342 [LNIND 2001
GUJ 191] : 2002 LLR 269 (Guj HC).
2. Radheshyam Khichrolia v Madhya Pradesh Co-op Marketing Federation Ltd, 2002 LLR 610
(MP HC).
• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld for non-vacation of staff quarter.
Beer Bala Gupta v 15th Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, 2002 LLR 619 (All HC).
Dhanwant Rai v Delhi Transport Corp, 2005 LLR (SN) 302 (Del HC).
• Gratuity being a statutory right payable as a retiral benefit after serving an employer for a long period
can not be taken away by an agreement between the parties which cannot be reduced but could be
enhanced.
Y.R. Shenoy v Syndicate Bank, (2003) II LLJ 977 : 2003 LLR 615 : 2003 (97) Fac LR 812 (Karn HC).
• Gratuity, as payable by an employer to an employee, can not be either withheld or adjusted against the
amount of rent due to an employer for unauthorized retention of accommodation of the employer by an
employee.
Bhailal Kalidas Barot v Factory Manager, Jehangir Textile Mills Ltd, (2003) 1 GLR 629 : (2003) II LLJ
355 : 2003 LLR 616 : 2003-II LLN 283 (Guj HC).
• For forfeiture of gratuity, a separate order is not required when the dismissal of the workman has been
due to riotous and disorderly behaviour e.g., in stopping another workman at the entrance with a dagger
and stabbing those who tried to intervene.
Indian Aluminium Co Ltd v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dhanbad, 2003 LLR 692 : 2003-II
LLJ 818 (Jhar HC).
Page 14 of 64
• Gratuity, being valuable right, is not bounty and can not be countenanced for non-vacation of the quarter
by an employee.
M.A. Shrirahatti v N.G.E.F. Ltd, Bangalore, 2003 Lab IC 1352 : 2003 LLR 772 : 2003-II LLJ 1004
(Karn HC).
• The adjustment of penal rent for unauthorized occupation of the quarter can not be made from the
gratuity, as payable.
M.A. Shrirahatti v N.G.E.F. Ltd, Bangalore, 2003 Lab IC 1352 : 2003 LLR 772 : 2003-II LLJ 1004
(Karn HC).
• Gratuity payable to an employee on his retirement can not be set off by the employer for the damages
pertaining to unauthorized occupation of employer’s accommodation by the employee since the employer
can pursue appropriate remedy as available in law.
V.U. Warrier v Secretary, Oil and Natural Gas Commission, Dehradun, (2003) 98 Fac LR 640 : (2003) 2
CLR 99 : (2003) 3 Mah LJ 168 : 2003 LLR 956 : 2003-II LLJ 918 (Bom HC).
• An employer can not withhold or adjust the gratuity of an employee on the plea that he is unauthorisedly
occupying company accommodation and has not paid the market rent.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corp v Kiritkumar Ponjala Barot, 2003 LLR 1069 : 2003-III LLN 1047
(Guj HC).
• Effecting deduction of Rs 8700 from the gratuity of a retired employee for finalisation of TA bills will
not be justified as held by the Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, hence the High
Court will not interfere in the writ petition filed by the employer.
National Seeds Corp Ltd v H.L. Mehta, (2004) 1 LLJ 656 : 2004 LLR 163 (Del HC).
• Gratuity as payable to an employee can be forfeited when his service has been terminated only on the
eventualities as enumerated in sub-section (6) of section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corp v Devendrabhai Mulvantrai Vaidya, 2004 LLR 225 : 2004-I LLJ 77
(Guj HC).
Page 15 of 64
• An employer has no right to withhold gratuity of an employee payable on his retirement on the pretext
that he has not been vacating the land of the employer and as such the High Court directed to release the
gratuity of the employee forthwith alongwith interest.
Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, Haridwar v Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Meerut,
(2004) II LLJ 400 : 2004 LLR 232 : 2004 (100) Fac LR 653 (Uttr HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity of an employee for misbehaviour will not be justified.
Hindalco Industries Ltd v Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Kanpur, (2004) 101
Fac LR 1063 : (2004) 3 LLN 106 : (2004) II LLJ 348 : 2004 LLR 690 (All HC).
• For forfeiture of gratuity, the employer must satisfy the Controlling Authority with justifiable reasons.
Hindalco Industries Ltd v Appellate Authority, under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Kanpur, (2004) III LLJ
148 : (2004) 101 Fac LR 1063 : 2004 LLR 690 (All HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity by the employer will not be tenable when there is no finding about loss or damage
to property.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd v Kripa Sankar Somany, (2004) 1 CHN 662 [LNIND 2004 CAL 12] : (2004) III
LLJ 672 : 2004 LLR 1112 (Cal HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity of a suspended Bank employee, on his retirement, will not be justified in the
absence of termination for misconducts.
Valsad District Central Co-op Bank Ltd v Krushnalal Manilal Vashi, 2005 LLR 58 (Guj HC).
• Using of abusive language by an employee cannot be construed as “moral turpitude” for forfeiting the
gratuity.
Management of Central Theatre, Coimbatore v (1) Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Office
of the Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore (2) D. Amirtha Murugan, 2005 LLR 149 (Mad HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity for moral turpitude as alleged against an employee will not be tenable since no
opportunity was given to him by the employer.
Page 16 of 64
Management of Central Theatre, Coimbatore v (1) Controlling Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, Office
of the Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore (2) D. Amirtha Murugan, 2005 LLR 149 (Mad HC).
• No deduction, whatsoever, except as stipulated by section 4 (6) pertaining to forfeiture of gratuity on

account of dismissal of an employee because of certain misconduct, can be made from the payment of
gratuity as payable to an employee.
Food Corp of India v Appellate Authority, under Payment of Gratuity Act, Kanpur, 2005 LLR 713 : 2005
(105) Fac LR 914 (All HC).
• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld merely on assessment of loss to the bank in the absence of
an order for forfeiture.
Baroda Traders Co-op Bank Ltd v Mahendrabhai B. Shah, 2006 LLR 390 (Guj HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity order, passed after retirement, would not be justified.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp v Shivaji, 2007 LLR (SN) 221 (SC).
• Gratuity of an employee, even after his retirement, is rightly forfeited when he has caused heavy
financial loss to the PSU.
Mashkoor Ahmad (Shri) v UOI, 2007 LLR (SN) 318 (Del HC).
• Non-payment of gratuity by an employer to an employee for non-payment of rent dues by the latter will
not be justified.
Motilal Sharma v University of Rajasthan, 1998 II LLJ 1021 (Raj HC).
• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld for occupying residential quarter.
1. H. Rajendra Pal v Canara Bank, (1998) 78 Fac LR 650 : 1998 LLR 419 (Ker HC).
2. Mohammad Shabbir Nadvi v Jamia Milia Islamia, (1996) III LLJ (Supp) 853 : 1995 LLR 5 (Del
HC).
Page 17 of 64
• Non-payment of gratuity to an employee in failing to vacate staff quarters will not be justified.
1. Air India Ltd v Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 & the Regional
Labour Commissioner (Central) Bombay, (1999) 1 Mah LJ 740 : (1999) 1 CLR 291 : (1999) 1
Bom CR 426 : (1999) II LLJ 93 : 1999 LLR 260 (Bom HC): 1999 (81) FLR 900.
2. Swadeshi Cotton Mills v Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) & Controlling Authority under
Payment of Gratuity Act, Allahabad, (2000) 2 LLN 1140 : 2000 LLR 366 (All HC).
• Deduction from gratuity can be made for electricity charges and house rent when Service Rules so
provide.
Sardar Sohan Singh v UOI, 2007 LLR 763 (Cal HC).
• For forfeiture of gratuity, there has to be positive dismissal for misconduct.
Abdul Rowther v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity, Madurai, 2007 LLR 1250 (Mad HC).
• Gratuity of an employee can be forfeited only under prescribed conditions.
State Farms Corp of India Ltd v P.D. Mathai, 2008 LLR 458 (Ker HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity causing loss to employer due to the negligence, cannot be faulted with.
Devinder Singh v Food Corp of India, 2008 LLR 934 (P&H HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity not to be interfered because no criminal proceedings were initiated against the
workman by the employer for misappropriation.
UCO Bank v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Udai Nagar, 2008 LLR 1008 (SN) (All HC).
• Withholding of gratuity, because of non-furnishing clearing slip for vacation of the quarter, will not be
illegal.
Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corp v Sukhveer Singh, 2008 LLR 1030 (All HC).
Page 18 of 64
• Withholding of gratuity without hearing the employee is not legal.
Raghubir Singh v Indian Red Cross Society, 2008 LLR 849 (P&H HC).
• Gratuity of a retired employee cannot be forfeited for retaining official accommodation.
Hindustan Antibiotics Ltd v Pramodini Rohidas Sutar, 2009 LLR 24 (Bom HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity of an employee for moral turpitude only if he is convicted for the offence.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v Mahadev, 2009 LLR 138 (Karn HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity is not absolute but only when the employee has been dismissed for misconduct as
specified in the Act.
Vijaya Bank v Sri Mohan Das Ramana Shetty, 2009 LLR 198 (Karn HC).
• Gratuity of an employee cannot be forfeited without an opportunity of hearing.
• Forfeiture of gratuity can be to the extent of amount as misappropriated.
• Forfeiture of gratuity of an officer, failing to supervise control resulting in a loss of about Rs1 crore to
the employer, is justified.
D.S. Chauhan v Food Corp of India, 2009 LLR 499 (P&H HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity, for moral turpitude, can be done when an employee is convicted for offence.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v Mahadev, 2009 LLR 978 (Karn HC).
Page 19 of 64
• Gratuity paid to an employee can’t be recovered when not dismissed for any misconduct as stipulated in
the Act.
Amod Prasad Rai v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 LLR 1004 (All HC).
• Gratuity of an employee can be forfeited only when dismissed for prescribed misconducts.
Panchmahal Dist. Co-op Bank Ltd v Harjivandas Purshottamdas Prajapati, 2009 LLR 1156 (Guj HC).
• Gratuity cannot be denied on the ground that the employee or his legal heirs have not vacated the
company quarter.
Tensile Steel Ltd v Natwarsingh Udesingh Raj, 2009 LLR 1223 (Guj HC).
• Amount of gratuity cannot be withheld except for prescribed misconducts.
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd v Balan, 2010 LLR 220 (SN) : 2009 (123) Fac LR 862 (Ker HC).
• Withholding of total gratuity of a voluntarily retired employee would not be proper.
Commissioner, Jamnagar Municipal Corp v Kishorchandra Veljibhai Sonigra, 2010 LLR (SN) 335 (Guj
HC).
• Gratuity of an employee, for not vacating residential accommodation, cannot be withheld.
Neyveli Lignite Corp Ltd v O. Raju, 2010 LLR 506 (Mad HC).
• Gratuity of an employee can’t be forfeited merely because a criminal case is pending.
Rajnagar Textile Mills v Gunvant Lalchanddas Kayastha, 2010 LLR 869 (Guj HC).
• Gratuity can’t be withheld merely because enquiry is to be initiated against the employee.
Page 20 of 64
Dhairyasheel A. Jadhav v Maharashtra Agro Industrial Development Corp, 2010 LLR 792 (Bom HC).
• Retention of official accommodation by an employee will not deprive him to receive gratuity.
Steel Authority of India Ltd v Taraknath Sengupta, 2010 LLR (SN) 1017 (Cal HC).
• Gratuity cannot be forfeited without determining the quantum of damages.
Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Ltd, Bangalroe v N.S.S. Bhagavat, 2010 LLR 1170 (Karn HC).
• Gratuity of bank employee is rightly forfeited for causing loss to bank.
Ramchandra S. Joshi v Bank of Baroda, 2010 LLR 1255 (Bom HC).
• Pendency of criminal proceedings not to justify forfeiture of gratuity.
New India Assurance Co Ltd v Ashwin Chimanlal Sheth, 2011 LLR 66 (Guj HC).
• Gratuity can’t be withheld without complying with the principles of natural justice.
Manmohan Prasad v H.P. State Small Scale Industries and Export Corp Ltd, 2011 LLR 177 (HP HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity without termination for the specified misconduct rightly declined.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd v UOI, through its Secretary, 2011 LLR 203 (Jhar HC).
• Gratuity can be forfeited only for prescribed misconducts.
Jehangir Textile Mills v Sahebsingh Chotesingh, 2011 LLR 265 (Guj HC).
• Right to receive gratuity is a statutory right and it cannot be forfeited in every type of termination.
Vinod v State of Maharashtra, 2011 LLR 343 (Bom HC).

Page 21 of 64
• In the absence of specific order of dismissal for riotous behaviour, forfeiture of gratuity not proper.
Park Side Estate Nonsuch Post Coonoor v Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act/Joint
Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, 2011 LLR 416 (Mad HC).
• Gratuity can’t be forfeited in the absence of disciplinary proceedings holding the employee guilty of
specified misconduct.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp, Mumbai v Maruti Ramchandra Mastud, 2011 LLR 397 (Bom
HC).
• Gratuity can’t be forfeited in the absence of misappropriation by an employee.
Vinod v State of Maharashtra, 2011 LLR 343 (Bom HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity rightly set aside when termination is not for prescribed misconduct.
Jaya Hind Industries Ltd, Akurdi, Pune v Vilas Vithalrao Takale, 2011 LLR 638 (Bom HC).
• Gratuity cannot be withheld for want of no-objection certificate and for non-vacating of quarter.
W.C.L. v Gyanwati, 2012 LLR 187 (MP HC).
• Gratuity of an employee, on his retirement, cannot be denied by holding of an enquiry that too after
retirement which is not permissible.
Subodh Nath Gupta v Chairman, Administrative Committee, U.P., Co-op Dairy Federation and Milk
Union Centralised Service, Lucknow, 2012 LLR 327 (SN) : 2012 (132) FLR 204 (All HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity, without notice to employee and passing specific order, is not sustainable.
Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd v Ramachandran, 2012 LLR 648 (Bom HC)
• Forfeiture of gratuity only to the extent of damage caused.

Page 22 of 64
Dhanlakshmi Bank Ltd v Ramachandran, 2012 LLR 565 (Ker HC)
• No forfeiture of gratuity on pendency of criminal trial.
Harnam Singh Yadav v State of U.P, 2012 LLR 782 (All HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity for riotous and disorderly behaviour is not proper when misconduct was committed
five years back.
State Bank of Travancore Rep. by its GMC (F&A) Trivandrum v Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central),
Controlling Authority under PG Act, Trivandrum, 2012 LLR 955 (Ker HC).
• No forfeiture of gratuity on kidnapping a girl.
Vithal Rangnath Darekar v New India Insurance Co Ltd through its Gen. Manager, 2012 LLR 1027
(Bom HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity only when dismissal is for prescribed misconduct under the Act.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp, Hyderabad v Amjad Ali Khan, 2013 LLR 47 (AP HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity without show-cause notice is not proper.
State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum v Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum, 2013
LLR 83 (Ker HC).
• Gratuity can be forfeited only on termination for prescribed misconduct (s).
General Manager, District Central Co-op Bank Mary Adit, Gwalior v Deendayal Gaud, 2013 LLR 418
(MP HC).
• Mere pendency of enquiry would not justify the forfeiture of gratuity.

Page 23 of 64
(MP HC).
• Gratuity can be forfeited only for prescribed misconduct.
Municipal Corp of Greater Mumbai v Vitthal Anna Kamble, 2013 LLR 531 (Bom HC).
• Embezzlement will constitute moral turpitude for forfeiture of gratuity.
Madan Lal Sharma v H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, 2013 LLR 540 (HP HC).
• Gratuity is to be forfeited on termination for moral turpitude. Also an opportunity of hearing before
forfeiture of gratuity is not necessary.
Madan Lal Sharma v H.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board, 2013 LLR 540 (HP HC).
• Gratuity cannot be withheld for non-vacating the quarters.
Executive Engineer (O&M), M.P. State Electricity Board, Chhindwara v Sartaj Khan, 2013 LLR 777
(MP HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity only on termination for prescribed misconducts.
Kerala Land Development Corp Ltd v N. Raveendran, 2013 LLR 1024 (Ker HC).
• Gratuity can’t be forfeited merely for incorrect date of birth.
Ashok v Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, 2013 LLR 1184 (Bom HC).
• Gratuity can’t be forfeited merely for not handing over library books.
Janakray Harilal Purohit, (since deceased – thro. legal heirs) v Dean – M.P. Shah Medical College,
2013 LLR 1256 (Guj HC).
Page 24 of 64
• Forfeiture of gratuity justified only to the extent of loss caused to the employer.
S.P.S. Rana v National Seeds Corp, 2013 LLR 1237 (Del HC).
• Moral turpitude as proved in enquiry would justify forfeiture of gratuity of an employee.
P.K. Kataria v Chairman & Managing Director, National Fertilizers Ltd, 2014 LLR 6 (Del HC).
• Gratuity can be forfeited only when pecuniary loss is caused by negligence of the employee.
• Sexual harassment of an employee would justify forfeiture of gratuity.
• Forfeiture of gratuity not valid merely because a vigilance case was pending against the concerned
employee.
Kerala Land Development Corp Ltd v N. Raveendran, 2014 LLR (SN) 216 : 2013 (139) Fac LR 679 (Ker
HC).
• Without holding an enquiry and establishing the extent of misappropriation, committed by the employee
forfeiture of gratuity payable to the employee, is illegal.
Madura Coats Pvt Ltd, Bangalore v M. Ramesh Babu, 2014 LLR (SN) 218 : 2013 (139) Fac LR 1096
(Karn HC).
• Gratuity can be forfeited when termination is under section 4 (6) of the Gratuity Act.
Shree Rajasthan Syntex Ltd v Appellate Authority, Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 : 2014 LLR 366 (Raj
HC).
• Gratuity rightly withheld when despite undertaking the employee did not vacate the accommodation.
Page 25 of 64
Jagdeo Ram v Managing Director, Bokaro Steel City, 2014 LLR 966 (Jhar HC).
• Gratuity of an employee, on his retirement can’t, be forfeited.
Maharashtra Gramin Bank v Dhondiba Raghoji Kahalekar, 2014 LLR 1037 (Bom HC).
• Gratuity can be forfeited only on termination for any of the prescribed misconducts.
C.C.I. Ltd, Udupi v Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 2014 LLR 1064 (Karn HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity, without show cause notice, will not be tenable.
C.C.I. Ltd, Udupi v Deputy Labour Commissioner and Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 2014 LLR 1064 (Karn HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity is permissible only as per provisions of section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity
Act, 1972 and not otherwise.
Bankey Bihari Chauhan v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2015 LLR (SN) 669 (All HC).
• Gratuity can be forfeited only on termination for reasons given under section 4 (6) of the Act.
Bankey Bihari Chauhan v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2015 LLR 866 (All HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity is valid on termination for misconduct under section 4 (6) of Gratuity Act.
Food Corp of India v UOI, 2015 LLR 1076 (Del HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity justified on termination for immense financial loss.
Food Corp of India v UOI, 2015 LLR 1076 (Del HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity on termination for prescribed misconducts justified.

Page 26 of 64
National Fertilizers Ltd v Ashok Kumar Ahluwalia, 2015 LLR 1215 (Del HC).
• Gratuity can be forfeited only on termination for specified misconducts.
Tamil Nadu Co-op Milk Producers Federation Ltd, Chennai v Joint Commissioner of Labour (Appellate
Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972) Chennai, 2016 LLR 370 (Mad HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity for moral turpitude only on conviction.
C.B. Purushothamma v State of Karnataka, 2016 LLR 484 (Karn HC).
• Gratuity is to be forfeited on termination on moral turpitude.
A. Govindan v State Bank of Travancore, 2016 LLR 1198 (Ker HC).
• Show-cause notice is imperative for forfeiture of gratuity.
Nanubhai Nichhabhai Desai v The Deputy General Manager, UCO Bank, 2017 LLR 584 (Bom HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity only when termination is for prescribed misconduct.
Sri Karanput Kray Vikray Sahkari Samiti through its Authorised Officer, Sriganganagar v Appellate
Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, Jaipur, 2017 LLR 633 (Raj HC).
• Civil Courts should stay away from claim for gratuity
The President, Thoothukudi & Tirunelveli District Fishermen Co-Op Federation Ltd v The Appellate
Authority, 2017 LLR 861 (Mad HC).
• Gratuity can’t be withheld on non-vacating of employer’s accommodation.
Manager v Aminuddin, 2017 LLR 803 (MP HC); Karnail Singh v General Manager, Bishrampur Area of
SECL, Surajpur, 2017 II CLR 372 : 2017 LLR (SN) 887 (Chhat HC).
Page 27 of 64
• Gratuity can be forfeited only on termination for prescribed misconducts.
Steel Authority of India Ltd v The Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act and Asstt. Labour
Commissioner (Central), Raniganj, 2017 LLR 1047 (Cal HC).
(iv) MISCELLANEOUS
• When the management of a mill is taken over by a Corporation, it will be treated as an employer and
liability for payment of gratuity to the employees of the Mill will be fastened upon the Corporation.
National Textile Corp (South Maharashtra) Ltd v Bhagirath Gopal Martal, 1991 LLR 198 : 1992-II LLJ
111 (Bom HC).
• Payment of gratuity to an employee working in an establishment for 22 days in a month will be

calculated @ 26 days a month.
May and Baker (I) Ltd Bombay v J.S. Continho, National Union of Commercial Employees, (1994) III
LLJ (Supp) 630 : 1991 LLR 375 (Bom HC).
• Condonation of delay in a claim for gratuity not preferred within the prescribed time - Application filed
after three years of the expiry of the retirement - The petitioner having put in 40 years of service - Made
representations for payment of gratuity which was not replied by the Management. The delay has been
rightly condoned by the Controlling and Appellate authority. The High Court will not interfere in this
matter.
Taxmaco Ltd v Shri Ram Dhan, (1993) 1 LLN 129 : (1992) 2 CLR 256 : (1993) III LLJ (Supp) 208 :
1992 LLR 369 : 1992 (65) Fac LR 742 (Del HC).
• In order to be eligible for gratuity, a person must have rendered continuous service of five years. Merely
that a person who is offered work whenever available will not be entitled for claiming gratuity.
Velukutty Achary v Harrisons Malyalam Ltd, (1993) III LLJ (Supp) 118 : 1993 LLR 20 (Ker HC).
• Making of demand by the employee upon the employer is not a condition precedent for exercise of
jurisdiction by the Controlling Authority to entertain the application by an employee for payment of
gratuity.
Page 28 of 64
Nataraja Pillai, Proprietor, Shanker Match Industries, Eruva v The Appellate Authority of Payment of
Gratuity Act, Kollam, 1993 LLR 410 (Ker HC).
• A trainee, other than apprentice, will also be an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa Mining Corp Ltd, Bhubaneshwar v The Controlling Authority
under The Payment of Gratuity Act-cum-Assistant Labour Commissioner, 1994 LLR 789 : 1995-II LLN
1130 (Ori HC).
• Misappropriated amount by an employee can be adjusted against his gratuity payable under the Act.
Sri Jagannath Barik v Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board, 1995 LLR 832 (Ori HC).
• Re-employment of the employees after clearance of their dues will not amount to “continuous service”
to be eligible for payment of gratuity.
Dungerbhai Meghanbhai v Arbude Mills Ltd, 1996 Lab IC 262 : (1996) 1 CLR 149 : 1996 LLR 409
(Guj HC).
• Gratuity to an employee cannot be attached by the court.
G. Narayana Rao v V.R. Naginani, (1996) 74 Fac LR 2640 : 1997 Lab IC 902 : (1996) Kant 3246 : 1996
LLR 1123 (Kar HC).
• Amendment to Payment of Gratuity Act, will not be with retrospective effect.
Wimco Ltd v The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (1997) II LLJ 15 : (1997) 2
CLR 142 : (1997) 1 LLN 959 : 1997 LLR 516 (Kar HC).
• Food allowance to hotel employees will form part of wages while calculating gratuity? Yes.
Management Hotel Hariniwas v Thiru Gopalan Nair, 1997 LLR 633 (Mad HC).
• Only employees and not the employer can invoke the provisions of the Act.
Page 29 of 64
Reveendranatha Prabhu v Rajappan, (1997) 77 Fac LR 39 : (1997) 4 LLN 769 : 1997 LLR 845 (Ker
HC).
• When a claim of gratuity is based on a settlement and not under the provisions of the Payment of
Gratuity Act, the application for recovery can be made under section 33C (2) of Industrial Disputes Act.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corp v Karsan Meghji Dabhi, (2000) III LLJ (Supp) 1174 : 1997-II CLR
775 (Guj HC).
• From the said evidence coupled with the definition of “continuous service” occurring in section 2A of
the Payment of Gratuity Act of 1972, the Controlling Authority cannot be said to have erred in reaching
the finding that there was no break in the service of the employee and the employee was able to establish
that he was in continuous service.
Ramchandra Ganpat Dalvi v Phoenix Mills Ltd, (1997) 77 Fac LR 246 : 1997 LLR 958 (Bom HC).
• Gujarat State Labour Welfare Board will be covered by the Act.
Jayaben Suaryakant Modi v Welfare Commissioner of Gujarat Welfare Board, (1997) 1 LLJ 139 [LNIND
1996 GUJ 65] : (1996) 3 CLR 60 : 1997 Lab IC 2581 (Guj HC).
• A teacher in an unaided institution will also be included in the definition of an “employee” under the
Act.
Premlata Digambar Rao Deo v Principal. St. Philomine’s Convent High School, Nasik Road, 1997-II LLJ
1050 (Bom HC).
• Gratuity of an employee re-instated with continuity but without back wages cannot be denied.
M. Rama Rao v Assistant Traffic Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp, Central Bus
Station, Hyderabad, 1998 LLR 724 (AP HC).
• Gratuity of an employee for wilful omission causing loss, cannot be withheld.
M. Narasinga Rao v District Co-op Central Bank Ltd, Vizianagaram by its General Manager, 1998 LLR
850 (AP HC).
Page 30 of 64
• Gratuity of employees must be paid irrespective of financial capacity.
Uttar Pradesh State Sugar Corp Unit Munerwa v Ram Nain Singh, (1999) 80 Fac LR 757 : (1999) 1 LLJ
814 [LNIND 1998 ALL 985] : 1999 LLR 41 (All HC).
• Non-payment of gratuity to an employee on his retirement due to some lapses during service will not be
justified when there is no termination on that account.
Balachandra Krishnaji Kale v The Karnataka State Road Transport Corp, 1999 LLR 242 : 1999 (81)
Fac LR 330 (Karn HC).
• An employee will be entitled to gratuity only when he has been in the uninterrupted service for certain
period.
Ramappa Bhimappa v Phoenix Mills Ltd, (1999) 1 CLR 187 : (1999) 1 Mah LJ 214 : (1999) 81 Fac LR
151 : 1999 LLR 323 : 1999 (81) Fac LR 151 (Bom HC).
• Payment of gratuity cannot be stayed under sick industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act. It is a
settled law that it is not open for the company to take shelter of section 22 in respect of workers’ wages
and other dues.
Modistone Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai, (1999) 3 LLN 1054 : (1999) II LLJ 830 :
1999 LLR 984 : 1999 (83) Fac LR 233 (Bom HC).
• Gratuity to an employee cannot be denied even when he has opted for pension.
Rajkot Municipal Corp v Aniruddh Fulshankar Shukla, (1999) 3 LLN 1054 : (1999) II LLJ 830 : 1999
LLR 713 : 1999 (82) Fac LR 927 (Guj HC).
• Controlling Authority cannot allow more than the prescribed ceiling.
District Co-op Central Bank Ltd v The Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, (1999) 3
LLN 257 : (1999) 2 MPLJ 139 : (1999) II LLJ 1275 : 1999 LLR 584 (MP HC).
• Unless an increment is withheld the gratuity will be payable on legally due amount.
Page 31 of 64
Rajendra Deva v Addl. Labour Commissioner (Account) Kanpur-cum-Appellate Authority, 1999 LLR
542 (All HC).
• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld on his retirement on the plea that there have been audit
objections which were never communicated to such employees.
Jagdish Narain Chopra v Allahabad District Co-op Bank Ltd, (1999) 83 Fac LR 784 : 2000 All LJ 762 :
2000 LLR 88 (All HC).
• Recovery of gratuity cannot be prohibited or stalled by the provisions of Sick Industrial Companies
(SICA) Act.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) & Controlling Authority under
Payment of Gratuity Act, Allahabad, (2000) 2 LLN 1140 : 2000 LLR 366 (All HC).
• Budget Speech of Finance Minister will not justify the claim for higher gratuity.
Shitla Sharan Srivastava v Govt of India, (2001) II LLJ 822 : 2001 LLR 898 (SC).
• Direction for payment of consequential benefits will not be justified when the concerned employee has
given an undertaking that his absence will be considered as continuous service only for payment of
gratuity.
Managing Director, Visvesvaraiah Iron & Steel Ltd, Bhadravathi v T. Ramachandra, (2002) 2 CLR 233 :
(2002) 94 Fac LR 214 : (2002) IV LLJ (Supp) 114 : 2001 LLR (Sum) 640 (Karn HC).
• Even if a workman gives an undertaking for making deductions, the gratuity of an employee cannot be
withheld.
Ram Ranjan Mukherjee v Mining and Allied Machinery Corp Ltd, (2001) 1 LLJ 1020 [LNIND 2000 CAL
252] : 2001 LLR 297 (Cal HC).
• A claim for gratuity made after 13 years will not be tenable.
Shivalingappa v Management of Minerva Mills, Bangalore, (2001) II LLJ 451 : 2001 LLR 734 (Karn
HC).
Page 32 of 64
• Order for payment of gratuity to a Director, not having ultimate control over the affairs of company, will
not be interfered.
Monitron Securities Pvt Ltd v Mukundlal Khushalchand Dhavan, (2001) 1 LLJ 924 : 2001 LLR 339 (Guj
HC).
• Maximum statutory ceiling for gratuity cannot be reduced by an agreement.
Bharat Commerce & Industries Ltd v Ramprasad, (2001) III LLJ 1033 : 2001 LLR 918 (MP HC).
• High Court cannot direct the employees to refund the gratuity if they don’t vacate the quarters.
Taxmaco Ltd v Roshan Singh, 2001 LLR 890 (Del HC).
• Starting point for payment of gratuity will be from the time when the employer disputes the liability.
Neelakandan Namboothiri v State of Kerala, (2001) II LLJ 520 : 2001 LLR 516 (Ker HC).
• An employee has an option to claim gratuity where it is more beneficial.
E.I.D. Parry (I) Ltd v G. Omkar Murthy, 2001 LLR 497 (SC).
• Incentive payment of bonus will not be “wages” for calculation of gratuity.
T.I. Cycles of India, Ambattur v M.K. Gurumani, 2002 LLR 57 (SC).
• Limitation Act for condonation of delay will not apply when an appeal has been filed against the
Controlling Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act.
Warangal District Co-op Society Ltd v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 : (2002)
101 FJR 192 : (2003) 1 LLN 976 : 2003 LLR 61 (AP HC).
• Principal employer can be directed to pay gratuity to the employees of the contractor.
Page 33 of 64
Madras Fertilisers Ltd v Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, (2003) 1 LLN 358 :
(2003) 1 CLR 399 : 2003 LLR 244 : 2003-I LLJ 1007 (Mad HC).
• Interest on delayed payment of gratuity will be payable by employer when the delay is not because of
fault on the part of the employee.
H. Gangahanume Gowda v Karnataka Agro Industries Corp Ltd, (2000) Lab IC 273 : (2000) 86 Fac LR
210 : (2000) 3 LLN 883 : 2003 LLR 354 : 2003-I LLN 805 (SC).
• No doubt the gratuity should be paid to the employee on the termination of his employment, but no
specific period within which the amount of gratuity has to be paid is prescribed under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 but if the delay has been only at the instance of the petitioner which can not be termed
as the employer has delayed the payment, no interest will be payable.
D. Prasada Rao v Andhra Pradesh State Co-op Bank, Hyderabad, (2003) 3 LLN 980 : (2003) III LLJ
334 : 2003 LLR 523 : 2003 (97) Fac LR 97 (AP HC).
• Denial of interest on a late payment of gratuity will not be justified when delay in making claim has
been sufficiently explained hence 12% interest will be payable on payment of gratuity.
U. Ratnakar Rao v UOI, (2003) 1 CLR 936 : (2003) 2 LLN 278 : (2003) II LLJ 336 : 2003 LLR 612 :
2003 (97) Fac LR 462 (Karn HC).
• The definitions of “appropriate Government” under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act and
Payment of Gratuity Act are substantially different than each other hence in the case of Bharat Pumps &
Compressors belonging to Central Government, the appropriate Government will be Central Government
and not the State Government.
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Appellate Authority
under (P.G. Act) Kanpur, (2003) All LJ 1665 : (2003) 2 LLN 908 : (2003) II CLR 146 : 2003 LLR 614 :
2003 (97) FLR 221 (All HC).
• Interest will be payable when the employer has not arranged to pay gratuity to the employee within
prescribed period.
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) and Appellate Authority
under (P.G. Act) Kanpur, (2003) All LJ 1665 : (2003) 2 LLN 908 : (2003) II CLR 146 : 2003 LLR 614 :
2003 (97) FLR 221 (All HC).
Page 34 of 64
• Gratuity of an employee being well recognized retiral benefit is not a gratuitous payment but earned by
him after serving for a long and continuous period.
Y.R. Shenoy v Syndicate Bank, (2003) II LLJ 977 : 2003 LLR 615 : 2003 (97) Fac LR 812 (Karn HC).
• When the gratuity of an employee has been deposited in the Court, it must be paid to him since it can not
be contended that the Company has been declared sick undertaking and BIFR case is pending.
Bhailal Kalidas Barot v Factory Manager, Jehangir Textile Mills Ltd, (2003) II LLJ 355 : 2003 LLR 616 :
2003-II LLN 283 (Guj HC).
• Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, has overriding effect and no other Act or rules shall have any
effect which is inconsistent with its provisions.
UOI v M.R. Shivappa, (2003) 3 LLN 522 : (2003) 4 Kant LJ 321 : 2003 LLR 616 : 2003-II LLJ 663
(Karn HC).
• Wages, as defined under the Payment of Gratuity Act, has different definition than that under the ESI
Act, placing reliance by the learned single Judge in holding that incentive bonus will form part of wages
for calculation of gratuity was misconceived and hence liable to be quashed.
Kirloskar Brothers Ltd v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, (2003) III LLJ 1035 : 2003
LLR 929 : 2003 (98) 876 (MP HC).
• Gratuity as payable to an employee is not bounty but a valuable right and its disbursement has to made
without any delay.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corp v Kiritkumar Ponjala Barot, (2003) III LLJ 1035 : 2003 LLR 1069 :
2003-III LLN 1047 (Guj HC)
• An employee will be entitled to gratuity even for the year when he has not worked for 240 days in view
of the amended definition of “continuous service” whereby the service interrupted on account of sickness,
accident etc., is to be included hence the High Court confirmed the order of the Appellate Authority under
the Act, in allowing gratuity to an employee for the years during which he has not worked for 240 days.
Korakundah Estate, Nilgiris v Sagunthala, 2004 LLR 222 : 2004-I LLJ 99 (Mad HC).
Page 35 of 64
• Mere pendency of criminal case against an employee who has retired from service will not be justifiable
ground for an employee to withheld his gratuity.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corp v Devendrabhai Mulvantrai Vaidya, 2004 LLR 225 : 2004-I LLJ 77
(Guj HC).
• For calculation of gratuity as payable to the tappers employed in the rubber estates, “over-kilo” towards
incentive will be taken as wages when particularly in the settlements as made between the parties it is
termed as “over-kilo” wages and not the “over-kilo allowance”.
Koney Estates v Gnana Muthu, 2004 LLR 220 (Ker HC).
• The qualifying period of five years for entitlement of gratuity will not be applicable in case of death of
an employee.
Anant Kumar Mishra v State of Chhattisgarh, 2004-I LLJ 668 (Chhat HC).
• The Controlling and the Appellate Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, were not justified in
including disputed benefits under the settlement which were pending while deciding the issue relating to
such benefit.
Madurai District Central Co-op Bank Ltd v Joint Commissioner of Labour, 2004-I LLJ 774 (Mad HC).
• A nominee under the Payment of Gratuity Act, is a trustee of other legal heirs of the deceased and as
such has no exclusive right over the amount accruing as gratuity.
Gangubai Bhagwan Salawade v Chimanabai Suryabhan Salawade, (2004) 4 Mah LJ 204 : 2004 LLR
1066 (Bom HC).
• Since the Controlling Authority under the Gratuity Act is not a Civil Court, as such, it cannot decide as
to who are legal heirs for receiving gratuity.
Gangubai Bhagwan Salawade v Chimanabai Suryabhan Salawade, 2004 LLR 1066 (Bom HC).
• The provisions of Limitation Act, do not apply before the Appellate Authority under the Gratuity Act.
Page 36 of 64
Commanding Officer, Naval Base v The Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 2004
LLR 1044 (Ker HC).
• For calculation of gratuity of an employee, his absence during the strike period will not be excluded.
Ramakant Atmaram Manjerekar v N.T.C. (M.N.) Ltd, (2004) 4 Mah LJ 541 : 2005 LLR 41 (Bom HC).
• On delayed payment of gratuity by an employer, the Appellate Authority must award the interest on late
payment as per the mandatory provisions of the Act.
Kasturi Bai v Sub-Divisional Officer, P.W.D., Sub-Division, Raisen (Madhya Pradesh), 2005 LLR (SN)
414 (MP HC).
• Even when an employee is working for 22 days in a month, his gratuity will be calculated on 26 days’
basis.
Kone Elevators India Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Labour-II, Controlling Authority under Payment of
Gratuity Act, Chennai, 2005 LLR 442 (Mad HC).
• There is no limitation for claiming gratuity by an employee since it is the obligation of the employer to
give notice to the employee specifying his amount of gratuity.
Transport Manager, Kolhapur Municipal Transport Undertaking, Kolhapur v Pravin Bhabhutlal Shah,
(2005) 1 Mah LJ 497 : 2005 LLR 503 (Bom HC).
• When there is a settlement providing better terms for gratuity i.e., 21 days’ wages per year instead of 15
days, the calculation of gratuity will be at higher rate.
Transport Manager, Kolhapur Municipal Transport Undertaking, Kolhapur v Pravin Bhabhutlal Shah,
(2005) 1 Mah LJ 497 : 2005 LLR 503 (Bom HC).
• A doctor (Anaesthetist), rendering services “as and when required during operation to be conducted”,
will not be an employee under clause (e) of section 2 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, particularly when he
is having his own dispensary.
Harendra Madanjit Desai v Secretary, Kasturba Vaidyakiya Rahat Mandal, 2005-I CLR 943 (Guj HC).
Page 37 of 64
• For a Company having branches in different States, the Controlling authority for claiming gratuity will
be under Central Government.
Rhone Poulene (India) Ltd v Anjali Devrukhar, (2005) 2 Mah LJ 1052 : 2005 LLR 799 (Bom HC).
• The Central, not the State Government, will be appropriate for claiming gratuity by an employee against
Regional Rural Bank.
Mahakoushal Kshetriya Gramin Bank v Appellate Authority, 2005 LLR 1125 (MP HC).
• An in-charge of the factory, not taking policy decision but answerable to the Managing Director and the
Chairman, will be an “employee” under the Gratuity Act.
Lalitkumar D. Thakkar v Controlling Authority & Assistant Labour Commissioner, Surat, 2006 LLR 411
(Guj HC).
• When the Authorities under the Payment of Gratuity Act, have not acted against the law, the High Court
will not interfere.
Baroda Traders Co-op Bank Ltd v Mahendrabhai B. Shah, 2006 LLR 390 (Guj HC).
• Gratuity, as payable to an employee or his legal heir, cannot be adjusted against the loan.
Yada Laxmi v The Andhra Pradesh State Co-op Bank, Hyderabad, 2006 LLR 451 (AP HC).
• The orders of the Authorities under Payment of Gratuity Act, allowing claim of the gratuity will not be
interfered by the High Court when the employee, facing the enquiry, has retired but no penalty has been
imposed.
Gujarat State Road Transport Corp v Rameshkumar Kantilal Zaveri, 2006 LLR 620 (Guj HC).
• A trainee will not be entitled to gratuity for the training period.
General Manager, Yellamma Cotton, Woollen & Silk Mills, Tolahunse, Davanagere v Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) and Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bangalore, 2006
LLR 1029 (Karn HC).
Page 38 of 64
• Gratuity will not be payable to an employee who remained absent without leave and has worked for less
than 240 days.
General Manager, Yellamma Cotton, Woollen & Silk Mills, Tolahunse, Davanagere v Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central) and Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Bangalore, 2006
LLR 1029 (Karn HC).
• Direction by Controlling Authority would not be tenable when employee has not completed five years’
service.
Management, C.M.C. and Hospital, Chennai v Joint Commissioner of Labour (Appellate Authority under
Payment of Gratuity Act), Chennai, 2006 LLR 1118 (SN) (Mad HC).
• Gratuity cannot be claimed under Industrial Disputes Act, since the Payment of Gratuity Act, is a self-
contained Code.
Chairman and Managing Director, National Textile Corp (APKK&M) Ltd, Bangalore v Vemula Lingaiah,
2006 LLR (SN) 1278 (AP HC).
• Excess payment of gratuity can be adjusted against dues payable to an employee.
State Farms Corp of India Ltd v Regional Labour Commissioner, 2007 LLR 58 (Del HC)
• For delay in payment of gratuity, employer will be liable to pay 10%. interest.
S.N. Vasudevaiah v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and Deputy Labour
Commissioner, 2007 LLR 108 (Karn HC).
• If an employer fails to pay gratuity within 30 days from the date it became due, statutory interest will be
payable.
Pyare Mohan Prasad v Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, 2007 LLR 173 (Jhar HC).
• Late submission of application for gratuity cannot justify non-payment of interest.

Page 39 of 64
Pyare Mohan Prasad v Regional Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, 2007 LLR 173 (Jhar HC).
• In case of a conflict between Service Rules and provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, the latter will
prevail.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp v Shivaji, 2007 LLR (SN) 221 (SC).
• An employee will not be entitled to gratuity for the year when not worked for 240 days.
General Manager v Regional Labour Commissioner Central, 2007 LLR 356 (Karn HC).
• An establishment, engaged in processing of fruit and vegetables, will not be a seasonal one for payment
of gratuity.
Santhanam R. v Madura Coats Ltd, Tuticorin, Rep. by its Industrial Relations Manager, 2007 LLR 733
(Mad HC).
• For claiming gratuity, pleadings are not of much importance.
Santhanam R. v Madura Coats Ltd, Tuticorin, Rep. by its Industrial Relations Manager, 2007 LLR 733
(Mad HC).
• Even a delayed claim for gratuity would be tenable since an employee cannot be made to suffer.
R.P. Dhanda v Regional Manager, UCO Bank, Mumbai, 2007 LLR 895 (SN) (Bom HC).
• For calculation of gratuity, service rendered in various units of establishment shall be taken into account.
M.C. Chamaraju v Hind Nippon Rural Industrial Pvt Ltd, 2007 LLR 1129 (SC).
• Hearing of an employee is imperative before making deduction from his gratuity.
State Farms Corp of India Ltd v P.D. Mathai, 2008 LLR 458 (Ker HC).
Page 40 of 64
• In the absence of employer-employee relationship, no gratuity will be payable.
Food Corp of India v V. Mohammed Manzil, 2008 LLR 154 (Ker HC).
• Interim relief will not to be wages for the purposes of computation of gratuity.
Management, Assam Tribune Pvt Ltd v State of Assam, 2008 LLR 215 (SN) (Gau HC).
• Merely because the Government is giving grant to a Trust, it will not become liable for gratuity to the
employees.
State of Gujarat v Ram Krushna Gopal Soni, 2008 LLR 220 (SN) (Guj HC).
• Neither the conveyance nor the site allowance will form part of wages for calculation of gratuity.
Voltas Ltd v Chandrakant Y. Bhramhane, 2008 LLR 84 (Bom HC).
• Pensionary benefit, though introduced unilaterally but having become privilege for employees cannot be
fettered by Gratuity Act.
Tata Tea Ltd (Bombay) Employees’ Union v Tata Tea Ltd, 2008 LLR 19 (Bom HC).
• Prosecution of an employer for non-payment of gratuity will not be quashed.
J. Kumar v State of Jharkhand, 2008 LLR 243 (Jhar HC).
• Prosecution of the employer for non-payment of gratuity as actuated with mala fide is liable to be
quashed.
Dr. M. Mukhopadhaya v State of Jharkhand, 2007 LLR 1182 (Jhar HC).
• Sales representatives, under Sales Promotion Employees (CoS) Act, will not be entitled to gratuity.
Asian Paints (India) Ltd v Appellate Authority, 2008 LLR 541 (Karn HC).
Page 41 of 64
• Default in making timely payment of gratuity will attract 10% interest.
K.L. Chandna v Punjab National Bank, 2008 LLR 568 (Del HC).
• Controlling Authority erred in rejecting claim for gratuity as barred by limitation.
K.P. Backiasamy v Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, and Regional Labour
Commissioner (Central), Chennai, 2008 LLR 737 (Mad HC).
• Declining adjustment of housing loan against the gratuity, on employee’s request, is not justified.
Punjab and Sind Bank, Chandigarh v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), 2008 LLR 735 (P&H
HC).
• Belated claim for gratuity without application for condonation of delay is to be rejected.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp v Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2008 LLR 865 (Karn HC).
• Continuous service for gratuity will be presumed in the absence of order for any break.
H. Ramappa v General Manager, Sri Yellamma Cotton Woollen and Silk Mills, Devanagere District,
2008 LLR 839 (Karn HC).
• Trainees/apprentices not appointed under the Apprentices Act, will be entitled to gratuity.
H. Ramappa v General Manager, Sri Yellamma Cotton Woollen and Silk Mills, Devanagere District,
2008 LLR 839 (Karn HC).
• During pendency of the enquiry, delinquent can resign and gratuity will be payable.
Bombay Mercantile Co-op Bank Ltd v Noor Mohammed Abdul Rehman Mulla, 2008 LLR 1113 (SN)
(Bom HC).
• No fault can be found in computing gratuity on the recommendations of Pay Commission.

Page 42 of 64
Limbdi Municipality v Inayakhusen Nathumiya Saiyad, 2008 LLR 1115 (SN) (Guj HC).
• An employer cannot escape from payment of interest on delayed gratuity.
Principal Vidarbha Ayurved Mahavidyalaya and Hospital, Amravati v Kausalyabai w/o Prahladrao
Raghuvanshi, 2009 LLR 108 (SN) (Bom HC).
• Gratuity Act, never intended that only Controlling Authority be approached for non-payment of gratuity.
Prashant Swarup v UOI, 2009 LLR 159 (Jhar HC).
• In the absence of order of employer under section 4 (6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, forfeiting
gratuity, the controlling authority cannot permit employer to retain any portion of the gratuity in
anticipation of such order.
Narendrakumar Jayshankar Joshi v General Manager, Panchmahal District Co-operatove Bank Ltd,
2009 LLJ 263 (Guj HC).
• Claim for gratuity rightly rejected when the claimant has worked only for three years.
Viramgam Municipality v Dansig Chaturbhai Vaghela, 2009 LLR 631 (Guj HC).
• Gratuity Act, does not apply to government employees hence; the amount is to be refunded.
State of Uttar Pradesh v Ram Chandra Ram, 2009 LLR 633 (All HC).
• Gratuity amount, if paid in excess than the entitlement, has to be refunded.
Chairman-cum-Managing Director Western Coalfields Ltd v Appellate Authority under Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Commissioner (Central), 2009 LLR 547 (SN) (Bom HC).
• No deduction can be made from gratuity even if employee was occupying quarter.
Page 43 of 64
Chairman-cum-Managing Director Western Coalfields Ltd v Appellate Authority under Payment of

Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Commissioner (Central), 2009 LLR 547 (SN) (Bom HC).
• Payment of Gratuity Act, is to be interpreted liberally consistent with the principles of equity and fair
play.
A.M. Sampath v Bank of Baroda, rep. its Chairman & Managing Director, Mumbai, 2009 LLR 534 (Mad
HC).
• Trade mark owner will also be an employer under Payment of Gratuity Act.
Management Seyadu Beedi Co, Tirunelveli v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 2009
LLR 420 (Mad HC).
• Break in services due to absence will not deprive gratuity to workers.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp, Central Office, Bangalore v Dy. Labour Commissioner and
Appellate Authority under the P.G. Act, Bangalore, 2009 LLR 861 (Karn HC).
• Gratuity is to be calculated as if an employee has worked for 26 days instead of 30 days in a month.
K.J. Julius v UOI, 2009 LLR 1164 (SN) (Ker HC).
• In exceptional circumstances, the delay even beyond additional 60 days for filing the gratuity appeal,
can be condoned.
Backbone Projects Ltd v Yogesh Bhavchandbhai Gadhiya, 2009 LLR 1242 (Guj HC).
• Managing Director of a Company, in his personal capacity, can’t be responsible to pay gratuity.
• Interest over interest for delayed gratuity not proper on nonpayment hence liable to be set aside.
Page 44 of 64
• Managing Director will be responsible for payment of gratuity from assets of Company.
• In absence of nomination by deceased employee, payment of gratuity cannot be denied.
• There will be no ceiling for the employees of SAIL for gratuity since they are having an agreement with
the Management to this effect.
Sail Ex-Employees Association v Steel Authority of India Ltd, 2009 LLR 1312 (Del HC).
• Payment of Gratuity Act, in its section 4 (5), protects the gratuity if it happens to be better.
• Non-executive employees of SAIL will be entitled to higher gratuity by virtue of agreement than that
available under the Act.
• Exemption from Gratuity Act, can be granted for employees when they are getting more favourable
gratuity from the employer.
Allahabad Bank v All India Allahabad Bank Retired Employees Association, 2010 LLR 193 (SC).
• It is for the employee, not the employer has to prove continuous working for entitlement of gratuity.
Maliana Co-op Cane Development Union Ltd, Meerut v Tej Ram Sharma, 2010 LLR 26 (All HC).
• Payment of Gratuity Act, does not confer jurisdiction to Controlling Authority to deal with any issue
under section 4 (5) of the Act.
Page 45 of 64
• The right of an employee to receive gratuity cannot be denied by any instrument of contract.
• Unless specifically waived, entitlement of receiving gratuity cannot be denied.
• Welfare statutes like Payment of Gratuity Act, must receive a liberal construction.
• Workers in the seasonal establishments are entitled to gratuity @ 7 days’ wages per year.
Maliana Co-op Cane Development Union Ltd, Meerut v Tej Ram Sharma, 2010 LLR 26 (All HC).
• No amount from gratuity can be adjusted.
Harrisons Malayalam Ltd v Balan, 2010 LLR 220 (SN) : 2009 (123) Fac LR 862 (Ker HC).
• Controlling Authority can lay down its own procedure for determining the gratuity of an employee.
Oil and Natural Gas Corp Ltd v Rukhmani S. Awale (Smt.), 2010 LLR 314 (Bom HC).
• All issues can be decided together instead of only the preliminary issue at the first instance by Authority
under Gratuity Act.
Oil and Natural Gas Corp Ltd v Rukhmani S. Awale (Smt.), 2010 LLR 314 (Bom HC).
• Casual workers working for more than five years are rightly held to be entitled for gratuity.
Page 46 of 64
Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway, Palghat v Appellate Authority under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, 1972 and Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), 2010 LLR 414 (Mad HC).
• An employer under Gratuity Act, is one who has ultimate control over the affairs of mine.
J. Kumar v State of Jharkhand, 2010 LLR (SN) 668 : 2010 (125) Fac LR 170 (Jhar HC).
• When an employer fails to pay gratuity within the prescribed period, the Magistrate can take cognizance.
J. Kumar v State of Jharkhand, 2010 LLR (SN) 668 : 2010 (125) Fac LR 170 (Jhar HC).
• Even a daily-wager will be entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Ahmedabad Municipal Corp v Kantibai Hirabhai, 2010 LLR 712 (Guj HC).
• Interest will be payable on delayed gratuity even when not claimed by employee.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp through its Managing Director v Mohd. Rais Khan, 2010 LLR
887 (All HC).
• Remedy for non-payment of gratuity is by filing application for recovery and not writ petition.
K. Shanmugasundaram v Deputy Registrar of Co-op Societies (Housing), Salem, 2010 LLR 1004 (Mad
HC).
• High Court not to interfere on allowing interest on delayed payment of gratuity.
Gujarat Housing Board v Natwarlal Jagjivan Madia, 2010 LLR (SN) 1020 (Guj HC).
• Gratuity Act, permits the employer to make it more beneficial.
Steel Authority of India Ltd v Taraknath Sengupta, 2010 LLR (SN) 1017 (Cal HC).
• Section 14 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, has an overriding effect over other enactments.
Page 47 of 64
M.D./Member Secretary Uttar Pradesh Co-op Union v Appellate Authority (Payment of Gratuity Act),
2010 LLR 1119 (All HC).
• No deemed exemption from the Payment of Gratuity Act; in the absence of notification.
Municipal Council, Udaipur v Mohd. Safi, 2010 LLR 1269 (Raj HC).
• Gratuity Act would prevail over Service Regulations.
Shambhu Sharan Singh S/o Late Jagdish Narayan Singh v Chairman and Managing Director UCO Bank,
2011 LLR 57 (Pat HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity under the Working Journalists Act, is not restricted to prescribed misconducts.
P. Rajan Sandhi v UOI, 2011 LLR 5 (SC).
• “Personal allowance” and “special compensatory allowance” are not wages for calculation of gratuity.
State Bank of India, Goa v Laxmikant Vithal Palekar, 2011 LLR 133 (Bom HC).
• Casual worker completing five years’ service will also be entitled to gratuity.
Pioneer Spinners, rep. by its General Manager v Regional Labour Commissioner, Central, Chennai,
2011 LLR 151 (Mad HC).
• An employee, even engaged on contract basis, is rightly entitled to gratuity.
Uttar Pradesh Bhumi Sudhar Nigam, Lucknow v Appellate Authority, 2011 LLR 164 (All HC).
• Delay for claiming gratuity will not be condoned in absence of sufficient cause.
State Bank of India, Goa v Laxmikant Vithal Palekar, 2011 LLR 133 (Bom HC).
Page 48 of 64
• Working Journalists Act, etc., will prevail over Gratuity Act, for gratuity to newspaper employees.
• Gratuity Act, is special enactment with over-riding effect over the Provident Fund Act.
Administrative Officer, T.M.S.S.M. Library and Research Centre, Thanjavur v Appellate Authority under
• On re-employment also, gratuity is payable.
Phoenix Mills Ltd, Mumbai v Manohar Arjun Rasal, 2011 LLR 382 (Bom HC).
• Controlling Authority can also allow higher interest on unpaid gratuity.
Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd v Suresh Kumar Chetal, 2011 LLR 444 (SN) : 2011 (128) Fac
LR 745 (Chhat HC).
• Gratuity cannot be denied merely on undertaking that the employee will not claim for the service already
rendered.
M. Selvadurai v Director Personnel Block-I, Corporate Office Neyveli Lignite Corp Ltd, 2011 LLR 457
(Mad HC).
• The words “riotous or disorderly” mean that such acts must be tinged with violence, which causes a
major disruption of the work.
• Object of Payment of Gratuity Act is to ensure that workman is rewarded for the honest service.
• Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act will be the appropriate forum when a person
seeks to have Rs10 lakh after receiving Rs3.5 lakh.
Page 49 of 64
P.S. Gupta v U.O.I, 2011 LLR (SN) 781 : 2011-II CLR 129 (Del HC).
• An employee unauthorisedly retaining employer’s accommodation can’t have gratuity.
Binny Ltd v The Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (Authority under P.G. Act), 2011 LLR 834 (Mad HC).
• Gratuity is a valuable right of an employee under the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Binny Ltd v The Asstt. Commissioner of Labour (Authority under P.G. Act), 2011 LLR 834 (Mad HC).
• No gratuity unless official quarter is vacated by the retired employee.
Asha Saxena (dead) by LRs v U.P. State Electricity Board, 2011 LLR 924 (All HC).
• A teacher being entitled to gratuity can get it w.e.f. 3 April 1997.
Mahendra Singh Chhabra v Appellate Authority, Payments of Gratuity Act, Indore, 2011 LLR 980 (MP
HC).
• Gratuity Act provides for entitlement of gratuity even prior to the enactment of Act.
Ananta Vishwanathan (Mrs.) v Shri Narayana Guru School, 2011 LLR 995 (Bom HC).
• The claim of an employee for gratuity made after five years of taking voluntary retirement – that too
gratuity on fixed personal allowance and special compensatory allowance – should not have been allowed
by the Controlling Authority.
State Bank of India v Shri Laxmikant Vithal Palekar, 2011 LLR (SN) 1005 : 2011 (3) LLN 139 (Bom
HC).
• The Payment of Gratuity Act is a self contained Code hence claim of payment of gratuity, raised by the
workmen before the Labour Court, is not maintainable and the appropriate forum for making claim is the
Controlling Authority under the Act.
Page 50 of 64
VST Industries Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Godavarikhani,

Karimnagar District, 2011 LLR 1170 (AP HC).
• Delay beyond 120 days for filing appeal against Controlling Authority under Gratuity Act can’t be
condoned.
Bhavnagar Municipal Corp v Sunderben Chhanabhai Baraiya Legal heirs of late Chhanabhai, 2011 LLR
1250 (Guj HC).
• Claim for gratuity upheld when employer failed to issue form “M”.
R.K.V. Govindaraj s/o Venkatasamy, Manager, R.K.V. Lorry Transport, Sattur Virudhunagar District v V.
Chellaiah C/o. CITU (Load Man Association), 2012 LLR 203 (Mad HC).
• Allowing gratuity to teachers with retrospective date not illegal.
Jain Citizens Education Society, Surendranagar v UOI, 2012 LLR 292 (Guj HC).
• Continuous service under Gratuity Act will be presumed in absence of notice of break by employer.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp, Bangalore, Rural Division, Bangalore v Deputy Labour
Commissioner and the Appellate Authority, Bangalore, 2012 LLR 263 (Karn HC).
• Gratuity cannot be recovered from the legal heirs.
Prabha Shukla v State of Bihar, 2012 LLR 251 [LNINDORD 2011 PAT 4058] (Pat HC).
• A teacher is entitled to gratuity with retrospective effect.
President/Secretary, Vidarbha Youth Welfare Institution (Society), Amravati v Pradipkumar S/o

Ramchandrarao Lambhate, 2012 LLR 417 (Bom HC).
• For calculation of gratuity the length of service as mentioned in the employees Provident funds slips
have no relevancy.
Page 51 of 64
Madurantakkam Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd, rep. by its Special Officer, Padalam v Joint Commissioner of
Labour (Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972), 2012 LLR 443 (SN): 2012-I CLR
779 (Mad HC).
• Appellate authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act can enhance the amount of gratuity as determined
by the Controlling Authority.
779 (Mad HC).
• The Payment of Gratuity Act does not make any distinction as to whether an employee is casual,
temporary or NMR.
779 (Mad HC).
• High Court will not interfere with the order of Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act by
upholding the order of Controlling Authority allowing gratuity to the claimant since there is nothing in the
findings which could be construed as perverse or arbitrary.
Manager, Neptune Spin Fab. Pvt Ltd v Appellate Authority, Office of Dy. Commissioner of Labour, 2012
LLR (SN) 556 : 2012 (132) Fac LR 998 (Guj HC).
• An order by the Controlling Authority, as upheld by the Appellate Tribunal under the Payment of
Gratuity Act, is liable to be modified when no notice has been taken by the Authority pertaining to break
of service for six years seven months and twenty five days.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp v Dy. Labour Commissioner, 2012 LLR (SN) 558 : 2012 (132)
• Teacher would get gratuity w.e.f. 3 April 1997.
President/Secretary, Vidarbha Youth Welfare Institution (Society), Amravati v Pradipkumar, 2012 LLR
618 (Bom HC)
• A claim for gratuity by an employee lies at a place wherefrom he has retired.

Page 52 of 64
Prafulchandra Baldevprasad Dave v Gujarat Fisheries Co-op Association Ltd, 2012 LLR 578 (Guj HC)
• Controlling Authority under Gratuity Act can’t enforce settlement between employer and employee.
Venugopal v Joint Commissioner of Labour, The Appellate Authority under The Payment of Gratuity Act,
Madurai, 2012 LLR 699 (Mad HC).
• Controlling Authority has to notify the parties before passing the order under Gratuity Act.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v Deputy Labour Commissioner and the Appellate Authority under
the Payment of Gratuity Act, Bangalore, 2012 LLR 838 (Karn HC).
• Even a daily-wager, who has completed five years of service, would be entitled to gratuity under the
Payment of Gratuity Act.
Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Palampur v NAG, 2012 LLR (SN)
895 : 2012 (133) Fac LR 1032 (HP HC)
• Contractual employees are also entitled to gratuity.
Tiruchengode Agricultural Producers Co-op Marketing Society v Appellate Authority under the Payment
of Gratuity Act, 2012 LLR 933 (Mad HC).
• Appeal not the writ is the appropriate remedy against the order of Authority under Gratuity Act.
Rabindranath Choubey v Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Mahanadi Coal Field Ltd, 2012 LLR 967
(Ori HC).
• Gratuity Act also protects higher gratuity.
State Bank of Travancore Rep. by its GMC (F&A) Trivandrum v Asstt. Labour Commissioner (Central),
Controlling Authority under PG Act, Trivandrum, 2012 LLR 955 (Ker HC).
• Unauthorized absence will not be the break in service for disentitlement of gratuity.
Page 53 of 64
PBM Polytex Ltd v UOI, 2012 LLR 1093 (Guj HC).
• Gratuity, if not paid by contractor, principal employer will pay.
Superintending Engineer, Mettur Thermal Power Station, Mettur v Appellate Authority, Joint
Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore, 2012 LLR 1160 (Mad HC).
• Employer can adjust penal rent from the gratuity payable to an employee.
Project Officer v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central)-cum-Appellate Authority under Payment of

Gratuity Act, Dhanbad, 2013 LLR 92 (Jhar HC).
• High Court can also direct for payment of gratuity to an employee.
Sunil Kumar Talapatra v State of West Bengal, 2013 LLR 101 [LNIND 2012 CAL 876] (Cal HC).
• Rejection of gratuity appeal not proper when true instead of certified copy of the Controlling Authority
was attached.
Chairman, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Patna v UOI, 2013 LLR 94 (Pat HC).
• Gratuity can be calculated on higher rates when the rules so prescribe.
State Bank of Travancore, rep. by its General Manager (F&A), Trivandrum v Assistant Labour
Commissioner (Central), Trivandrum, 2013 LLR 83 (Ker HC).
• Deposit of ordered amount is must for filing appeal under Gratuity Act.
Bhavnagar Municipal Corp v Vasantben B. Baraya, 2013 LLR 201 (Guj HC).
• Employer has to pay gratuity and notify to Controlling Authority.
Kraft Palace v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity, 2013 LLR 254 (All HC).
Page 54 of 64
• Payment not made under head of gratuity can’t be set off towards payable gratuity.
Kraft Palace v Appellate Authority under Payment of Gratuity Act, 2013 LLR 254 (All HC).
• Ad hoc payment made to the appellants, under interim order of the Apex Court, will not be included in
wages for calculation of gratuity under section 2 (s) of the Payment of Gratuity Act.
Surendra Pathak v Hindustan Fertilizer Corpn. Ltd, 2013 LLR (SN) 330 : 2012 (135) Fac LR 819 (Pat
HC).
• Staff Society, Housing & Vehicle Loan or Professional Tax etc. can’t be adjusted against gratuity.
(MP HC).
• A contractor is primarily liable to pay gratuity.
Superintending Engineer, Purchase v Appellate Authority, Joint Commissioner of Labour, Coimbatore,

2013 LLR 374 (Mad HC).
• Filing of execution for recovery of interest on delayed payment of gratuity would not be necessary.
Ananta Vishwanathan v Shri Narayana Guru High School, 2013 LLR (SN) 444 (Bom HC).
• Gratuity Act is a beneficial legislation for employees.
• Interest accrues on delay in payment of gratuity.
• As per amended definition of “employee” under the Payment of Gratuity Act, teachers are entitled to the
benefits of the Act.
Page 55 of 64
Shamaraja Udupa v Assistant Labour Commissioner, Mangalore, 2013 LLR (SN) 559 : 2013 (1) Lab IC
810 (Karn HC).
• Gratuity can be adjusted towards loan if the agreement so provides.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v Appellate Authority, 2013 LLR 637 (All HC).
• Calculation of gratuity has to be on last drawn wages.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp, Azamgarh v Additional Labour Commissioner, U.P.-cum-
Appellate Authority (Payment of Gratuity Act), 2013 LLR 613 (All HC).
• There is no illegality in awarding admitted amount of gratuity to be paid to the employee with travelling
allowance under section 33-C (2) of the Act.
State of Uttar Pradesh v The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra, 2013 LLR (SN) 665 : 2013 (2) LLN
58 (All HC).
• The employee who had worked on daily wages but later on absorbed the period of service as daily wager
would be counted for the payment of gratuity.
Assistant Executive Engineer, Maintenance Sub-Division, Cauveny Neeravari Nigam Ltd v Dy. Labour
Commissioner and Appellate Authority, Bangalore, 2013 LLR (SN) 669 : 2013 (137) Fac LR 292 (Karn
HC).
• Gratuity can be adjusted against dues when the employee has given an unconditional consent.
Amar Kumar Haldar v Saraswati Press Ltd, 2013 LLR 774 [LNIND 2012 CAL 425] (Cal HC).
• Gratuity cannot be denied even if the employee has waived his right in a settlement.
Gokul Chandra Das (dead) by LRs v Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd,
2013 LLR 745 (Ori HC).
• Controlling Authority will not enforce private gratuity scheme.

Page 56 of 64
Management, Virudhunagar District Central Co-op Bank Ltd v Assistant Commissioner of Labour,
Madurai, 2013 LLR 734 (Mad HC).
• Travelling allowance included for calculation of gratuity.
R.M. Engineering Works v Khushalbhai Manilal Chavda, 2013 LLR 803 (Guj HC).
• Lump sum compensation, in lieu of reinstatement, not debars right to gratuity.
• Scarcity of fund not justify for paying gratuity.
Babul Ranjan Singha S/o Late Rash Mohan Singha, Tripura v Triputa Road Transport Corp, 2013 LLR
817 (Guj HC).
• Delayed payment of gratuity will attract interest.
• Employers’ rules can’t be for lesser gratuity than in the Act.
Indian Red Cross Society, Orissa State, represented through its Honorary Secretary v Bankanidhi Mishra,
2013 LLR 810 (Ori HC).
• Additional gratuity out of settlement not payable to an employee who had already retired.
Parshottambhai Keshavbhai Goyani v Bhavnagar Distt. Co-op Bank Ltd, 2013 LLR 954 (Guj HC).
• Internal rules when causing prejudice to employees can’t prevail over Gratuity Act.
Mahavir Singh Tyagi v Food Corp of India, 2013 LLR 1016 (Del HC).
• Employer can’t adjust any dues from gratuity.

Page 57 of 64
Mahavir Singh Tyagi v Food Corp of India, 2013 LLR 1016 (Del HC).
• Nothing stops an employee from receiving benefits under Payment of Gratuity Act in view of sub-
section (5) of section 4 of the Act.
Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corp Ltd v Jagdish Narain Rawat, 2013 LLR (SN) 1112 : 2013 (138)
Fac LR 605 (All HC).
• Since the employee has raised the claim after nine years for additional gratuity, he will not be paid
interest.
Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission Corp Ltd v Jagdish Narain Rawat, 2013 LLR (SN) 1112 : 2013 (138)
• Payment of Bonus Act and Payment of Gratuity Act do not make any difference whether an employee is
a temporary, ad hoc or permanent.
Ram Krishan v Managing Director, Himachal Pradesh Forest Corp Ltd, 2013 LLR (SN) 1111 : 2013
(138) Fac LR 729 (HP HC).
• An employer will pay gratuity when due within 30 days.
Ashok v Vidarbha Youth Welfare Society, 2013 LLR 1184 (Bom HC).
• Training period to be counted for calculation of gratuity.
Sambhunath Chatterjee v Eastern Coalfields Ltd, 2013 (4) LLJ 243 : 2013 LLR 1264 [LNIND 2013 CAL
529] (Cal HC).
• Deposit of gratuity must for filing appeal before the Appellate Authority.
National Textile Corp Ltd v Dy. Labour Commissioner, Appellate Authority under P.G. Act, 2014 LLR
71 (MP HC).
Page 58 of 64
• Grade pay of the teachers has been rightly allowed to be forming part of wages for calculation of
gratuity.
St. Xavier’s School v State of Jharkhand, 2014 LLR (SN) 104 : 2013 (139) Fac LR 53 (Jhar HC).
• Gratuity Act does not contemplate distinction among permanent, temporary or substitute employee.
Commissioner, Idappadi Municipality, Idappadi, Salem v Joint Commissioner of Labour, The Appellate
Authority Under the Payment of Gratuity Act, Coimbatore, 2014 LLR 728 (Mad HC).
• Apprentices not engaged under the Apprentices Act are entitled to gratuity.
• Gratuity Act over-rides all other enactments.
• Apprentices under the Apprentices Act are exempt by Gratuity Act.
• Inordinate and unexplained delay for claiming gratuity not justified.
Ramdas Naw v Bank of India, 2014 LLR 869 (Cal HC).
• Recovery of loss caused to the property of the employer cannot be made from the gratuity payable to the
employee on his superannuation.
Western Coalfields Ltd v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), 2014 LLR (SN) 1007 : 2014 (142)
Fac LR 383 (Bom HC).
Page 59 of 64
• The provisions of Gratuity Act would not prevail over the Regulation framed under the Banking
Companies.
United Bank of India v Sri Pranab Kumar Bhuiyan, 2014 LLR (SN) 998 (Cal HC).
• An employee can’t be asked to furnish bank guarantee for receiving gratuity.
Maharashtra Gramin Bank v Dhondiba Raghoji Kahalekar, 2014 LLR 1037 (Bom HC).
• Section 4 (5) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 confers power upon appropriate government to
exempt any establishment to which the Act applies.
St. Joseph’s College v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 LLR (SN) 1227 : 2014 (142) Fac LR 1103 (All HC).
• More beneficial gratuity scheme, over Payment of Gratuity Act, is permissible.
R. Balurao, S/o Late Ramachandra Shivabhat Jois v Divisional Controller KSRTC, Mysore, Urban
Division, 2015 LLR 1249 (Karn HC).
• Gratuity has to be paid within 30 days of cessation of employment.
Employers in relation to the Management of West Moodidih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd,
Dhanbad v Maheshi Saw, 2015 LLR 34 (Jhar HC).
• Gratuity is not a charity, but is payable for the service rendered by employee.
Employers in relation to the Management of West Moodidih Colliery of Bharat Coking Coal Ltd,
Dhanbad v Maheshi Saw, 2015 LLR 34 (Jhar HC).
• Gratuity is not bounty to be distributed by the employer.
D.D. Tiwari v Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd, 2015 LLR 126 (SC).
• An employee to receive better terms of gratuity under any Award or agreement or contract with the
employer.
Page 60 of 64
State Farms Corp of India Ltd v P.S. Gupta, 2015 LLR (SN) 210 : 2014 (143) Fac LR 632 (Del HC).
• Forfeiture of gratuity can be only when misconduct is in the course of his employment.
General Manager, Western Washery Zone, Bharat Coking Coal Ltd v Brajendra Kumar Choubey, 2015
LLR (SN) 213 : 2014 (143) Fac LR 662 (Jhar HC).
• Gratuity cannot attach in execution of any decree or order of any civil, revenue or criminal Court.
Management, Salem Agricultural Producers’ Co-op Marketing Society Ltd v V. Rajendran, 2015 LLR
(SN) 216 : 2014 (143) Fac LR 694 (Mad HC).
• A teacher is also entitled to gratuity.
New Green Field Public School v Controlling Authority, 2015 LLR 233 (Del HC).
• Gratuity can’t be denied to an employee when others have been paid.
Board of Trustees, Haryana Rajya Bal Bhawan v The Appellate Authority, 2015 LLR 249 (P&H HC).
• Casual worker/daily wagers are entitled to payment of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
M.M.T.C. (MICA Division) v Sajjan Kumar Bhudolia, 2015 LLR (SN) 330 : 2015 (144) Fac LR 136 (Jhar
HC).
• Gratuity can’t be forfeited in the absence of prescribed procedure.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, Dhanbad v Sri Vijay Prasad Singh, 2015 LLR 445 (Jhar HC).
• The Gratuity Act has overriding effect over the other enactments as per section 14 of the Act.
University of Delhi v Sh. Tahel Ram Bellani, 2015 LLR (SN) 555 (Del HC).
Page 61 of 64
• Demand of employee for payment of gratuity cannot be barred by time limitation.
University of Delhi v Sh. Tahel Ram Bellani, 2015 LLR (SN) 555 (Del HC).
• An employer can’t question limitation if no notice under section 7 (2) of the Gratuity Act is given to
employee.
Managing Director (M.D.), Maharashtra State Co-operative Tribal Development Corp Ltd (MSCTDC
Ltd), Nashik (M.S.) v Purushottam s/o Asaram Raut, aged: Major, Resident & Post Village Ghanod,
Tahsil: Sakoli, District: Bhandara, 2015 LLR 610 (Bom HC).
• Recovery of any amount from gratuity contrary to law is illegal.
Bankey Bihari Chauhan v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2015 LLR (SN) 669 (All HC).
• 240 days service in the 5th year will be treated five years for gratuity.
Sreeja v Regional Joint Labour Commissioner, 2015 LLR 826 (Ker HC).
• No limitation is prescribed for claiming gratuity by an employee.
Paramount Impex Pvt Ltd v Appellate Authority, 2015 LLR 1256 (P&H HC).
• Cash payment of Rs1,31,885 made to the employee towards gratuity is not free from doubt.
Paramount Impex Pvt Ltd v Appellate Authority, 2015 LLR 1256 (P&H HC).
• Gratuity to be paid on five-year service irrespective of permanent or on temporary basis.
Balvant Mohan Badve v Ahmednagar Municipal Corp, 2016 LLR 305 (Bom HC).
• Teachers entitled to gratuity with retrospective effect.

Page 62 of 64
Gharshala Buniyadi Shikshan Vibhag (Home School) v Madhuben Mansukhlal Gohel, 2016 LLR 1062
(Guj HC).
• An employee working for two interconnected companies will be entitled to gratuity for his entire period
of service.
Rajvir Singh v Appellate Authority, 2016 LLR 1088 (P&H HC).
• Application for setting as ex-parte order under Gratuity Act filed after 30 days not to be rejected at
threshold.
Kuruvithadam Associates Pvt Ltd v Controlling Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 2016 LLR
1089 (Ker HC).
• Teachers are entitled to gratuity for the period as served even prior to amendment.
Gharshala Buniyadi Shikshan Vibhag (Home School) v Madhuben Mansukhlal Gohel, 2016 LLR 1062
(Guj HC).
• Interest payable on delayed payment of gratuity.
Rajvir Singh v Appellate Authority, 2016 LLR 1088 (P&H HC).
• 15 days wages of a month for gratuity and the month comprises 26 days.
Baban v Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming Corp Ltd, 2016 LLR 1140 (Bom HC).
• Gratuity is payable even to a casual or temporary employee.
Baban v Estate Manager, Maharashtra State Farming Corp Ltd, 2016 LLR 1140 (Bom HC).
• Claim under the Payment of Gratuity Act, before the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court is not
maintainable.
Page 63 of 64
Rameshbhai Jesangbhai Solanki v Medical Officer, 2017 LLR (SN) 110 : 2016 (151) Fac LR 133 (Guj
HC).
• Termination is a must for forfeiture of gratuity for the prescribed misconduct (s).
Jorsingh Govind Vanjari v Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp, 2017 LLR
200 (SC).
• Authority under Payment of Wages Act can to attach the property of defaulting employer.
Accent Microcell Pvt Ltd v Pravinbhai K. Vaghela, 2017 LLR 186 (Guj HC).
• Interest must be paid on delayed payment of gratuity.
Jagdish Narain Tripathi v State of U.P, 2017 LLR 172 (All HC).
• Attendance bonus is not “wages” under Gratuity Act.
General Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, Korba v Ram Bali Ram, 2017 LLR 507 (Chht HC).
Appropriate government for Gratuity Act will be Central if establishments are located in different States.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Logistics Ltd, Mangalore v Deputy Labour Commissioner & Appellate
Authority, Hassan, 2017 LLR 714 (Karn HC).
• Even if there is some delay, the Appellants are entitled to gratuity with interest with special costs of Rs
5000.
Dnyanoba Vishnu Sawant v Sitaram Mills, Unit of National Textile Corp, North Maharashtra, 2017 II
CLR 414 : 2017 LLR (SN) 886 Bom HC 886.
• Calculation is to be made on the basis of last drawn monthly wages divided by 26 and multiplying the
quotient by 15.
Page 64 of 64
Madhodas Jankidas Mohta Ginning and Pressing Factory v Hirabai Wd/o Mohan Chavan, Wardha, 2017
LLR (SN) 987 : 2017 II CLR 573 (Bom HC).
• Employer is obliged to pay gratuity on retirement of employee.
General Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd v Pritpal Singh, 2017 LLR 1143 (MP HC).
• Appellate authority may condone delay of 32 years, but the claim to be decided by Controlling
Authority.
General Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd v Pritpal Singh, 2017 LLR 1143 (MP HC).
• The loan amount cannot be adjusted against gratuity.
Bidyut Baran Halder v The State of West Bengal, 2018 LLR 32 (Cal HC).
• Compound interest on delayed payment of gratuity only after issuing of recovery certificate.
Secretary, Board of Trustees, NTPC Employees Gratuity Fund, New Delhi v S.N. Bhojasiya, 2018 LLR
37 (Chhatt HC).
• Associate professor in an educational institution is entitled to gratuity.
State of Kerala v Omana, 2018 LLR 132 (Ker HC).
• Writ petition is not maintainable if alternative efficacious remedy is provided for claiming gratuity.
A.K. Tandon v Central Bank of India, 2018-I CLR 209 (Del HC).
End of Document
Cases (1990-2018), 12th ed
Chapter 36TRANSFER OF AN EMPLOYEE
(i) JURISDICTION OF COURTS IN MATTERS OF TRANSFERS
• Transfer from one place to another - Court can revoke in exceptional circumstances such as the
employee being heart patient and at the verge of retirement.
Thirumalal (N) v Binny Ltd (represented by its Managing Director) Madras, 1990 LLR 104 : 1989-II
LLN 1037 (Mad HC).
• Transfer order challenged in civil court - Validity and jurisdiction of civil court - Although the civil
court holding that it had no jurisdiction but granted interim injunction - Held to be unsustainable.
Southern Roadways Ltd, Madurai v G. Palanikumar, 1990 LLR 140 : 1990-LLN 119 (Mad HC).
• Jurisdiction of civil court - Barred by implication - Workman employed as a fitter under Southern
Roadways Ltd at Madurai - Transferred to Mangalore - Where there was no maintenance department -
Transfer due to mala fide - And unfair labour practice - Workman has remedy in forum created under
Industrial Disputes Act - Jurisdiction of civil courts is impliedly barred.
V. Mookan Major v The Branch Manager, Southern Roadways Ltd Bangalore, 1990 LLR 150 (Kar HC).
• Court cannot interfere with the transfer of an employee unless done by way of punishment or tainted
with mala fide - An office-bearer of the union held guilty after enquiry reduced in rank - The charges
pertained to resorting to strike and inciting other workers to strike work and causing loss of production
etc. On the same day employee transferred to Trichy from Ranipet - Transfer not by way of punishment
but by way of administrative exigencies.
P. Sekar v Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd (represented by its General Manager, Boiler Auxiliaries Plant)
Ranipet, 1990 LLR 509 : 1990-II LLN 182 (Mad HC).
• Contract of service specifically providing liability of the employee being transferred to any of the
Page 2 of 58
establishments - Transfer under the contract of service cannot be challenged under the general law before
the civil court.
Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd (represented by its Chairman) v T. Venkateswaran, 1992 LLR 544 :
1992-I LLN 627 (Mad HC).
• Jurisdiction of the court or tribunal - should not interfere unless transfer order is passed in violation of
the rules or is mala fide. Inference of mala fide cannot be drawn on the banks of insinuation and vague
suggestions.
Rajendra Roy v UOI, (1993) 1 SCC 148 : AIR 1993 SC 1236 [LNINDORD 2012 CATND 1367]: (1993)
1 CLR 5 : 1993 Lab IC 446 : (1993) 1 Serv LR 126 : 1993 LLR 73 (SC).
• Transfer cannot be challenged by an employee when it is in the interest of organisation. If the transfer is
in accordance with the settlement, the same cannot be challenged and no relief can be given by the court.
K.V. Cheluvalah v Management, Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd, 1993 LLR 160 (Kar HC).
• Interference of the court in orders of transfer - Courts will not interfere unless there is mala fide or by
way of victimisation.
Vijaya Bank Officers’ Congress (Regd.) v Vijaya Bank, 1993 LLR 229 : 1993 Lab IC 1781 : 1993-II LLJ
28 : 1993-I LLN 401 (Kar HC).
• Civil Court - If has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter - Determination - Principle laid down in
Premier Automobile case; AIR 1975 (SC) 165 referred and relied - Jurisdiction of Civil Court is ousted.
Jagdish Narain Sharma v Rajasthan Patrika Ltd, 1994 LLR 265 : 1994-II LLJ 600 : 1994 Lab IC 388
(Raj HC).
• Scope of interference by the court. It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what
point of time a public servant is to be transferred from his present posting. Ordinarily the courts have no
jurisdiction to interfere with the order of transfer.
Kamalsingh Chauhan v Chairman, Industrial Court, Indore, 1995 LLR 41 : 1995-II CLR 359 : 1995-II
LLN 398 (MP HC).
Page 3 of 58
• Transfer of an employee on administrative reasons and exigencies of work - Cannot be interfered by the
court.
G. Prabhakaran v Southern Petrochemicals Industries Corp Ltd, 1995 LLR 744 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of an employee - It is for the management and not the court to decide - Managerial decisions
cannot be questioned in the court. So long as the petitioner is not reduced in rank and terms of his
appointment warrant transfer to other places, the petitioner cannot complain.
• Maintainability - Transfer of employee in a private company - Challenging by filing writ petition - Not
maintainable.
• Transfer of a workman to a sister concern on his own request - Right of seniority waived - Settlement
arrived at by the Unions with management pertaining to seniority, promotion and other benefits - Disputes
relating to enforcement of rights and obligations created by Industrial Disputes Act - Civil Courts have no
jurisdiction since appropriate remedy is provided under Industrial Disputes Act.
Tamil Nadu Cement Corp Ltd v Jabamalai, 1995 LLR 991 : 1995 (71) Fac LR 308 (Mad HC).
• Jurisdiction of courts to interfere with the order of transfer of an employee- Normally courts do not
interfere with the discretionary orders of transfer - No material pertaining to mala fide - Order passed by
the Industrial Court is within its jurisdiction.
Kamalsingh Chauhan v Industrial Court, Indore, 1995 LLR 1021 (MP HC).
• Transfer of employees is incident of service and the court will not interfere unless mala fide.
Bank of India Staff Union, West Bengal v Bank of India, Eastern Zone, (1996) 73 Fac LR 1727 : (1996) 2
LLJ 1219 [LNIND 1996 CAL 71] : (1996) 2 LLN 389 : 1996 LLR 810 (Cal HC).
• Guidelines issued pertaining to transfer by a bank have no statutory force and the court cannot enforce
them.
Page 4 of 58
D. Suryanarayana Murthy v State Bank of Hyderabad, 1996 LLR 1050 : 1996-II CLR 664 : 1996-I LLJ
784 (AP HC).
• Courts will not interfere with a transfer order even when it is effected within short time.
D. Suryanarayana Murthy v State Bank of Hyderabad, 1996 LLR 1050 : 1996-II CLR 664 : 1996-I LLJ
784 (AP HC).
• Transfer of employees from one depot to another due to exigencies will not be interfered by the High
Court since the petitioners have been departmentalised and facilities available to the directly recruited
employees have been extended to the departmentalised Mazdoors as per the terms of settlement between
the management and workers’ union, cannot be allowed to resist their transfer when there is no sufficient
work for them at Jabalpur.
Shankarlal Yadav v Food Corp of India, 1996 LLR 1140 (MP HC).
• Transfer of an employee in transferable service - Interference by the courts - Transfer of employees is

administrative decision - Courts should be slow in interfering in such matters when transfer of an
employee is not contrary to the service rules.
Executive Engineer, Ahmednagar v Madhav Narhari Walake, (1996) 2 Mah LJ 922 : 1977 LLR 152
(Bom HC).
• High Court will not interfere in matter of transfer of an employee. Impugned order of transfer indicated
that the petitioner has been transferred on administrative grounds which establishes that the present
transfer is not a routine transfer or transfer in public interest. The transfer is an exigency of service and is
not punishment in any manner.
Kalap Nath Singh v National Seeds Corp Ltd, 1997 LLR 388 (All HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another is an incident of service and the civil courts have no
jurisdiction to interfere.
Thiruvalluvar Transport Corp Ltd v K.P. Ganesan, (1997) 3 LLN 317 : (1997) II LLJ 166 : 1997 LLR
832 (Mad HC).
• The appropriate forum for a workman to challenge his transfer is under Industrial Disputes Act and not
before the civil court.
Page 5 of 58
832 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of an employee made on administrative grounds in public interest cannot be reviewed

judicially.
832 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of an employee will not be stalled by the court on the ground that the transfer has been made in
violation of Government policy or that the employee is a heart patient or that his mother had a heart attack
or that his daughter is in XII standard and having her examinations.
Jayantilal Parshotamdass Panchal v Commissioner of Motor Transport, Gujarat State, 1997 Lab IC
1982 : 1997 LLR 918 (Guj HC).
• Courts will not interfere if a transfer is not mala fide and is on administrative reasons.
R.K. Mishra v Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corp, 1998 LLR 125 (MP HC).
• High Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction can give relief to an employee transferred as a
punishment.
Shamrao Chandrappa Kamble v Deputy Engineer (B&C) Panchayat Samiti, (1998) 1 Mah LJ 109 : 1998
LLR 750 (Bom HC).
• Industrial Court must consider the relevant factors and the background of the transfer order.
LLR 750 (Bom HC).
• Transfer of an employee on administrative ground is an incident of service and cannot be interfered in

writ petition.
Nageswara Kumar v Indian Overseas Bank, Madras, 1998 II LLJ 74 (AP HC).
Page 6 of 58
• No hardship can be pleaded by a transferred employee.
S.L. Reddi v Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp (represented by its Managing Director)
Hyderabad, 1999 LLR 34 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee in accordance with Standing Orders as certified under Industrial Employment
(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 will not amount to change in service conditions under the Industrial Disputes
Act.
Management of Cipla Ltd v Shri Jayakumar R, (1999) 1 SCC 300 [LNIND 1997 SC 1473] : (1998) 1 LLJ
460 [LNIND 1997 SC 1473] : 1999 SCC (L&S) 292 : 1998 LLR 63 (SC).
• An employer has a vested power to determine who should work in the interest of administration.
S.L. Reddi v Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp (represented by its Managing Director),
• Transfer of an employee within the same town/city will not be deemed as a transfer.
S.L. Reddi v Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp (represented by its Managing Director),
• Transfer of a Medical Officer will not be mala fide if made in public interest.
Anil B. Mathur v Nuclear Power Corp of India Ltd, (1999) 81 Fac LR 302 : 1999 LLR 35 (Bom HC).
• Transfer of employee from one place to another is the prerogative of the management unwarranting
court interference.
Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp, Hyderabad v C.V. Reddi, 1999 LLR 441 (AP HC): 1999-I
CLR 426.
• Courts will not interfere with a transfer order even when it is effected within short time.
Krishna Kumar Verma v Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board, Jabalpur, 2001 LLR 160 (MP HC).
Page 7 of 58
• Stalling transfer of a bank employee by High Court will not be tenable.
State Bank of India v Anjayan Sanyal, (2001) 5 SCC 508 [LNIND 2001 SC 953] : AIR 2001 SC 1748
[LNIND 2001 SC 953]: 2001 LLR 548 (SC).
• Courts or Tribunals can interfere when transfer has been made to punish an employee.
V.V. Ramana Reddy v Chief General Manager, Bharath Sanchar Nigam Ltd, Hyderabad, 2001 LLR 809
(AP HC).
• Staying of transfer order by Industrial Court will be justified when it is mala fide.
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Ltd v Brihan Mumbai Union of Journalists, (2001) 89 Fac LR
1006 : 2001 LLR 790 (Bom HC).
• Industrial Tribunal can stay the transfer of the workman when there is no condition of service.
First Flight Couriers Ltd v Karnataka Courier & Cargo General Employees’ Union CITU Office, 2001
LLR 221 (Karn HC).
• Courts will not interfere in matters of transfer unless it is mala fide.
National Hydro-Electric Power Corp Ltd v Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 [LNIND 2001 SC 2009] :
AIR 2001 SC 3309 [LNIND 2001 SC 2009]: (2001) 91 Fac LR 259 : (2001) 2 LLJ 1243 [LNIND 2001
SC 2009] : 2001 LLR 1222 (SC).
• Court will not interfere in transfer of an employee.
Pradip Kumar Roy Choudhury v Oil & Natural Gas Corp Ltd, (2001) 89 Fac LR 904 : 2001 LLR 434
(Cal HC).
• Staying transfer because of the balance of convenience in favour of employee will be set aside.
Wimco Ltd v Wimco Employees Union, (2002) 92 Fac LR 426 : 2002 LLR 31 (Bom HC).
Page 8 of 58
• Courts will not interfere in transfer unless it is mala fide.
Usha Martin Industries Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, 2002 LLR 305 : 2002 Lab
IC 1059 : 2002 (92) Fac LR 269 (Jhar HC).
• When the transfer of an employee is motivated to ease him out, the Court will quash the same.
Birendra Kumar Singh v UOI, (2002) 95 Fac LR 154 : 2002 LLR 1196 (Cal HC).
• In the absence of administrative exigencies, the transfer of an employee will be set aside by the Court.
• On transfer of an employee the High Court will not interfere unless it is an act of victimisation.
Sekhar Rudra v Oil India Ltd, 2003 LLR 311 (Gau HC).
• Transfer of an employee being an exigency of service, the court will not ordinarily interfere in such
matters.
Bihari Lal Chauhan v Director of Factories, Uttar Pradesh Kanpur, 2003 LLR 433 : 2003 (96) Fac LR
1087 (All HC).
• Transfer of a teacher from one school to another in neighbouring school cannot be interfered by the High
Court when it is an incident of service and also causing of inconvenience to the employee has no bearing.
Nepal Singh Dodia v State of Madhya Pradesh, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) 760 : 2003 LLR 666 : 2003 (97)
Fac LR 665 (MP HC).
• The High Court will not interfere in the award of the Industrial Tribunal in holding that the transfer of an
employee was mala fide since the employee has expressed his difficulty to comply with the directions due
to advance pregnancy of his wife who was also receiving treatment in ESI Hospital.
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) 629 :
2003 LLR 1040 (Del HC).
Page 9 of 58
• The courts will be slow in interfering with the transfer of employees except when there is any malafide
or violation of statutory rules.
Shambhu Paswan v Central Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd through its Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, Kanke Road, Ranchi, 2004 LLR 753 (Jhar HC).
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd v State of Jharkhand, 2004 LLR 1014 (Jhar HC).
Chitra Srivastava (Ms) v Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi, (2004) 12 SCC 299 : (2004) 6 Serv
LR 189 : 2004 LLR 1076 (Del HC).
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v Damodar Prasad Pandey, (2004) 12 SCC 299 : (2004) 6 Serv LR 189 :
2004 LLR 1103 (SC).
H.K. Chawala v India Oil Corp, 2005 LLR 226 (Del HC).
Sri R. Jamdadappa v UOI, 2005 LLR 512 (Karn HC).
• Transfer of an employee being an incident of service, the Court will not interfere even when there have
been frequent transfers.
Chairman, Prathama Bank v Jaspal Singh, 2005 LLR 278 (All HC).
• Transfer of an employee, being incident of service and also incorporated in the Certified Standing
Orders besides in the appointment letter of the workman, will not be interfered by the High Court.
Dharambir Singh v UOI, 2005 Lab IC 1412 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee can be set aside when there is (i) violation of statutory rules, or (ii) mala fides
or (iii) infraction of professional norms or principles governing transfer.
Kundan Lal Shah v Additional Director of Education, Uttaranchal, 2004 LLR 380 : 2004 (100) Fac LR
794 (Uttr HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another is a normal incident of service and the High Court
will not interfere.
Page 10 of 58
M. Ameetha Begum v Commissioner, Marungapuri, Panchayat Union, Trichy District, 2005 LLR 723 :
2005 (105) Fac LR 869 (Mad HC).
• Transfer, due to exigencies of work and not violative of the statutory rules or mala fide, will not be
interfered by the Court.
K. Selva Rajan v Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism Corp Ltd, Chennai, 2005 LLR 778 (Mad HC).
• In the matter of transfer of employee, the Courts do not interfere unless it is actuated with malafide.
Devendra Kumar Sharma v South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, 2005 LLR 772 (Chht HC).
• Transfer of an employee, being an incident of service, cannot be stalled on grounds of personal

difficulties.
Devendra Kumar Sharma v South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd, 2005 LLR 772 (Chht HC).
• Transfer from one place to another, being condition of service and in the absence of any mala fide, has
to be complied with by the employees.
T.V. Sundram Iyengar and Sons Ltd v Sanjay Kumar Jadhav, 2005 LLR 928 (MP HC).
• Industrial Court has erred in staying the transfer of an employee being in the middle of session of
children education.
T.V. Sundram Iyengar and Sons Ltd v Sanjay Kumar Jadhav, 2005 LLR 928 (MP HC).
• Staying of transfer of an employee, till end of academic year on the ground of his two studying children,
will not be proper.
Palanisamy v General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp Ltd, 2005 LLR 1001 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of an employee is an incident of service and the courts will interfere only when it is mala fide
arbitrary.
Page 11 of 58
1. D.B. Mathur v Cement Corp of India, 2006 LLR 240 (Del HC).
2. Palanisamy v General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp Ltd, 2005 LLR 1001 (Mad
HC).
• Transfer of an employee has been wrongly interfered by the Court when he has challenged the order
after 14 months.
Indian Tourism Development Corp v G.S. Panwar, 2006 LLR 468 (Del HC).
• High Court can grant stay of transfer when it is mala fide since no such remedy is available under I.D.
Act.
Chitra Srivastava v Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2006 LLR 1057 (Del HC).
• No court can interfere with the transfer when it is for administrative reasons.
Municipal Corp of Delhi v Chattarbhuj Bhushan Sharma, 2007 LLR 32 (Del HC).
• No relief to an employee for non-compliance of transfer from one park to another in the same city.
1. Municipal Corp of Delhi v Chattarbhuj Bhushan Sharma, 2007 LLR 32 (Del HC).
2. Arifa Nauman v Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2007 LLR 127 (Del HC).
3. D.B. Mathur v Cement Corp of India, 2006 LLR 240 (Del HC).
4. R.N. Tiwari v Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd, 2007 LLR 249 (Del HC).
• Employer and not the Labour Courts/Tribunals have to decide about transfer of officers/workmen on
administrative grounds.
Shyam Sunder Aggarwal v Globe Detective Agency Pvt Ltd, 2007 LLR 390 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another is an incident of service but can be stayed when mala
fide.
Page 12 of 58
Yamala Srinivasa Rao v Senior Manager Central Bank of India, 2007 LLR 631 (AP HC).
• Courts do not interfere ordinarily with transfer of employee except where it is mala fide.
• Courts can interfere with the transfer order only on ground of mala fide or violative of law.
Dr. K. Shringi v Nuclear Power Corp of India Ltd, 2007 LLR 1090 (Raj HC).
• Normally courts do not interfere with transfers of the employees since it is prerogative of the employer.
General Manager, N.E. Railway Gorakhpur v Shri Niwas Dubey, 2007 LLR 1205 (All HC).
• Transfer of an employee, if administrative decision, courts should not interfere.
Mohd. Masood Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 LLR 1137 (SC).
• Unless there are mala fide, the courts would not interfere with transfer of employees.
• A punitive transfer of a Bank employee liable to be set aside.
Bakarupanda Padmavathi v Bank of India, 2008 LLR 878 (AP HC).
• Civil Court can interfere with the transfer of an employee only when it is mala fide.
Singapore Airlines Ltd v Quentin Rodrigues, 2008 LLR 900 (Bom HC).
• Transfer of a workman to a far off place, not being conversant with the language, is liable to be quashed.
Page 13 of 58
Management of Holy Faith International Pvt Ltd, Chennai v Presiding Officer, I-Addl. Labour Court,
• Transfer of an employee from Lucknow to Calicut not to be interfered when there is no mala fide.
Airports Authority of India v Rajeev Ratan Pandey, AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 322 : AIR 2010 SCW 321 :
2009 LLR 1064 (SC).
• Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to decide a suit challenging transfer (of an employee in private sector)
by employee since it will amount to enforcing of personal contract which is barred by the Specific Relief
Act.
Apollo Tyres Ltd v C.P. Sebastin, 2010 LLR 192 (SC).
• Court will interfere in the matter of transfer only when it is done by way of victimization whereas in the
present case it was by way of victimisation.
Management of Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd, 25-B SIPCOT, Ranipet v Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Vellore, 2010 LLR 267 (Mad HC).
• An order of transfer of an employee from one place to another is not to be interfered by High Court.
Gautam Sengupta v Punjab & Sind Bank, 2010 LLR 430 (Cal HC).
• Transfer is the right of the employer and the employees cannot dictate terms.
All India State Bank of Indore Officers’ Coordination Committee v State Bank of Indore, 2010 LLR 553
(MP HC).
• Interference with the transfer order of the employee is rightly declined.
Shyam Babu Bhatnagar v U.P. Power Corp Ltd, 2010 LLR 478 (All HC).
• When transfer of an employee affects his financial entitlement, Courts interference would be called for.
Page 14 of 58
Kartika Chandra Ray v Neelachal Gramya Bank, 2011 LLR 706 (Ori HC).
• Transfer will not be interfered by the court unless it is mala fide.
Tapan Kumar Das Purkayastha v Hindustan Paper Corp Ltd, 2011 LLR 735 (Gau HC).
• Transfer of petitioner, that too on temporary basis, not to be interfered by court.
H.S. Tripathi v National Council for Teachers Education, 2011 LLR 916 (MP HC).
• Transfer of an employee not to be interfered by the Court.
Jagran Ltd, Meerut through its Director v Labour Court II, Meerut (U.P.), 2011 LLR 1084 (All HC).
• Court interferes with transfer only when tainted with mala fide.
H. Rahothuman v Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp (Villupuram) Ltd, 2012 LLR 183 (Mad HC).
• Transfer once accepted can’t be challenged later.
Afsar Khan S/o A.H. Khan v Managing Director, S.T. Co-op Bank Ltd, 2012 LLR 341 (Bom HC).
• Courts not to interfere with transfer since transferring employee is the prerogative of the employer.
• Transfers are not to be stayed by the Courts.
Dharmarajya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v S.P. Fabrications Pvt Ltd (A Shapoorji Pallanji Group
of Co), 2012 LLR 1032 (Bom HC).
• Transfer based on terms and conditions can’t be challenged.

Page 15 of 58
Hindustan Electro Graphite Ltd, Mandideep v Member Judge, Industrial Court of M.P. Bench, Bhopal,
2013 LLR 134 (MP HC).
• Unless malafide; transfer not to be interfered by Courts
K. Thirumalaisamy v The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (Coimbatore) Ltd,
2013 LLR 195 (Mad HC).
• Transfer, when mala fide, will be interfered.
Larsen and Toubro Ltd, Mumbai v Antony Jokim Patekar, 2013 LLR 314 (Bom HC).
• Transfer to be set aside when not bona fide.
Larsen and Toubro Ltd, Mumbai v Antony Jokim Patekar, 2013 LLR 314 (Bom HC).
• Transfers will be interfered only if violative of statutory provisions or is malafide.
K.K. Arya v M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co Ltd, 2013 LLR 415 (MP HC).
• Courts rarely interfere in matters of transfer.
S.R. Rajan v General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Karaikudi Region,
Marathupathi Nagar, Karakudi, Sivagangai District, 2013 LLR 585 (Mad HC).
• Employer not the Court to decide where an employee should be posted.
North Delhi Power Ltd now Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd v Tilak Raj, 2014 LLR 379 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee cannot be stayed merely because of medical problem.
Peter Anand Kumar Ekka v Mecon Ltd, 2014 LLR 538 (Jhar HC).
• Court can’t quash transfer when it is in accordance with terms of employment.

Page 16 of 58
Ms. Geeta Devi v Updater Services Pvt Ltd, 2015 LLR 264 (Del HC).
• Courts refrain from interference with transfer unless mala fide.
Jitendra Mohan Singh v Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, 2015 LLR 1239 (Del HC).
• Courts to interfere only when transfer of employee is mala fide.
BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd v Naval Singh, 2016 LLR 654 (Del HC).
• Courts will not interfere in transfers unless mala fide.
P. Premkumar v The Executive Director RS (SR), Indian Oil Corp Ltd, 2017 LLR 294 (Mad HC).
• Courts rarely interfere in transfer of employees.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v Ashok s/o Rudragouda Patil, 2017 LLR 517 (Karn HC).
• Transfer of an employee cannot be stalled because of his family difficulties.
Sri Manik Mondal v UOI, 2017 LLR 1031 (Cal HC).
(ii) RIGHT OF EMPLOYER TO TRANSFER HIS EMPLOYEES
• Employer’s right to distribute man power - Management’s prerogative to see whether a transfer can be
avoided. The employers have a right to distribute work as they think fit and transfer is an incident of
service. Held further, transfer of an employee is considered to be a management’s right which, however, is
subject to contract to the contrary.
K.V. Cheluvalah v Management, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, 1993 LLR 160 (Kar HC).
• It is entirely for the employer to decide when, where and at what point of time an employee of
transferable service is transferred from his present posting.
Page 17 of 58
1. Kishori Lal Varma v Hindustan Zinc Ltd, 1995 (2) LLJ 35 (Raj HC).
2. D. Surya Narayana Murthy v State Bank of Hyderabad, 1996 LLR 1050 (AP HC).
• An employee must comply with transfer order if he is neither a member of recognised union nor a
protected workman.
• If transfer is a condition of service, an employee must carry out.
• An employee has no vested right to stay at one place in a transferable post.
S.K. Johar v Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd, 1998 LLR 891 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee is an incident of service conditions and no employee can have a right to remain
at one place.
National Hydro-Electric Power Corp Ltd v Shri Bhagwan, (2001) 8 SCC 574 [LNIND 2001 SC 2009] :
AIR 2001 SC 3309 [LNIND 2001 SC 2009]: (2001) 2 LLJ 1243 : 2001 LLR 1222 (SC).
• No employee of Public Sector Undertaking or Bank can claim to be posted at a particular place.
K. Ramachandran v UCO Bank, 2000 LLR 1231 (Pat HC).
• Posting of husband and wife at one place will not imply their being remain posted at one station
throughout the service career.
Chand Kishore Chakraborty v Chairman, Food Corp of India, (2001) 88 Fac LR 332 : 2000 LLR 1265
(Cal HC).
• The question of juniority and seniority is not relevant in the matters of transfer.
Page 18 of 58
Management of Erinkadu Estate, Karumbalam, Nilgiris District v Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Coimbatore, 2001 LLR 299 (Mad HC).
• Putting long service does not mean that an employee cannot be transferred.
• On transfer the workman must not be made to run across the country for challenging his termination.
S. Ramesh v Tamil Nadu Petro Products Ltd, Manali Express Highway, Manali, Chennai, 2001 LLR 367
(Mad HC).
• Transfer of Class III employee of Public Sector Undertaking from Allahabad to Bombay will be mala
fide.
Mashooq Ahmad v Manager (P&I) Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd, Allahabad, 2000 LLR 755 (All
HC).
• Setting aside of transfer by the Industrial Tribunal has to be reconsidered if there is a condition to this
effect.
General Marketing & Manufacturing Co Ltd v Presiding Officer, 2000 LLR 793 (Del HC).
• An employer has no absolute right to transfer an employee even if it is stipulated in the contract of
employment.
Mashooq Ahmad v Manager (P&I) Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd, Allahabad, 2000 LLR 755 (All
HC).
• Transfer of an employee by a non-competent authority will be illegal hence reinstatement of the

employee will be justified.
Rhone-Poulene (India) Ltd v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2000) 7 SCC 675 : AIR 2000 SC 3182 [LNIND
2000 SC 1299]: 2000 LLR 1287 (SC).
Page 19 of 58
• Transfer of an employee will not be stalled because of bad health of his wife.
Chand Kishore Chakraborty v Chairman, Food Corp of India, (2001) 88 Fac LR 332 : 2000 LLR 1265
(Cal HC).
• Transfer of employees in violation of a settlement will amount to unfair labour practice.
N.R.C. Employees Union, Mumbai v N.R.C. Ltd, Mumbai, (2000) 86 Fac LR 482 : (2000) 4 LLN 148 :
2000 LLR 1083 (Bom HC).
• Refusal to accept transfer order by an employee will not be justified since he can challenge his transfer
after joining.
Management of Addisons Paints and Chemicals Ltd v Workmen, rep. by the Secretary (A.P. & C.)
Assistants Association, (2001) 2 SCC 289 [LNIND 2000 SC 1853]: AIR 2001 SC 436 [LNIND 2000 SC
1853]: (2001) 1 LLN 793 : 2001 LLR 190 (SC).
• On transfer of management the workers will be entitled to benefits as available to the employees of the
transferee.
Managing Director, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp v The Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal, Ramkote, Hyderabad, (2001) 2 SCC 695 [LNIND 2001 SC 284] : AIR 2001 SC 1007 [LNIND
2001 SC 284]: (2001) 2 LLN 33 : 2001 LLR 451 (SC).
• Employer and not the employee can decide where the latter should work.
Inder Dev Yadav v National Thermal Power Corp Ltd, 2002 LLR 361 (Del HC).
• Personal difficulties of an employee will have no bearing on his transfer.
• Transferring an employee is the prerogative of the employer but it should not be actuated with mala fide.
Page 20 of 58
• Employees of lower ranks like clerks/peons and female folks should not be transferred away from
ordinarily commutable distance.
Priscy D’Souza v Indamer Co Pvt Ltd, 2003 LLR 142 : 2003 (96) Fac LR 890 (Bom HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another being incident of service and as such merely sending
representation for cancellation of transfer will not be sufficient to remain absent unauthorisedly by an
employee.
State Bank of India v D.K. Seetharam, 2003 LLR 374 : 2003 (96) Fac LR 614 (Karn HC).
• Transfer of an employee is an incidence of service and the station of posting of an employee has to be
chosen by the employer and not the employee.
Chacko Samuel v UOI, 2003 LLR 459 (Ker HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another is an incidence of service hence it can be revoked
only when there is no such contract or there is any mala fide.
Ramesh Chandra Dhawai v Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corp, 2003 LLR 488 : 2003 (96) Fac
LR 421 (MP HC).
• A company, having offices all over India, can transfer its employees from one place to another when the
service conditions so provide and there are exigencies of work to transfer the employees.
Continental Construction Ltd v Workmen of Continental Construction Ltd, 2003 LLR 895 : 2003-III LLN
584 (Karn HC).
• Transfer of a bank officer from urban to a rural branch as a term of policy and in accordance with
condition of his service will be neither mala fide nor illegal.
G. Raj v Senior Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, 2003 LLR 1147 : 2003 (99) Fac LR 924 (Mad HC).
• Even when the Service Rules do not provide transfer as a punishment, the transfer of an officer in
pursuant to the disciplinary action wherein the charges were proved, will not be tenable even when the
Disciplinary Authority has taken a lenient view in transferring the officer instead of terminating his
service.
Page 21 of 58
M. Sigamani Son of Munusamy v Management of Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Techology
(represented by its Director-General), Chennai, 2003 LLR 1156 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of workmen can be effected from one unit to another unit in view of the said condition in the
very appointment order, prima facie, it cannot be said that the members of the petitioner-Union can not be
transferred from one unit to another unit of the Corporation and as such the transfer even during pendency
of proceedings will not be violative of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act.
Cement Corp of India Employees Union, Adilabad v Assistant Commissioner of Labour, (2003) III CLR
1036 : (2004) 1 LLN 685 : (2004) 100 Fac LR 464 : 2004 LLR 102 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee, holding transferable post, is an incident of service and the employer can
transfer him for administrative reasons.
Suresh S. Bhamre v Devendra Purushottam Shinde, (2003) 4 Mah LJ 856 : 2004 LLR 258 : 2004 (100)
• Transfer of a bank employee from one place to another, in accordance with the Service Rules, will
neither be arbitrary nor illegal.
Ajoy Kumar Mitra v Steel Authority of India Ltd, 2004 Lab IC 2535 : (2004) III LLJ 1114 : 2004-III LLJ
1114 (Ori HC).
• It is always open to the employer to assign any work or transfer an employee at its discretion.
Management of RAS Theatre v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem, 2004 LLR 1130 : 2004-III LLJ
511 (Mad HC).
• Transfer is an incident of service and an employee of Public Sector Undertaking has no right to be
posted at one place for ever.
Ferro Scrap Nigam Ltd v B.P. Sharma, 2005 LLR (SN) 1068 (Chht HC).
• The workmen of a Company cannot be transferred to the Companies other than owned by the
Company/Companies where they are working unless there is a condition of service to this effect.
Page 22 of 58
B.D.K. Process Controls Pvt Ltd v Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangha, 2006 LLR 32 (Karn HC).
• Transfer of an employee is an incident of service when it is made purely in the exigencies of

administration.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v S.D. Bandi, Karn, 2006 LLR 759 (Karn HC).
• Transfer of an employee is an incident of service and also prerogative of the employer.
Management Gedee Weiler Pvt Ltd, Coimbatore v 1. P. Swaminathan 2. The Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Coimbatore, 2006 LLR 1204 (Mad HC).
• Merely that petitioner was granted permission to pursue MBA studies, cannot be construed that he
cannot be transferred to another place.
Mukesh Kumar v UOI, 2007 LLR 209 (Del HC).
• Transfer is an incident of service and employer has the prerogative to decide where the employee should
work.
• Transfer of employee is Management’s prerogative, Courts not to interfere unless mala fide.
Balram v M.C.D, 2007 LLR 775 (Del HC).
• It is entirely up to the Competent Authority to decide as to when, where and at what point of time an
employee is to be transferred from his present posting.
Dr. K. Shringi v Nuclear Power Corp of India Ltd, 2007 LLR 1090 (Raj HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another is a normal incident of service.
Page 23 of 58
• In the absence of specific contract of service, an employer has no inherent right to transfer the
employees from one place to another.
Tobu Enterprises Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, 2009 LLR 475 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another is an incident of service.
P.S. Reddy v Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corp, Hyderabad, 2009 LLR 261 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee is purely incidental to employment itself and he can be transferred from one
unit/post to another, from one department to another.
P. Nani, Hyderabad v Certifying Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Twin Cities), Hyderabad,

2010 LLR 175 (AP HC).
• Transfer of office-bearers of the Officers’ Association due to exigencies of service is prerogative of the
employer.
All India State Bank of Indore Officers’ Coordination Committee v State Bank of Indore, 2010 LLR 553
(MP HC).
• Transfer is normally an incident of service and consent of employee is not required.
Ashok Tiwari v M.P. Text Book Corp, 2010 LLR (SN) 894 (MP HC).
• Transfer of an employee is the prerogative of employer.
K.N. Singh v G.M. (Personnel) M.M.T.C. Ltd, 2010 LLR 1172 (Ori HC).
• Industrial Tribunal erred in holding employee’s transfer to be not in administrative interest.
General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v Syed Abdul Kareem, 2010 LLR 1283 (AP
HC).
• Transfer is permissible if service conditions so provide.

Page 24 of 58
Dharmarajya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v S.P. Fabrications Pvt Ltd (A Shapoorji Pallanji Group
of Company), 2012 LLR 1032 (Bom HC).
• Transfer is right of employer but deputation is not.
Mohan Meakin Ltd, Solan Brewery, Solan v President, Mohan Meakins Staff Union, 2012 LLR 1040 (HP
HC).
• Transfer of employee is prerogative of employer.
S.R. Rajan v General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp (Kumbakonam) Ltd, Karaikudi Region,
Marathupathi Nagar, Karakudi, Sivagangai District, 2013 LLR 585 (Mad HC).
• Transfer as per contract of employment not improper.
Sateesh Kumar S. v Kerala Agro Machinery Corp Ltd, 2013 LLR 577 (Ker HC).
• Transfer of an employee as per terms of employment is a prerogative of Management.
P. Selvakumar v Tamil Nadu Industrial Explosive Ltd, 2013 LLR (SN) 671 : 2013-II LLN 253 (Mad HC).
• A transfer order is liable to be qushed, if issued without its provision in the employment contract.
• Transfer is within the exclusive domain of the employer.
Ramesh Kumar v Food Corp of India, 2013 LLR 709 (HP HC).
• Necessity of transfer of an employee is to be decided by the employer.
Sudhir Pathak v Indian Oil Corp, 2013 LLR 1015 (Del HC).
Page 25 of 58
• Transfer when as per condition of service should not be set aside by the Court.
North Delhi Power Ltd now Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd v Tilak Raj, 2014 LLR 379 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee from Guna to Bhopal cannot be stalled merely that he will not be able to get
medical facilities.
Sunil Kumar Johari v M.P. Housing Board, 2014 LLR 640 (MP HC).
• Transfer of an employee of transferable post is an incident of service.
Kanhaya Lal v Management of Swantantra Bharat Mill, 2016 LLR 456 (Del HC).
• Transfer of workers in violation of terms and conditions in the appointment letter is illegal.
Dashrath Ramlal Garandwala v Ahmednagar Forgings Ltd, 2017 LLR (SN) 99 : 2016-IV LLJ 121 (Bom
HC).
• Employer is to decide the place of posting of an employee.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v Ashok s/o Rudragouda Patil, 2017 LLR 517 (Karn HC).
(iii) WHEN TRANSFER OF AN EMPLOYEE IS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED
• When transfer of an employee is ordered for administrative exigencies and toning of administration in
general, it will be valid, if not mala fide.
Syndicate Bank v Sunder K. Paniyadi, (1992) 1 LLJ 273 : 1991 LLR 286 : 1991-I CLR 452 : 1991-I LLN
358 : 1991 (78) FJR 37 (Kar HC).
• Transfer is an incident of service. Subject to the conditions that the transfer of an employee is not in
violation of rules or Standing Orders or contract or actuated by mala fides.
K.V. Cheluvalah v Management, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, 1993 LLR 160 (Kar HC).
Page 26 of 58
• Transfer of an office-bearer of a union - Cannot be stalled.
Vijaya Bank Officers’ Congress (Regd.) v Vijaya Bank, 1993 LLR 229 : 1993 Lab IC 1781 : 1993-II LLJ
28 : 1993 (66) Fac LR 586 (Kar HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another is an incidence of service and administrative in
nature - Other officers have been transferred in the past - The transfer of the petitioner not arbitrary.
Vijaya Bank Officers’ Congress (Regd.) v Vijaya Bank, 1993 LLR 229 : 1993 Lab IC 1781 : 1993 - I
LLN 401 : 1993 (82) FJR 94 (Kar HC).
• An order of transfer in some cases may amount to punishment - But by mere consideration of various
factors before passing the order - The order per se cannot be held to have been passed by way of
punishment.
Govind Pratap Singh v The Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp, 1993 LLR
285 : 1993-I LLN 812 (All HC).
• Transfer of employees due to closure of establishment and in terms of conditions of service - Justified.
In this case, the transfers have been made due to stoppage of fertilisers and for want of work hence the
transfer of employees being bona fide cannot be quashed.
Fertilizer Corp of India, Eastern Marketing Zone Employees Association v Hindustan Fertilizers Corp
Ltd, 1993 LLR 476 : 1993-I CLR 987 (MP HC).
• Whether an employer can be prohibited from transferring an employee on the basis of complaints
against him? - No. There is no prohibition against transfer on the basis of complaints. If from the perusal
of the complaint it appears to the authorities that in order to have smooth working in the office, prompt
administrative action is required to save the situation from further deterioration, it is open to them to
transfer the concerned employee so as to defuse the situation.
Sagar Ahmad v Superintending Engineer, Minor Irrigation Circle, Bareilly, 1994 LLR 774 : 1994 (68)
• Transfer of an employee on company’s policy - Neither amounts to change in conditions of service - Nor
mala fides nor unfair labour practice.
Page 27 of 58
• Stalling of transfer - By an employee - On the plea of trade union activities - No material to be relied
upon. There is absolutely no material to show that the petitioner was holding any position in the union
when he was in Madras. The bogey of union activities and victimisation is raised only with a view to
prejudice the mind of the court and is not based on any acceptable material.
• Transfer of employees will not be cancelled when they are neither president nor secretary of the trade
union hence they cannot get advantage of the provisions of para 535 of the Shastri Award and they are
liable to be transferred to other branches and the units.
Bank of India Staff Union, West Bengal v Bank of India, Eastern Zone, 1996 LLR 810 : 1996-II LLN 389
: 1996 Lab IC 1242 (Cal HC).
• Transfer of an employee cannot be vitiated unless it is by a way of victimisation or mala fide. Petitioner
was transferred in a routine manner alongwith 27 other employees - Mala fides - No victimisation in
effecting transfer on ground of trade union activities shown - Transferred employee’s husband and home
located at transferred place - No prejudice caused to her - Transfer order not vitiated by mala fides - No
interference called.
Jayamma v The General Manager (Personnel) Karnataka Silk Ind. Corp Ltd, 1996 LLR 837 : 1996 (74)
• Office-bearers of a trade union cannot claim immunity from transfer - Transfer effected on
administrative grounds or in public interest should not normally be interfered unless there are strong and
compelling circumstances rendering it improper and unjustifiable - Office-bearers of trade union cannot
claim any immunity from transfer - No mala fides can be attributed just because office-bearers of trade
union had agitated against policies of employer in certain matters.
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board Engineer’s Sangam v Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, 1996 Lab IC 1393 :
(1996) 3 LLN 178 : 1996 LLR 942 : 1996-II CLR 326 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of an employee will be sustainable even when he had preferred an appeal in some service
matter - Merely because appeal was filed by the complainant-employee on 23 May 1996 and the transfer
order came to be issued two days thereafter, it cannot be held that the said transfer order was counter-blast
to the appeal filed by the complainant-employee or that the transfer order was issued to counter the appeal
filed by the complainant-employee.
Page 28 of 58
President, School Committee, Maharashtra Liberal Education Society v Dinkar Mahadeo Dinde, 1997
LLR 112 (Bom HC).
• Transfer of employee during pendency of disciplinary proceeding - No prejudice caused - The transfer of
the employee was on administrative ground after a period of six months after the alleged incident forming
the basis of charge-sheet.
Jaipal Singh v The Chairman Delhi Transport Corp, (1998) III LLJ (Supp) 99 : 1997 LLR 467 (Del HC).
• Transfer is an incident of service since an employee has no vested right to serve in a particular place - A
transfer order cannot be said to be invalid unless it is issued by an incompetent authority or in violation of
mandatory statutory duties or is tainted by mala fide - Hardship or inconvenience to an employee as a
result of a transfer is not matter for the court to consider but for the administration in the interest of good
and efficient administration.
B.V. Ramnarayan v State Bank of India, Hyderabad, (1996) 4 Andh LD 494 : 1997 LLR 612 : 1997 LLJ
1007 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee in accordance with Standing Orders will not amount to change in service
conditions under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Management of Cipla Ltd v Shri Jayakumar R, (1999) 1 SCC 300 [LNIND 1997 SC 1473] : (1998) 1 LLJ
460 [LNIND 1997 SC 1473] : 1998 LLR 63 (SC).
• Transfer of an employee for 18 times during 24 years’ service will not be nullified. It was further held as
to who should work where is essentially for the employer to decide.
U. Appa Rao v Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp, 1999 LLR 1003 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee to an equivalent post will not amount to change in his condition of service.
K. Devender Reddy v Singareni Collieries Co, Ltd (rep. by its General Manager, R.G. IV) Godavarikhani,
Karimnagar District, 1999 LLR 242 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another is an incident of service and it is for the employer
and not the Court to judge about posting of an employee. In this case the petitioner was transferred from
Delhi to Calcutta whereas the fact remained that he belonged to All India Cadre hence his petition
challenging the transfer was dismissed.
Page 29 of 58
Rajesh Talwar v State Trading Corp, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) 973 (MOC) : 2000 LLR 105 (Del HC).
• Transfer of employees made due to complaints will not be mala fide.
Ramesh v Municipal Corp of Delhi, (2000) 2 CLR 54 : (2000) II LLJ 47 : 2000 LLR 297 (Del HC).
• Transfer of employee will not deprive the worker of service rendered with the earlier employer.
Commissioner, Ongole Municipality v Kunchala Sreenu, 2000 LLR 316 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee under SWAP scheme cannot be set aside even on the ground of hardship.
R. Rajashekaran v Allahabad Bank, Calcutta, (2001) III LLJ (Supp) 368 : 2000 LLR 389 (Karn HC).
• Even a physically handicapped employee has to comply with the transfer made on his promotion.
K. Chellaswamy v UOI (represented by Secretary, Ministry of Labour), New Delhi, 2000 LLR 428 (Mad
HC).
• Unless there is a mala fide the transfer of an employee cannot be set aside.
Umesh Kumar Pandya v Navin Chemical Enterprises, 2000 LLR 525 (MP HC).
• Unless mala fide is established, the transfer of an employee will not be quashed.
C.N. Srinivasan v Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, New Delhi, (2000) 85 Fac LR 439 : (2000) III LLJ
(Supp) 1592 : 2000 LLR 614 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee will not be set aside when no prejudice is caused to him more particularly when
he has been transferred in the same city (Allahabad) at a nearby place.
S.D. Tewari v Chief Medical Superintendent, T.B. Sapru Hospital, Allahabad, 2000 LLR 636 (All HC).
Page 30 of 58
• An order of transfer of an employee from Hyderabad to Bhopal issued with the approval of the
competent authority will be valid.
C.N. Srinivasan v Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, New Delhi, (2000) 85 Fac LR 439 (2000) III LLJ (Supp)
1592 : 2000 LLR 614 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee will not be mala fide when he is kept idle but paid wages.
• Transfer of an employee to a sister concern having received travelling expenses will not be mala fide.
Madhavan K v National Carbon Co, (2001) II LLJ 342 : 2001 LLR 1038 (Mad HC).
• Transfer will not be mala fide if bank employee’s option for voluntary retirement was not accepted.
Pramod Kumar Mohanty v UOI, (2004) 97 CLT 569 : 2002 LLR 1078 : 2002 Lab IC 2410 : 2002-III
LLJ 203 : 2002-III LLN 1160 (Ori HC).
• Transfer of an employee can not be revoked when no mala fide is alleged against an officer who directed
the transfer.
• An employee accepting his appointment subject to the right of the Management to transfer him, can not
stall his transfer that too in the same factory.
Sundaram Industries Employees’ Union (Rubber Division) v State of Tamil Nadu, (2003) 102 FJR 348 :
2003 LLR 612 : 2003-II LLN 86 (Mad HC).
• Merely that the employee has not completed even one year at his place of posting and that there was
nothing against his performance will not be the grounds to stall the transfer and, as such, the order of the
Tribunal in staying the transfer order will be set aside.
Page 31 of 58
Suresh S. Bhamre v Devendra Purushottam Shinde, (2004) IV LLJ (Supp) NOC 297 : 2004 LLR 258 :
2004 (100) Fac LR 577 (Bom HC).
• No relief can be granted to an officer of the Bank who has been transferred as per terms and conditions
of his service.
Pramod Kumar Mohanty v UOI, (2004) 97 CLT 569 : (2004) 1 Ori LR 601 : (2004) III LLJ 792 : 2004
LLR 721 (Ori HC).
• Transfer of an employee, holding transferable post, cannot be stalled when he remained at one place for
13 years and that there is no mala fide.
Director, Kanke Road, Ranchi, (2004) III LLJ 243 : 2004 LLR 753 (Jhar HC).
• Transfer, due to exigencies of work and not violative of the statutory rules or mala fide, will not be
interfered by the Court.
K. Selva Rajan v Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Tourism Corp Ltd, Chennai, 2005 LLR 778 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of a teacher from one school to another will not be illegal even though not stipulated in Delhi
School Education Act.
Anand Swarup Mittal v Managing Committee of Ramjas Sr. Sec. School No, 4 : 2007 LLR 122 (Del HC).
• Transfer of a workman will be justified when at the time of joining, he had affirmed his transferability.
• Transfer of a workman not illegal even when declared as a “protected workman”.
Lakkppa v Government Tool Room & Training Centre, 2007 LLR 996 (Karn HC).
• Setting aside transfer made under Standing Orders by the Labour Court is liable to be restored.
Page 32 of 58
Management of Kitply Industries Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh, 2007 LLR 1073
(Gau HC).
• Transfer of Nagar Palika Parishad employee at recommendation of MLA would not be vitiated.
Mohd. Masood Ahmad v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 LLR 1137 (SC).
• Transfer, though incident of service, should not be mala fide.
T. Jayapandi v State Express Transport Corp Ltd (through its M.D.), Chennai, 2009 LLR 447 (SN) (Mad
HC).
• Transfer of a workman to a far off place, not being conversant with the language, is liable to be quashed.
Management of Holy Faith International Pvt Ltd, Chennai v Presiding Officer, I-Addl. Labour Court,
• Transfer of employee from Hyderabad to an upcoming establishment will not be illegal when it is in
conformity with the standing orders and the contract of employment.
P. Nani, Hyderabad v Certifying Officer-cum-Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Twin Cities), Hyderabad,

2010 LLR 175 (AP HC).
• Transfer of a Technician in the same category not illegal.
T.N. Mohila v U.P. State Electricity Board, 2011 LLR 834 (All HC).
• Transfer of a workman has been rightly upheld by the Industrial Tribunal and High Court will not
interfere.
Workmen, rep. by General Secretary, Bharathiya Employees Mazdoor Sangh, Chennai v Presiding
Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai, 2012 LLR 441 (SN) (Mad HC).
• Mere distance is no ground to stall the transfer.

Page 33 of 58
Vijay Kumar Wadhwa v Life Insurance Corp, 2012 LLR 1038 (P&H HC).
• Transfer stipulated in contract of employment not to be vitiated.
Rajni Manchanda v P.O. Labour Court-I, 2013 LLR 1122 (Del HC).
• Transfer, when made because of administrative reasons, would be justified.
Sunil Kumar Johari v M.P. Housing Board, 2014 LLR 640 (MP HC).
• Transfer order not illegal when stipulated in appointment letter.
Tarunjeet Kaur v School Management of G.H.P.S., Hemkunt Colony, 2015 LLR 471 (Del HC).
• Unless contract to the contrary, transfer of an employee to another company is illegal.
Shri M.K. Saini v Indraprastha Power Generation Co Ltd (IPGCL), 2015 LLR 616 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee as per service conditions is legal.
Shri M.K. Saini v Indraprastha Power Generation Co Ltd (IPGCL), 2015 LLR 616 (Del HC).
• Transfer from one place to another is justified in transferable posts.
Sri Sekhar Rudra v UOI, 2016 LLR 45 (Gau HC).
• Gratuity rightly forfeited if the workman is guilty of moral turpitude.
Munirudin Vajirudin Kazi v Municipal Commissioner, 2016 LLR 81 (Guj HC).
• Transfer of an employee is justified when not mala fide.
Shashikant v Mahatama Mungsaji Shikshan Sanstha Pusad, 2016 LLR 498 (Bom HC).
Page 34 of 58
• Transfer, not illegal when in accordance with service conditions.
Castrol India Ltd, Mumbai v Mumbai Port Trust and General Employees Union, Mumbai, 2016 LLR 695
(Bom HC).
• Transfer order is not illegal if it is purely an administrative one.
(Bom HC).
• Transfer is an incident of service when the job is transferable.
B.G. Arasaraju v The Managing Director, KPTCL, 2017 LLR 926 (Karn HC).
(iv) WHEN TRANSFER OF AN EMPLOYEE IS HELD TO BE UNJUSTIFIED
• Transfer of an employee due to filing of writ petition in the High Court - Smacks of vindictiveness and
colourable exercise of powers - Liable to be stayed. The petitioner cannot be penalised by the authorities
just because he has approached the court of law for vindication of his rights as otherwise it would hamper
and thwart the administration of justice. Transfer, smacks of vindictiveness and colourable exercise of
powers hence stayed.
Raghubir Singh v Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1995 LLR 414 : 1995-I CLR 740 : 1995-II LLN 379 (Del
HC).
• Respondent-employee appointed as a salesman - Was required to canvass within the territory to be

determined by the District Manager, New Delhi - Neither the appointment order nor the service rules
provided for transfer of employees from one place to another - Transfer of respondent from Delhi to
Bombay - If justified? No.
Management of Roneo Vickers India Ltd v Lt. Governor of Delhi, 1994 LLR 253 : 1994-II LLJ 1078 (Del
HC).
• Petitioner joined services of Corporation in 1976 - Appointment order contained condition of transfer
anywhere in India - Standing Order came into force subsequently with the provisions relating to transfer,
held, condition contained in the appointment order cannot be enforced. Held further, since the
establishment has certified Standing Orders covering the terms and conditions applicable between the
Page 35 of 58
parties, i.e., the workmen and the respondent-employer, they will prevail and the alleged condition in the
order of appointment cannot be applied.
Sompal Singh v Artificial Limbs Manufacturing Corp of India, (1995) 1 LLJ 81 : 1994 LLR 152 (All
HC).
• Right to transfer an employee - Depends upon contract of service or the terms implied therein - When
the employee joined the service - The employer had only one office and no branch - There cannot be any
possibility of transfer - Employee cannot be transferred to a branch opened subsequently.
Nippani Urban Co-op Bank Ltd v Their Workmen, 1992 LLR 725 : 1992 - II LLN 147 (Kar HC).
• Transfer order - Need not contain grounds for transfer - Transfer will not be bad in law merely on this
ground.
Eastern Coalfields Ltd v Khan Mazdoor Karamchari Union, (1990) 1 LLJ 44 [LNIND 1989 CAL 303] :
1990 LLR 160 : 1990-II LLN 112 (Cal HC).
• Petitioner applied for transfer to Kanpur where his wife has been working - No action taken and he has
been transferred from place to place - Without considering his representation for posting to a particular
place - Respondents are directed to decide the question of his transfer to Kanpur within four weeks - In
accordance with its policy decision.
Pranava Kumar Ganguly v The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, 1991 LLR 437 (All HC).
• Transfer of an employee for a short period - Does not amount to promotion. In this case a salesman was
transferred from Sheikhan Bazar, retail shop to Sadar Bazar, retail shop at Jalandhar. Thus no element of
promotion is involved.
Carona Sahu Co Ltd Bombay v The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, 1993 LLR 41 : 1993
(66) Fac LR 266 (P&H HC).
• Whether Labour Court can adjudicate the validity of a transfer without any reference? No.
Jagdish Narain Sharma v Rajasthan Patrika Ltd, 1994 LLR 265 : 1994-II LLJ 600 : 1994 Lab IC 388
(Raj HC).
Page 36 of 58
• Failure of an employee to comply with transfer order - Does not amount to termination since temporary
absence is not ordinarily sufficient to constitute abandonment of service on the part of an employee.
Gian Chand v Secretary (Labour) Delhi Administration, 1994 LLR 319 (Del HC).
• An employee transferred to lower post did not resume his duties but kept on marking his attendance on
the post previously held. It did not amount to abandonment and his name could not be struck off from the
rolls. Holding of enquiry will be imperative.
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd, Yamuna Nagar v Shri Jai Bhagwan Jain, 1995 LLR 45 (P&H HC).
• Refusal of an employee to comply with the transfer order will not amount to abandonment.
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd, Yamuna Nagar v Shri Jai Bhagwan Jain, 1995 LLR 45 (P&H HC).
• Transfer of a trade union leader does not ipso facto imply that a transfer is an act of victimisation since
an establishment can function without the union but the union cannot without the establishment.
Kishori Lal Varma v Hindustan Zinc Ltd, 1995 (2) LLJ 35 (Raj HC).
• A company of all India character can frame Standing Orders under Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, for throughout India transfer of employees.
Cement Corp Karamchari Union v Dy. Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), 1996 LLR 123 (P&H
HC).
• Representation by the employee-petitioner - Made on compassionate and humanitarian grounds - That

on transfer, study of children will be affected and their career might be in jeopardy - Because final
examinations are scheduled to be held - In transfer order no exigencies of service shown - Grievances of
petitioner cannot be brushed aside saying it as of personal nature.
S.C. Duggal v Dept of Personnel, Union Bank of India, Bombay, 1996 LLR 792 : 1996 (73) Fac LR 1724
(All HC).
• A transferred employee will have to report for duty even when no work is provided.
Page 37 of 58
Wings Wear Pvt Ltd v Workmen as represented by Wings Wear Workers Lal Jhanda Union, (1997) 91
Fac LR 198 : (1997) 77 Fac LR 685 : (1999) III LLJ (Supp) 1252 : 1996 LLR 802 (Del HC).
• Punishment of removal from service of an employee will not be disproportionate when he refuses to
comply with transfer order and handing over the charge.
Ram Kishan Sharma v Municipal Corp of Delhi, 1996 LLR 842 : 1996 Lab IC 1397 (Del HC).
• Provision for transfer of employees anywhere or detaining them for rendering essential services beyond
duty hours in the certified Standing Orders of a big organisation cannot be termed as arbitrary.
G.A.I.L.’s Employees Association v The Chief Labour Commissioner, 1996 LLR 986 (Del HC).
• If an employee fails to comply with the order of transfer, it will not amount to abandonment of service.
The management is not stripped of its power to declare that the employee thereby forfeited his
appointment and is not compelled to treat such unauthorised absence as a misconduct under the Rules and
to hold a regular departmental enquiry.
B.V. Ramnarayan v State Bank of India, Hyderabad, (1996) 4 Ardh LT 753 : (1997) 1 LLJ 1007 : 1997
LLR 612 : 1997 LLJ 1007 (AP HC).
• A workman was transferred from Kanpur to Dehradun during his extended leave. He did not comply
with the transfer order on the plea that his transfer was against his service conditions. The Labour Court
held that the employer could presume that by remaining absent, the workman has abandoned his job and
that it did not amount to retrenchment. The High Court held that abandonment of job amounted to
retrenchment. The award of the Labour Court held illegal and set aside.
Jeevan Prasad Mishra v Labour Court, Kanpur, 1997 (76) Fac LR 110 : 1997-II LLN 558 (All HC).
• Transfer order passed by an authority lower than the appointing authority will not be legal.
Rhone Pouleno (India) Ltd, Lucknow v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1998 LLR 157 (All HC).
• In the absence of contract of employment, the employees cannot be transferred to another place.
Group Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Blossom Gobinho, (1999) 77 Fac LR 905 : 1998 LLR 204 (Bom HC).
Page 38 of 58
• Transferring of an employee alleged to be guilty of insubordination etc., will be unjustified.
LLR 750 (Bom HC).
• Unless permitted by the Rules, transfer of an employee will not be valid.
A.B. Srinivasan v State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, 1998 LLR 848 (AP HC).
• An employee appointed only for Bhopal Office cannot be transferred to Jabalpur/Indore.
Dainik “Navbharat” Jahangirabad, Bhopal v Ayodhya Prasad Gupta, 1999 LLR 574 (MP HC).
• Transfer of an employee on frivolous allegations of sexual harassment will be set aside. In this case, the
employee was transferred from Delhi to Indore only on the basis of a complaint alleging sexual
harassment.
R.K. Shivdasani v Export Inspection Agency (Delhi), 1999 LLR 641 (Del HC): 1999 (82) Fac LR 942.
• Transfer of an officer on some anonymous complaints will be quashed.
Rajesh Talwar v State Trading Corp of India Ltd, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) NOC 345 : 1999 LLR 739 (Del
HC).
• Non-mention about complaints in the transfer order of drivers will not be termed “punishment”.
G.S.H. Reddy v Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corp, 1999 LLR 753 (AP HC).
• Transfer of an employee from one Unit to another is not always implicit in every contract of service and
as such transfer order must be stayed. It has further been held that the petitioners ought to have been
granted the interim relief which they had sought in the trial court.
H.N. Desai v Bhor Industries Ltd, (2000) 1 LLJ 1278 : 1999 (83) Fac LR 845 (Bom HC).
Page 39 of 58
• Guidelines for transfer of employee from one place to another have no statutory/binding force and the
employee is not bound by them.
Rajesh Talwar v State Trading Corp, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) NOC 345 : 2000 LLR 105 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee in another region will be set aside since it amounted to mala fide.
S. Rama Rao v Managing Director, FCI, 2002 LLR 603 : 2002 Lab IC 1406 : 2002 (97) DLT 141 :
2002 (94) Fac LR 206 (Del HC).
• In the absence of a condition of transfer in the appointment letter, the transfer will be illegal.
Priscy D’Souza v Indamer Co Pvt Ltd, (2002) 3 CLR 490 : (2003) 3 LLN 648 : 2003 LLR 142 : 2003
(96) Fac LR 890 (Bom HC).
• Transfer of an employee from Delhi to Kolkata, when motivated to get rid of him, will not be tenable.
Bellish India Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) 211 : 2003 LLR 293 : 2003
(96) Fac LR 1008 (Del HC).
• Transfer of bank employees, covered under the terms of the award staff to RMC at Byculla in Mumbai,
has been rightly set aside by the Industrial Tribunal since the Management had an ulterior motive to cause
harassment to them since they had not opted for VRS and also the other workers were given appointment
under the Contract Labour (R&A) Act.
Standard Chartered Bank Ltd v Grindlays Bank Employees’ Union, Mumbai, 2003 LLR 651 : 2003 (97)
• Transfer of an employee from one place to another will neither be legal nor valid when there is no such
contract of employment either in the appointment letter or service rules or regulations.
Usha Workers’ Union v Usha Martin Industries Ltd, (2003) Lab IC 1375 : (2003) II LLJ 1058 : 2003
LLR 760 (Jhar HC).
• When an employee has been involved in disciplinary matters including service facing enquiry and
criminal trial, his transfer will be equated with mala fides with a motive to weed him out of the industrial
establishment.
Page 40 of 58
LLR 760 (Jhar HC).
• In the absence of any administrative exigencies, the transfer of an employee from Jamshedpur to
Bombay will be set aside when equated with male fide intentions, victimization and to harass the
employee and amounted to an indirect motive to remove him from service.
LLR 760 (Jhar HC).
• Transfer of a junior engineer will be mala fide and the impugned order has been rightly set aside since
he has taken stern action against illegal electric connections and consumption of power besides collecting
Rs50 lakhs towards revenue.
Naveen Kumar Singh v Jharkhand State Electricity Board, 2005 (1) BLJR 418 (Jhar HC).
• Transfer of a junior engineer, when mala fide, will be set aside more so when he has made substantial
collection of outstanding arrears for electricity and took stern action against illegal connections.
Naveen Kumar Singh v Jharkhand State Electricity Board, 2005 LLR 584 (Jhar HC).
• Transfer of an employee, though an incident of service, cannot be made by the employer by way of
punishment.
Dr. M. Sumithra v The Bangalore University Jnana Bharathi, 2006 LLR 483 (Karn HC).
• When the real object in transferring the employee has been to impose punishment, the same is liable to
be set-aside.
• When the transfer of an employee is a colourable exercise and abuse of the power or arbitrary, it will be
mala fide and liable to be set-aside.
Page 41 of 58
• When a workman was not declared as a “protected workman”, his transfer will not be illegal.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v S.D. Bandi, 2006 LLR 759 (Karn HC).
• Transfer of the petitioner even though made due to administrative grounds if mala fide is liable to be set
aside.
S. Sevugan v Chief Educational Officer, Virudhunagar, 2006 LLR 972 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of a bank employee, in violation of settlement is to be set aside.
• Transfer of a railway officer, without any exigency reasons, will stand quashed.
• Transfer of union office-bearers made immediately after agitation is mala fide.
T. Jayapandi v State Express Transport Corp Ltd (through its M.D.), Chennai, 2009 LLR 447 (SN) (Mad
HC).
• Transfer of an employee, for demanding wages for the interregnum, is malafide.
Vijayashree Spinning Mills Ltd, Dindigul rep. by its Director v P.O. Labour Court, Trichirappalli, 2009
LLR 648 (Mad HC).
• When transfer of an employee is by way of victimization, it is to be set aside.
Ultramarine and Pigments Ltd, 25-B SIPCOT, Ranipet v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Vellore, 2010
LLR 267 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of a daily-wager will not be justified since his appointment is on day-to-day basis.
Page 42 of 58
Ashok Tiwari v M.P. Text Book Corp, 2010 LLR (SN) 894 (MP HC).
• Transfer outside Bangalore not legal in the absence of service condition.
Madura Coats Pvt Ltd, rep. by its Manager v The Workmen of Madura Coats Pvt Ltd, rep. by Madura
Coats Employees’ Union, 2011 LLR 81 (Karn HC).
• Transfer not justified when there is no vacancy.
Dipankar Bandopadhyay v Durgapur Chemicals Ltd, 2011 LLR 293 [LNIND 2010 CAL 1393] (Cal HC).
• Transfer of Chemical Engineer assigning as Sales Manager from Durgapur to Calcutta, not justified.
Dipankar Bandopadhyay v Durgapur Chemicals Ltd, 2011 LLR 293 [LNIND 2010 CAL 1393] (Cal HC).
• Transferring an employee, after 21 days of earlier transfer, not justified.
Kartika Chandra Ray v Neelachal Gramya Bank, 2011 LLR 706 (Ori HC).
• Transfer of suspended bank employee not proper.
Biplab Das v The Chairman, Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank, 2011 LLR 947 [LNIND 2011 CAL 1919] (Cal
HC).
• Transfer to new employer without employee’s consent not proper.
P. Mani v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, 2012 LLR 130 (Mad HC).
• Transfer sans condition to this effect is to be set aside.
Management of Rajasthan Patrika Ltd v Jasod Singh, 2012 LLR 978 (Del HC).
• Transferring a low paid employee far away not justified.

Page 43 of 58
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
Gurgaon, 2012 LLR 1146 (P&H HC).
• Transfer of an employee in the absence of such condition is unsustainable.
Management of Rajasthan Patrika Ltd v Jasod Singh, 2013 LLR 118 (Del HC).
• Transfer of the petitioner who has been sexually harassed would not be justified.
Shantilata Pattanaik v Swaminathan Research Foundation, 2013 LLR (SN) 223 : 2012 (135) Fac LR 808
(Ori HC).
• Transfer of an employee to a different entity is not legal.
Hotel Hans Coco Palms v Milan Das @ Milan Krishna Das, 2013 LLR 289 (Ori HC).
• School employee covered by Delhi School Education Act cannot be transferred outside Delhi.
Jitender Singh Tyagi v Lt. Governor of Delhi, 2014 LLR 5 (Del HC).
• If transfer is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the employment contract, the same is
liable to be set aside.
Capt. Hari Shankar Airy v Coal India Ltd, 2015 LLR (SN) 107 : 2014 (143) Fac LR 756 (Ori HC).
• Transfer of fitter from Faridabad to Pondicherry is victimization to be set aside.
Whirlpool of India Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 2017 LLR 93 (P&H
HC).
• Transfer of workers to a different company is illegal.
Dashrath Ramlal Garandwala v Ahmednagar Forgings Ltd, 2017 LLR (SN) 99 : 2016-IV LLJ 121 (Bom
HC).
Page 44 of 58
(v) MISCELLANEOUS
• Transfer of an employee is incident of service hence not to be set aside.
Usha Martin Industries Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur, 2002 Lab IC 1059 : 2002
LLR 305 : 2002 Lab IC 1059 : 2002 (92) Fac LR 269 (Jhar HC).
• Transfer of employees will contravene section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act, in the absence of conditions
of service providing transfer.
B.D.K. Process Controls Pvt Ltd, Hubli v Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangha, Dharwad, (2001) 5 Kant LJ 621 :
(2001) 3 LLR 910 : (2002) 1 LLN 288 : 2002 LLR 312 : 2002 Lab IC 24 (Kant) (NOC) (Karn HC).
• Presumption of abandonment of job will be justified when a daily wager fails to comply with transfer
order.
P. Kalivarthan v Presiding Officer, II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry, 2002 LLR 248 (Mad HC).
• Plea of a bank employee to forego his promotion for stalling the transfer will not be tenable.
All India Bank of Baroda Officers’ Federation v Bank of Baroda, (2002) 1 LLJ 920 [LNIND 2001 DEL
1336] : 2002 LLR 363 (Del HC).
• If an employee fails to join at the place of transfer, it will amount to abandonment of job.
• Bank should adopt uniform transfer policy for all employees.
Pramod Kumar Mohanty v UOI, 2002 LLR 1078 : 2002 Lab IC 2410 : 2002-III LLJ 203 : 2002-III LLN
1160 (Ori HC).
• In the absence of any provision pertaining to transfer of a workman, notice of change in service
conditions will be imperative.
Chennai Port and Dock Workers Congress (INTUC) v UOI, 2002 LLR 1090 (Mad HC).
Page 45 of 58
• When the transfer of an employee is challenged, the Court can pierce the veil to discover its bona fide.
Birendra Kumar Singh v UOI, (2002) IV LLJ (Supp) 1420 (NOC) : 2002 LLR 1196 (Cal HC).
• Transfer of an employee without his consent and in the absence of service rules to this effect will not be
tenable.
Ranjit Chaudhury v India Tourism Development Corp Ltd, (2002) 101 FJR 805 : (2003) 96 Fac LR 783 :
(2003) 1 LLJ 40 : 2003 LLR 58 : 2003 (96) FLR 517 (Karn HC).
• The territorial jurisdiction for challenging the transfer order will be the place of transfer.
Siemens Ltd v Presiding Officer, Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court,

Hyderabad, 2003 LLR 116 : 2003 (96) Fac LR 819 (AP HC).
• Claiming compassion by an employee in stalling his transfer that he was chronic diabetic and not
physically fit to perform his duties has no bearing and he can choose to resign or take other steps.
• Refusal of the Government to refer a dispute pertaining to transfer of a workman from Machines
Department to Moulding Department in the same factory will not be interfered by the High Court when
the union has admitted that the Management has a right to transfer the workman.
Sundaram Industries Employees’ Union (Rubber Division) v State of Tamil Nadu, (2003) 102 FJR 348 :
(2003) II LLJ 147 : 2003 LLR 612 : 2003-II LLN 86 (Mad HC).
• Transfer of a low paid employee, holding a petty job, at a distant and far-flung area will be quashed.
Usha Workers’ Union v Usha Martin Industries Ltd, 2003 Lab IC 1375 : (2003) II LLJ 1058 : 2003 LLR
760 (Jhar HC).
• Keeping in view the personal and family members’ difficulties to be faced by a low paid employee on
his transfer to a metropolitan like Bombay, the Management should order transfer of petty employees very
sparingly and only in the exigencies of administration.
Page 46 of 58
Usha Workers’ Union v Usha Martin Industries Ltd, 2003 Lab IC 1375 : (2003) II LJ 1058 : 2003 LLR
760 (Jhar HC).
• No employee, holding transferable post, has a right to work at a fixed place since transfer is an incident
of service.
Continental Construction Ltd v Workmen of Continental Construction Ltd, 2003 LLR 895 : 2003-III LLN
584 (Karn HC).
• A civil suit for enforcement of contract of personal service whereby an employee challenges his transfer
should be thrown at the threshold by the court.
Pearlite Liners Pvt Ltd v Manorama Sirsi, (2004) 3 SCC 172 [LNIND 2004 SC 23] : AIR 2004 SC 1373
[LNIND 2004 SC 23]: (2004) 3 Mah LJ 563 : (2004) 1 Serv LR 728 : 2004 LLR 193 (SC).
• Transfer of a workman from one establishment to another, as stipulated in the Standing Orders and also
for exigency of work, will not be interfered by the High Court when there is neither any mala fide nor
arbitrariness hence, the High Court will not interfere in setting aside the transfer more particularly when
the transfer has not been challenged for mala fide on the part of the Management.
Tamil Nadu National Mine Workers Union v Tamil Nadu Minerals Ltd, (2003) III LLJ 1061 : 2004 LLR
435 (Mad HC).
• Merely that the employee had filed an FIR with the police against a senior officer, it cannot be termed as
malafide in stalling the transfer.
Director, Kanke Road, Ranchi, (2004) III LLJ 243 : 2004 LLR 753 (Jhar HC).
• In order to pursue LL.B Course, an employee cannot seek transfer to a particular place.
G. Srinivasan v National Thermal Power Corp Ltd, 2004 LLR 946 (Del HC).
• An employee as transferred, despite his personal difficulties, cannot insist to work on the same place.
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd v State of Jharkhand, 2004 Lab IC 2651 : 2004 LLR 1014 (Jhar
HC).
Page 47 of 58
• If the employee does not comply with the transfer order, it may ultimately lead to termination.
N. Ameetha Begam v Commissioner, Marungapuri Panchayat Union, Trichy, 2005 LLR 351 (Mad HC).
• The plea of a transferred employee that other employees working at Delhi for more than 14 years were
not transferred, will not be tenable.
G. Srinivasan v National Thermal Power Corp Ltd, 2004 LLR 946 (Del HC).
• If no power vests in the employer either to make the appointment or to take disciplinary action against
the erring canteen workers, the relationship of employer and employee will not come into existence.
Haldia Refinery Canteen Employees Union v Indian Oil Corp Ltd, (2005) 1 SCC 51 : AIR 2005 SC 2412
[LNIND 2005 SC 443]: (2005) 2 LLN 971 : (2005) 105 Fac LR 1051 : 2005 LLR 529 : JT 2005 (5) SC
62 [LNIND 2005 SC 443].
• Abandonment on the part of employee has been rightly presumed by the employer when he has failed to
comply with the transfer order despite repeated notices.
D. John Samuel v Chairman-cum-Managing Director N.T.P.C., New Delhi, 2005 LLR 948 (AP HC).
• Principles of natural justice will not be violated in striking off the name of the employee who has failed
to comply with the transfer order despite repeated notices.
D. John Samuel v Chairman-cum-Managing Director N.T.P.C., New Delhi, 2005 LLR 948 (AP HC).
• A transfer order of an employee is purely an administrative function hence no reason is to be given in

the order of the transfer.
Palanisamy v General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp Ltd, 2005 LLR 1001 (Mad HC).
• The employees of a particular Company cannot be compelled by the employer to work for another
Company, hence liable to be set aside.
Page 48 of 58
• If the transfer of employees is not valid, the presumption of the employer that in not reporting for duty at
the transferred place, the workmen have abandoned the job will not be tenable.
• Transfer of a workman during pendency of reference for adjudication would not be violative of section
33 (3) of I.D. Act.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v S.D. Bandi, 2006 LLR 759 (Karn HC).
• Territorial jurisdiction for industrial dispute will not be at the place where transfer order was received.
Lohia Starlinger Ltd v Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2006 LLR 905 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee will no be interfered, who despite rejection of his complaint for stay has failed
to report at transferred place. .
Augusty Antony, Kachappilly v Varroc Engineering Pvt Ltd, 2006 LLR 1154 (Bom HC).
• No relief to an employee for non-compliance of transfer from one park to another in the same city.
• Transfer of an employee by senior officer can be rectified by appointing authority.
• Modification of Standing Orders providing inter-establishment transfer is to be set aside.
Divgi Metal Wares Employees’ Association, Sirsi v Divgi Metal Wares Ltd, Sirsi, 2007 LLR 42 (Karn
HC).
• An employer is not required to disclose administrative exigency in the order of transfer.

Page 49 of 58
• For challenging transfer, workman or his union must have support from group of co-workers.
Capital Ltd v Eighth Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal, 2007 LLR 191 (Cal HC).
• Transfer of an employee cannot be stalled because of personal circumstances.
Arifa Nauman v Govt of National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2007 LLR 127 (Del HC).
• Transfer cannot be stalled though there is a policy that an employee not to be transferred during three
years of his retirement.
R.N. Tiwari v Videsh Sanchar Nigam Ltd, 2007 LLR 249 (Del HC).
• Transfer of employee is not a change in service conditions, hence provisions of I.D. Act, for 21 days’
notice will not apply.
Balram v M.C.D, 2007 LLR 775 (Del HC).
• Transfer of an employee from Kolkata to different States can be challenged in Kolkata.
Bikash Bhushan Ghosh v Novartis India Ltd, (2007) 5 SCC 591 [LNIND 2007 SC 544] : 2007 LLR 903
(SC).
• Employee transferred from UP to West Bengal but not allowed to join can raise dispute in U.P.
Shree Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd, Allahabad v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (I),
Allahabad, 2007 LLR 965 (All HC).
Page 50 of 58
• While deputing employees to another place reference to appointment letter is not necessary.
Vidyut Metallics Pvt Ltd v Maharashtra Rajya Rashtriya Kamgar Sangh, 2008 LLR 701 (Bom HC).
• A punitive transfer of a Bank employee liable to be set aside.
Bakarupanda Padmavathi v Bank of India, 2008 LLR 878 (AP HC).
• A dispute pertaining to transfer of workman from one place to another need not be espoused by other
workers.
• A uniform and transparent policy of transfer should have objective criteria in a Road Transport
Corporation.
P.S. Reddy v Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corp, Hyderabad, 2009 LLR 261 (AP HC).
• Legality of transfer can be challenged at the place where the employee has been working.
Glaxo Smith Kline Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Abhay Raj Jain, 2009 LLR 331 (SN) (Bom HC).
• Challenging transfer from Delhi to Bhiwadi, the jurisdiction will be in Delhi.
• Failing to comply with the transfer order would entitle employee to reinstatement but no back-wages.
Natraj Ceramic & Chemicals Industries Ltd v Manibhai G. Bhatt, 2009 LLR 557 (SN) (Guj HC).
• Industrial Tribunal has rightly set aside transfer of employees actuated with mala fide intention.
Page 51 of 58
• Situs for challenging transfer is at a place wherefrom it was made.
Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Member, Industrial Court, Chandrapur, 2009 LLR 456 (Bom HC).
• Transfer of employees even on shifting is to be based on the conditions of service.
• Transfer should not have been stayed by the court by an interim order when it was in accordance with
Standard Code.
Anjuman-I-Islams M.H. Saboo Siddik College of Engineering v General Secretary, Akhil Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena, 2010 LLR 308 (Bom HC).
• Labour Court can adjudicate a dispute of a workman appointed in and transferred from Delhi.
Bageshwar Maurya v Management Naveen Projects Pvt Ltd, 2010 LLR 240 (Del HC).
• An office-bearer of Union has no immunity from transfer particularly when there is no mala fide.
Gautam Sengupta v Punjab & Sind Bank, 2010 LLR 430 (Cal HC).
• Industrial Tribunal is empowered to entertain a dispute about transfer of an employee.
Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corp v Bhopa Ram, 2010 LLR 411 (Raj HC).
• Disobedience of transfer order will amount to misconduct to justify dismissal.
Eicher Motors Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, 2010 LLR 418 (P&H HC).
Page 52 of 58
• Termination of workman for disobeying the transfer order will be justified.
• Termination of an employee is justified if she failed to comply with her transfer.
Shubhada Phansekar v Travel Corp. (India) Ltd, 2010 LLR 1087 (Bom HC).
• Enquiry is not necessary if an employee fails to comply with transfer.
Shubhada Phansekar v Travel Corp. (India) Ltd, 2010 LLR 1087 (Bom HC).
• Transfer of class IV employees outside the State should be exceptional.
• Transfer from service is an essential condition of service.
• Transfer of an employee is an incident of service.
HC).
• Employer is not obliged to hold an enquiry if employee fails to comply with transfer order.
HC).
• Conciliation Officer can’t stay the transfer of employees since his powers are to mediate between the
parties for settlement.
Page 53 of 58
Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, through its Joint Secretary v Pix Transmissions Ltd, 2011 LLR
193 (Bom HC).
• Reinstatement of a bank employee, who failed to comply with transfer order, is not proper.
U.P. Singh v Punjab National Bank, 2011 LLR 708 (Del HC).
• Removal justified when the employee neither complies transfer nor appears before medical board.
S.P. Arya v UOI, 2011 LLR 1139 (Del HC).
• Non-compliance of transfer order establishes serious misconducts.
Hindalco Industries Ltd v Suman Lata Tuteja, 2011 LLR 1197 (Del HC).
• Reinstatement appropriate when transfer is illegal.
P. Mani v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, 2012 LLR 130 (Mad HC).
• It is for employer to decide as to when and where an employee should be transferred.
H. Rahothuman v Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp (Villupuram) Ltd, 2012 LLR 183 (Mad HC).
• Transfer once accepted can’t be challenged later.
• Conciliation Officer under Industrial Disputes Act can’t stay transfers.
V.I.P. Industries Ltd v V.I.P. Industries Shramik Sangh, 2012 LLR 925 (Bom HC).
• President of the Union can’t avoid his transfer.

Page 54 of 58
HC).
• Mere distance is no ground to stall the transfer.
• Transfer from one place to another cannot be stalled on personal difficulties including illness.
• Transfer can be only to an equivalent post.
HC).
• Reinstatement appropriate when transfer is illegal.
Ansal Properties & Industries Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-1,
Gurgaon, 2012 LLR 1146 (P&H HC).
• Continuous posting at any fixed place is not justified.
K. Thirumalaisamy v The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (Coimbatore) Ltd,
2013 LLR 195 (Mad HC).
• Transfer to Delhi from Odisha can be challenged at Odisha.
Hotel Hans Coco Palms v Milan Das @ Milan Krishna Das, 2013 LLR 289 (Ori HC).
• Communication of transfer by General Manager instead of Managing Director will not vitiate it.
K.K. Arya v M.P. Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Co Ltd, 2013 LLR 415 (MP HC).
Page 55 of 58
• Transfer not to be set aside in the absence of mala fides.
Sateesh Kumar S. v Kerala Agro Machinery Corp Ltd, 2013 LLR 577 (Ker HC).
• For getting some job (s) done in another company, for a short period an employer may depute an
employee on deputation.
• Sending some employees of transferor unit on deputation and some on transfer basis to transferee is
neither arbitrary nor unfair or discriminatory.
Air India Craft Engineers’ Association v Air India Ltd, 2013 LLR (SN) 664 : 2013 (2) LLN 76 (Bom
HC).
• No employee has a right to be posted at one place.
• Transfer cannot be stalled for personal inconvenience of employee.
• Transfer of an employee is an incident of service.
Bharatsinh Chanubha Zala v Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd, 2013 LLR 1077 (Guj HC).
• An employer knows best where the services of an employee can be used more effectively.
• Dismissal justified on failure to comply with transfer order.
Rajni Manchanda v P.O. Labour Court-I, 2013 LLR 1122 (Del HC).
Page 56 of 58
• Transfer of an employee cannot be stayed merely because of medical problem.
Peter Anand Kumar Ekka v Mecon Ltd, 2014 LLR 538 (Jhar HC).
• Transfer when not mala fide, can’t be challenged.
B. Thiruvelan v The Executive Director (Consumer Sakes) Indian Oil Corp Ltd, Mumbai, 2014 LLR 830
(Mad HC).
• A transfer is bad if exigencies of such transfer are not shown.
Surai Majhi v Allahabad Bank, 2014 LLR (SN) 996 : 2014 Lab IC 2484 (Cal HC).
• Frequent transfers of an employee are not sustainable.
• Non-assigning any reason or insufficient reason for effecting transfer of an employee would make the
transfer illegal.
• Non-reporting for duty at the place of transfer would be treated as abandonment of service.
Competent Security Services v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2015 LLR 169 (Del HC).
• Transfer can’t be challenged under section 2A of I.D. Act.
Ms. Geeta Devi v Updater Services Pvt Ltd, 2015 LLR 264 (Del HC).
• Transfer is an incident of service.
Tarunjeet Kaur v School Management of G.H.P.S., Hemkunt Colony, 2015 LLR 471 (Del HC).
Page 57 of 58
• Termination justified if employee fails to comply with transfer order.
Om Prakash Sharma v Onida Savak Ltd, 2015 LLR 1017 (Del HC).
• Transfer to other location of low salaried worker breaks his financial backbone.
Crystal Phosphates Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Amritsar, 2015 LLR 1257 (P&H HC).
• Transfer of a low paid employee, though having transferable post is “victimization”.
Sekhar Rudra v UOI, 2016 LLR 45 (Gau HC).
• Failure to comply with transfer order is a major misconduct justifying dismissal from service.
Sekhar Rudra v UOI, 2016 LLR 45 (Gau HC).
• It is prerogative of the employer as to who should be transferred.
• No relief to be granted if transferred employee fails to report for duty.
• Transfer will be mala fide and illegal in absence of rebuttal by employer.
R.P. Garg v Indian Oil Corp Ltd, 2016 LLR 724 (All HC).
• Transfer does not amount to change in conditions of service.
(Bom HC).
Page 58 of 58
• Cause of action would arise at Faridabad when the workman was transferred from Faridabad to
Pondicherry.
Whirlpool of India Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, 2017 LLR 93 (P&H
HC).
• Transfer of an employee not by competent authority is rightly quashed.
Indian Tea and Provision Ltd v Rajib Saikia, 2017 LLR 212 (Gau HC).
• Transfer not to be stalled merely because the union election process would be affected.
Indian Airports Kamgar Union v Airports Authority of India, 2017 LLR 682 (Del HC).
• Family difficulties are no grounds to stall the transfer. Also, the chronic heart disease would not prevent
compliance of transfer.
B.G. Arasaraju v The Managing Director, KPTCL, 2017 LLR 926 (Karn HC).
• Transfer to an office having signboard of the management but the same always remains locked, is an
eye-wash and illegal.
Harjit Singh v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Patiala, 2017 LLR (SN) 1007 : 2017 III LLJ 148
(P&H HC).
• Industrial disputes are tenable at a place of employment or transfer.
Veritaz Health Care Ltd v State of U.P, 2017 LLR 1023 (All HC).
End of Document
Cases (1990-2018), 12th ed
Chapter 38WAGES
• Disparity in wages between the workers employed by FCI in different States cannot be permitted.
Food Corp of India Workers v Food Corp of India, (1990) 2 LLN 664 : (1990) 4 Serv LR 745 : (1990)
Supp SCC 296 : AIR 1990 SC 2178 [LNIND 1985 SC 73]: 1990 LLR 497 (SC).
• If a junior clerk performs duties of a chief clerk, he will be entitled to wages of the post of the chief
clerk.
General Manager, Ajudhia Textile Mills v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 1990 LLR 327 : 1990 I CLR
842 (Del HC).
• Where the employer bona fidely disputes as to the nature of employment and rate of wages it would be a
case of delayed payment and not deduction of wages.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp through the Dy. General Manager (EZ) Uttar Pradesh State
Road Transport Corp, Varanasi v VIIth Additional Dist. Judge (Appellate Authority, under the Payment of
Wages Act) Gorakhpur, 1992 LLR 217 (All HC).
• The term “wages” under Payment of Wages Act, excludes bonus and as such incentive wages will also
be excluded.
Super House Ltd v The Prescribed Authority, 1992 LLR 235 : 1992 (64) Fac LR 324 (All HC).
• While applying principle of no work, no wages an employer can deduct wages on pro rata basis and can
also take disciplinary action.
C.T. Sugunaraj v Syndicate Bank, 1992 LLR 727 : 1992 (I) Lab IC 1244 : 1992-II LLN 138 (Mad HC).
Page 2 of 35
• Ex-gratia payment made to the employees will not be “wages” under section 2 (rr) of the Act.
Vagitri Plantations Ltd v Babu Mathew, 1993 LLR 778 : 1993 (67) Fac LR 750 : 1993-II CLR 324 (Ker
HC).
• The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, has jurisdiction to award compensation which is in excess
of the amount claimed by an employee.
Ponnambalam v Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1993 LLR 735 (Ker HC).
• The strike must be both legal and justified to entitle the workmen for wages of the strike period
otherwise the striking workers will not be entitled to wages on the principle of “no work no wages”.
Syndicate Bank v K. Umesh Nayak, (1994) 5 SCC 572 [LNIND 1994 SC 1244] : AIR 1995 SC 319
[LNIND 1994 SC 1244]: (1994) 2 CLR 753 : 1994 LLR 833 : 1994-II LLJ 836 : 1994-II LLN 1296 (SC).
• Basic wages include salary and additional emoluments, whatsoever payable, either in cash or kind.
Municipal Corp of Delhi v Ganesh Razak, 1994 LLR 82 : 1994 (68) Fac LR 997 : 1994-I LLN 660 (Del
HC).
• A clerk given charge and responsibilities of the head clerk will be entitled to the latter’s grade.
Shyamalendu Chatterjee v Hooghly Dock and Port Engineers Ltd, 1995 LLR 438 (Cal HC).
• The minimum wages under the Minimum Wages Act, will supersede the award and workers will be
entitled to get the difference.
General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur v The Presiding Officer, Central Government
Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur, 1995 LLR 544 (MP HC).
• Non-payment of wages to an employee in the absence of cogent evidence by the employer will not be
justified.
Balwant Dinkar Kadam v Proprietor, MCGAY Industries, (1996) 1 CLR 444 : 1995 LLR 624 : 1995
(70) Fac LR 1064 (Bom HC).
Page 3 of 35
• The State Government is not bound to accept the recommendations of the Advisory Board while fixing
minimum wages.
Rurmal Jhawaramal v State of Bihar, 1995 LLR 717 : 1995 Lab IC 1902 (Pat HC).
• Claim by daily rated/casual employees for equal pay as those paid to regular ones will not be
sustainable.
Municipal Corp of Delhi v Ganesh Razak, (1995) 1 SCC 235 [LNIND 1994 SC 1606] : 1995 Lab IC 330
: (1995) 1 LLJ 395 : 1995 LLR 161 (SC).
• The Principle of “no work no wages” will apply only when the workers refuse to work on their own.
Clifton Electronics v Lt. Governor, 1995 LLR 896 (Del HC).
• On employers request for holding an enquiry by the Labour Court after terminating the services of an
employee, the employer will have to pay wages during the pendency of the enquiry.
Pandurang Kashinath Wasant v Divisional Controller, M.S.R.T.C. Dhule, 1995 LLR 694 : 1995 (71) Fac
LR 27 (Bom HC).
• State Government, can revise minimum rates of wages retrospectively under the Minimum Wages Act.
Association of Planters of Kerala v State of Kerala, 1996 LLR 400 (Ker HC).
• Deduction of wages for illegal strike period will be on the principle of “no work no wages”.
T.K. Rajan v Labour Court Ernankulam, 1996 LLR 1126 (Ker HC).
• No wages will be payable if lock-out is legal.
H.A.L. Employees’ Union v The Presiding Officer, (1996) 4 SCC 223 [LNIND 1995 SC 1350] : 1996
LLR 673 (SC).
Page 4 of 35
• An employer can deduct wages when there is excess payment to an employee.
Motilal v Superintendent, Government Press Jodhpur, 1996 LLR 759 (Raj HC).
• If every aspect is taken into consideration, the fixation of minimum wages cannot be challenged.
K.C. Khandelwal v State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 Mah LJ 1000 : (1996) 73 Fac LR 1564 : (1996) 1
CLR 1034 : 1996 LLR 710 (Bom HC).
• Fixation of minimum wages cannot be circumvented on technical grounds.
K.C. Khandelwal v State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 Mah LJ 1000 : (1996) 73 Fac LR 1564 : (1996) 1
CLR 1034 : 1996 LLR 710 (Bom HC).
• Even ex-employees are covered by the Minimum Wages Act.
Pali Devi v Chairman, Managing Committee, Army School, Jallandhar, (1996) 3 SCC 296 [LNIND 1996
SC 385] : AIR 1996 SC 1589 [LNIND 1996 SC 385]: 1996 LLR 830 (SC).
• Wages to the employees will not be payable by the taking over authority for the period prior to taking
over.
Bapu Subboo Chawan v National Textile Corp (SM) Ltd, (1996) 73 Fac LR 1598 : (1996) 1 CLR 1028 :
1996 LLR 840 (Bom HC).
• Workers required to work on national and festival holidays and leave holidays will be entitled twice of
their daily wages or in the alternative average daily wage for that day and one substituted holiday within
90 days.
Hind Samachar Ltd, Jalandhar v The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jalandhar, 1996 LLR 881 (P&H
HC).
• Teachers are not “workmen” hence their minimum wages cannot be fixed by the authorities under the
Minimum Wages Act.
Haryana Unrecognized School Association v State of Haryana, 1996 LLR 560 (SC).
Page 5 of 35
• No wages to employees when they resort to illegal strike.
H.M.T. Ltd v H.M.T. Head Office Employees’ Association, 1997 LLR 758 (SC): AIR 1997 SC 585
[LNIND 1996 SC 1761]: (1996) 11 SCC 379.
• The principles of natural justice are not applicable for failure to give notice for the normal deduction of
wages for the period of absence under section 9 (1) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Pandian Roadways Corp Ltd v Dy. Commissioner of Labour, 1997 (91) FJR 355 (Mad HC).
• Minimum wages under Minimum Wages Act, for teaching staff cannot be fixed since the teachers are not
workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act.
Hari Vidya Mandir, Sahupuri, Varanasi v State of Uttar Pradesh, 1997 Lab IC 3122 (All HC).
• Action of the employer deducting wages for the period for which the office bearers of the union had
gone to attend the proceedings in court will not be justified.
Madura Coats Ltd v S.L. Mehendle, Member, Industrial Court, (1998) 1 LLN 154 : (1997) 3 Mah LJ 823
: (1998) 78 Fac LR 946 : 1998 LLR 287 (Bom HC).
• The employee not covered under Minimum Wages Act, will not make claim for overtime under the said
Act.
Municipal Council, Hatta v Bhagat Singh, (1998) 2 SCC 443 : AIR 1998 SC 1201 : (1998) 1 LLJ 815 :
(1998) 2 LLN 409 : 1998 LLR 298 (SC).
• A probationer cannot be denied the minimum wages as fixed under the M.W. Act.
Ajith Kumar v Labour Court, (1999) 1 LLJ 780 : (1998) 79 Fac LR 753 : 1998 LLR 679 (Ker HC).
• Justification and legality of a lock-out will be the decisive factor for payment of wages.
Bharatiya Kamgar Karamchari Mahasangh v G.K.W. Ltd, (1998) 79 Fac LR 343 : (1998) 1 CLR 1078 :
1998 LLR 696 (Bom HC).
Page 6 of 35
• Neither the Principal employer nor the contractor can be liable to pay minimum wages if it is not
notified under the Minimum Wages Act.
(1) Linge Gowda Detective and Security Chamber Pvt Ltd (2) Mysore Kirloskar Ltd v Authority Under
Minimum Wages Act, 1998 LLR 77 (Karn HC).
• Non-payment of minimum wages to the employees of a canteen will not be unfair labour practice.
Oswal Petrochemicals v Govt of Maharashtra, (1997) 77 Fac LR 403 : 1998 LLR 113 (Bom HC).
• “Last drawn wages” means wages drawn at the time of termination.
Hindustan Paints Supply Co v State of West Bengal, (1998) 79 Fac LR 504 : (1998) 2 LLJ 845 : (1998)
2 LLN 777 : 1998 LLR 713 (Cal HC).
• Employees of courier service will be entitled to minimum wages fixed under Shops & Establishments
Act.
Airfreight Ltd v State of Karnataka, 1998 LLR 972 (Karn HC).
• Awarding of wages by the Tribunal for unjustified strike will be quashed.
Panyam Cements and Minerals Industries Ltd, Wire Division, Bangalore v Deccan Wire Employees’
Association, Bangalore, 1998 LLR 1128 (Karn HC).
• Proceeding initiated under BIFR where wages are due, financial inability of the employer is no defence
for non-payment.
Girni Kamgar Sangharsha Samiti v Khatau Mackanji Spinning & Wvg. Co Ltd, (1998) 79 Fac LR 568 :
(1998) 3 LLN 166 : (1998) 2 LLJ 264 [LNIND 1998 BOM 127] : 1998 LLR 616 (Bom HC).
• While considering revision of wages Tribunal must consider financial condition of the Company.
B.P. Steel Industries Pvt Ltd v Industrial Workers’ Union, 1998 II CLR 611 (Bom HC).
Page 7 of 35
• An authority under Payment of Wages Act, can decide the claim of unauthorised deductions from wages
or delay in payment thereof since it has jurisdiction to decide all matters incidentally to such claims.
General Manager, U.P.S.B. Corp Ltd v Christopher Fonseca, (1998) 2 LLJ 197 : (1998) 79 Fac LR 860 :
(1998) 1 LLN 701 : 1998 II LLJ 738 (Bom HC).
• Deduction of wages for stoppage of departmental buses by the residents of nearby village will not be
justified.
Tamil Nadu Atomic Power Employees Union, (represented by its Secretary, L. Raviraj) Kalpakkam v
Nuclear Power Corp, (represented by Station Director) Madras Atomic Power Station, 1999 LLR 251
(Mad HC).
• No payment of wages to a workman during pendency of approval for his dismissal will not be necessary
when he is not a protected workman.
V.K. Verma v Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd, Pinjore, 1999 LLR 370 (P&H HC): 1999-I LLN 570.
• Principle of “no work no pay” will apply if an employee overstays his leave.
Madan Prasad Singh v Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corp, 1999 LLR 696 : 1999-II LLN 564 (Pat
HC).
• An establishment will be excluded from the applicability of Minimum Wages Act when the wages are
more than the prescribed rates.
Airfreight Ltd v State of Karnataka, (1999) 6 SCC 567 [LNIND 1999 SC 644] : AIR 1999 SC 2459
[LNIND 1999 SC 644]: (1999) 4 LLN : 1999 LLR 1008 (SC) : 1999 (83) Fac LR 126.
• An employer paying higher than minimum rates of wages is not required to pay variable dearness
allowance separately.
Airfreight Ltd v State of Karnataka, (1999) 6 SCC 567 [LNIND 1999 SC 644] : AIR 1999 SC 2459
[LNIND 1999 SC 644]: (1999) 4 LLN 1 : 1999 LLR 1008 (SC) : 1999 (83) Fac LR 126.
• When the total remuneration is more than the minimum wages plus DA it will not amount to unfair
labour practice.
Page 8 of 35
Harilal Jechand Doshi Ghatkopar Hindu Sabha Hospital v Maharashtra General Kamgar Union, (1999)
83 Fac LR 789 : (2000) 2 Mah LJ 123 : 1999 LLR 1159 (Bom HC): 1999-II CLR 799.
• Equal wages will be payable even to the casual workers engaged through the contractor when they are
doing the same work.
Food Corp of India v Shyamal K. Chatterjee, (2000) 7 SCC 449 [LNIND 2000 SC 2155] : AIR 2000 SC
3554 [LNIND 2000 SC 2155]: (2000) 2 LLJ 1407 : 2000 LLR 1293 (SC).
• No wages will be payable to a worker who fails to report for duty as offered by the employer.
Velan Saw Mills (represented by N. Mangalam Proprietrix) v Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Tiruchirapalli and V. Chinnan, 2001 LLR 115 (Mad HC).
• Prosecution of the Secretary of a Society under Minimum Wages Act, will be quashed if he was not
involved and also violations were vague.
Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee v State of Bihar, 2001 LLR 562 (Pat HC).
• Cutting of full day’s wages will be justified when the bank employees have partially struck the work.
Manager, RBI v V. Raveendran, Secretary, Reserve Bank Employees’ Association, 2001 LLR 23 (Ker
HC).
• Contract workers will get wages at par with direct workers of the employer.
Hindustan Lever Ltd v Hindustan Lever Employees Union, (2001) 2 Mah LJ 837 : 2001 LLR 446 (Bom
HC).
• Prosecution of an employer for non-payment of wages will be quashed when no opportunity is afforded
to him.
Sailesh T. Bhansell v Inspector of Plantations Valparai, Coimbatore District, 2001 LLR 498 (Mad HC).
Page 9 of 35
• Daily rated worker working at different sites performing different nature of work cannot claim equal
wages for equal work.
Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Employees’ Union v G.M.D. Corp, 2001 LLR 346 (Guj HC).
• Retention allowance paid to seasonal employees will from part of “wages” under the Payment of Bonus
Act, 1965 and such employees will be entitled to bonus.
Sangammer Bhag Sahakari Sakhar Karkhane Ltd v Rashtriya Sakhar Kamgar Union, (2000) 86 Fac LR
882 : (2001) 2 LLJ 707 [LNIND 2000 AUG 60] : 2001 LLR (Sum) 1068 (Bom HC).
• Workers not denying to have resorted to strike will not be entitled to wages for the strike period.
Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd v Workmen Employed in the Refinery Division of Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd,
(2001) 88 Fac LR 1 : (2001) 4 LLN 76 : 2001 LLR 26 (Bom HC).
• No wages will be payable to the strikers when the strike is illegal.
Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd v Workmen Employed in the Refinery Division of Bharat Petroleum Corp Ltd,
(2001) 88 Fac LR 1 : (2001) 4 LLN 76 : 2001 LLR 26 (Bom HC).
• Non-payment of salary or allowance by the employer on the ground that the misconduct was under
consideration when an employee was placed under suspension will not be sustainable.
Chandrakantha v Karnataka State Road Transport Corp, 2001 LLR (Sum) 414 (Karn HC).
• Minimum wages must be paid to daily wagers engaged for maintaining the agricultural fields.
Mahatma Phule Agricultural University v Nasik Zilla Sheth Kamgar Union, (2001) 7 SCC 346 [LNIND
2001 SC 1430] : AIR 2001 SC 3228 [LNIND 2001 SC 1430]: 2001 SCC (L&S) 1180 : 2001 LLR 904
(SC).
• When two posts are different, demand for equal pay fixation or seniority will not be tenable.
Mysore Paper Mills Ltd v Workmen, Mysore Paper Mills Ltd, AIR 2002 SC 2420 [LNIND 2001 SC
609]: 2001 LLR 1007 (SC).
Page 10 of 35
• In case an employee not taken on duty on reinstatement, he will get wages for the period till he is taken
on duty.
Chandrakantha v State Road Transport Corp, 2001 LLR (Sum) 411 (Karn HC).
• Minimum wages must be paid to the employees of a hospital even when run by a Trust.
Krishna Devi - Devi Prasad Kejariwal Matri Sadan v State of Bihar, 2001 LLR 658 (Pat HC).
• Minimum wages cannot be fixed for teachers since they are not “workmen” under I.D. Act.
1. Chacha Nehru Vidyapith, Ranchi v Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948-cum-Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Ranchi, 2001 LLR 479 (Jhark HC).
2. Green School, Dehradun v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2001 LLR 21 (All HC).
• Illegality in commencement of lock out may be cured by notice of expiry of 14 days and as such the lock
out will be legal and the management will be liable to pay wages only for the period when the lock out
was not legal.
Otis Elevator Co (India) Ltd v G.S. Baj, (2001) 1 Mah LJ 853 : (2001) 89 Fac LR 714 : (2001) 2 LLN
209 : 2001 LLR (Sum) 1070 (Bom HC).
• Declaring lock out after the workers adopted go slow tactics and strike will be justified and the workman
not resuming duties after lifting the lock-out will not be entitled to wages.
Mysore Wine Products and Allied Co Ltd, Bangalore v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bangalore,
2001 LLR (Sum) 847 (Karn HC).
• High Court will not interfere with notification fixing minimum wages even when there are minor
mistakes with the calculations.
Chotanagpur Small Scale Industries Association v State of Bihar, 2001 LLR (Sum) 959 (Jhar HC).
• A notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, revising wages @ 20% increase will not be illegal
Page 11 of 35
even when it has been issued after the expiry of five years as provided under the Minimum Wages Act. In
this case the revision has been made after nine years and as such slight increase in neutralisation above
100% cannot be said to be arbitrary on the part of appropriate Authority.
Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association rep. by Secretary v Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Labour Employment,
Training and Factories Department, 2001 LLR (Sum) 1070 (AP HC).
• Unilateral reduction of wages of an employee will be contrary of section 9A of the Industrial Disputes
Act.
S.N. Kedare v Ceat Tyres of India Ltd, (2002) 2 Mah LJ 359 : (2001) 91 Fac LR 922 : (2001) 3 CLR
291 : 2002 LLR 143 (Bom HC).
• Salary and allowances being paid to regular employees be paid to daily rated employees also.
Director-General of Works, C.P.W.D. v Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), 2002 LLR 124 (Del
HC).
• Minimum wages as fixed for Footwear Industry will not apply to leather goods.
Ezaz Tanning Co v State of Tamil Nadu, 2002 LLR 126 (Mad HC).
• While fixing minimum wages, the decision of Advisory Board will not be binding upon the
Government.
North Bihar Chamber of Commerce & Industries, Muzaffarpur v State of Bihar, 2002 LLR 166 (Pat HC).
• Principle of “equal work, equal wages” will be subject to volume and duration of the work.
Food Corp of India Workers Union v Food Corp of India, (2002) 9 SCC 100 [LNIND 2002 SC 262] :
2002 SCC (L&S) 1057 : 2002 LLR 769 : 2002 Lab IC 1504 [LNIND 2002 SC 262] : 2002 (101) FJR 10
: 2002-II LLJ 267 : 2002-II LLN 365: AIR 2002 SC 1659 [LNIND 2002 SC 262](SC).
• Last drawn and not minimum wages will be payable to a workman during pendency of proceedings in
the higher court.
Page 12 of 35
Indian Printing Press Works v Union Territory of Delhi, 2002 CLR 164 : (2002) 99 DLT 217 : (2002) III
LLJ 560 : 2002 LLR 791 (Del HC).
• Awarding wages to casual labourers at par with regular employees will be set aside when the reference
pertained to their regularisation.
Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, 2002 LLR 884
(AP HC).
• Determination of “equal pay for equal work” has inherent difficulties for comparison.
Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad, 2002 LLR 884
(AP HC).
• No separate DA will be payable when the total wages are more than the minimum.
Ramakrishna Pharmaceuticals & Ramakrishna Homeo Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v State Authority under
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 : 2002 LLR 988 (AP HC).
• Workers receiving higher wages than the minimum by a settlement, will be debarred to demand special
allowance as notified by Government.
Ramakrishna Pharmaceuticals & Ramakrishna Homeo Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd v State Authority under
Minimum Wages Act, 1948 : 2002 LLR 988 (AP HC).
• If an employer can not pay the minimum wages, he has no right to run the industry.
Andhra Pradesh Hotels Association v Govt of Andhra Pradesh, Labour Employment, Training and
Factories Department, Hyderabad, 2002 LLR 1122 (AP HC).
• High Court will not interfere in fixation or revision of minimum wages.
• Paying capacity cannot be the grounds for non-payment of minimum wages.

Page 13 of 35
• The principle of “equal pay for equal work” should not be applied when casual/daily wage workers are
regularised.
State of Orissa v Balaram Sahu, (2003) 1 SCC 250 [LNIND 2002 SC 670] : AIR 2003 SC 33 [LNIND
2002 SC 670]: 2003 LLR 44 (SC).
• A notification fixing minimum wages for the pump drivers will not be applicable upon part-time pump
operators.
Tirukkazhukundram Panchayat Union v Authority Appointed under the Minimum Wages Act (Deputy
Commissioner of Labour-II), 2003 LLR 492 : 2003 LLN 708 (Mad HC).
• The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, is vested with condoning the delay for making claim for
wages by the workers.
Thanjavur Central Co-operative Bank Employees Co-op Thrift and Credit Society Ltd v Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, 2003 LLR 518 : 2003-II LLN 1 (Mad HC).
• Direction to grant pay scale to an employee appointed on temporary basis on consolidated pay cannot be
given when there is no material placed before the Court for comparison in order to apply the principle of
“equal pay for equal work”.
Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology v Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003) 5 SCC 188 [LNIND 2003
SC 445] : (2003) 3 Serv LR 356 : (2003) 2 LLJ 968 [LNIND 2003 SC 445] : 2003 LLR 611 : 2003-II
LLN 1096 : 2003 (97) FLR 800 (SC).
• A right to carry on business is subject to compliance of constitutional obligations and as such financial
stringencies may not be a ground for non-payment of wages to the employees.
Kapila Hingorani v State of Bihar, (2003) 6 SCC 1 [LNIND 2003 SC 521] : (2003) 3 LLJ 31 [LNIND
2002 SC 702] : (2003) 116 CC 133 : (2003) 4 SCC 541 : 2003 LLR 628 : 2003 (98) Fac LR 329 (SC).
• An employee, in addition to discharging her duties as a demonstrator also doing the work of clerical
nature, will be entitled to minimum wages as applicable to a clerk.
Page 14 of 35
Singer India Ltd v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) 895 (NOC) : 2003 LLR 658 : 2003 (97)
• While applying the principle of “no work, no wages”, the award of full back-wages will be modified to
half of back-wages.
Nagar Panchayat, Sadabad, Mathura v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Agra, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) 899
(NOC) : 2003 LLR 739 : 2003 (97) Fac LR 1020 (All HC).
• Equal pay for equal work is a concept which requires, for its applicability, complete and wholesale
identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and other group who have already
earned such pay scales.
State of Haryana v Tilak Raj, (2003) 6 SCC 123 [LNIND 2003 SC 550] : AIR 2003 SC 2658 [LNIND
2003 SC 550]: (2003) 4 Serv LR 746 : 2003 LLR 823 : 2003-III LLJ 487 (SC).
• Labourers, engaged for construction of a hall of the school, will be entitled to minimum wages as fixed
under the Minimum Wages Act and the concept of Sramdan is extraneous to the labour and entitlement of
wages.
Robert Toppo v State of Jharkhand, (2003) III LLJ 810 : 2003 LLR 948 : 2003 (98) Fac LR 716 (Jhar
HC).
• The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, has rightly held that the Management will be liable to pay
minimum wages to such labourer engaged for construction of school hall alongwith penalty five times
which, however, has been reduced to three times.
Robert Toppo v State of Jharkhand, (2003) III LLJ 810 : 2003 LLR 948 : 2003 (98) Fac LR 716 (Jhar
HC).
• The parity of wages as granted by Industrial Tribunal to Mates working with MCD to those working
with CPWD performing similar duties will not be interfered by the High Court.
Municipal Corp of Delhi v Workman (Mates), 2003 LLR 1023 (Del HC).
• Even though weavers after lifting cotton from the petitioner’s centre weave it in their home and then
Page 15 of 35
return the finished product to the centre but the Minimum Wages Act, applies even to such employees.
Sub-section (1) of section 2 defines an employee which includes such out workers.
Swaraj Ashram, Kanpur v State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 1 LLJ 80 : 2003 LLR 1135 : 2003 (99) Fac LR
395 (All HC).
• When a stay order was obtained by the employee that the employee could not join his duties, the latter
cannot be deprived of his salary for such forced unemployment since non-employment was not because of
his fault hence the principle of “no work no wages” will not be applicable.
Seeta Charan Banwari v Madhya Pradesh Rajya Bhumi Vikas Nigam, (2004) IV LLJ (Supp) 252 : 2004
LLR 43 (MP HC).
• Piece-rated employees can not be deprived of minimum wages as fixed and/or revised under the
Minimum Wages Act.
Delhi Admn. through Directorate of Social Welfare v Presiding Officer, (2004) 1 LLJ 910 [LNIND 2003
DEL 874] : 2004 LLR 83 (Del HC).
• When disability of an employee is incurred during his employment, his minimum wages can not be
reduced since it will be prejudicial to the dignity of labour.
Delhi Admn. through Directorate of Social Welfare v Presiding Officer, (2004) 1 LLJ 910 [LNIND 2003
DEL 874] : 2004 LLR 83 (Del HC).
Note: “Full wages to workman pending proceedings in the higher courts”, please see the cases under
section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
• Rates of minimum wages for the employees will not apply to the milk testor working for two hours a
day.
Paduppu Ksheerotpadaka S.S. Ltd v Varghese, 2004 LLR 662 (Ker HC).
• An employer will not lose its right to deduct the wages for unauthorised absence of the employee if not
deducted within one month from the wages.
Karnataka State Road Transport Corp v Karnataka State Road Transport Corp Staff and Workers
Federation, 2004 LLR 739 (Karn HC).
Page 16 of 35
• Condoning of delay for claiming arrears of wages due to sufficient cause by the Authority will not be
illegal.
Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Mayurbhanj v Addl. District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, 2005
LLR 121 (Ori HC).
• Under the Minimum Wages Act, it is the liability of principal employer to pay difference of wages to the
employees of the contractor.
Executive Engineer, Rural Works Division, Mayurbhanj v Addl. District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj, 2005
LLR 121 (Ori HC).
• When the employer had assumed that the workman deliberately did not report for duty, the reduction of
wages is not permissible without enquiry.
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd v Kherulla Hasanali Pathan, (2005) 1 Mah LJ 317 : 2005
LLR 286 (Bom HC).
• The monthly pay of an employee is his property and he cannot be deprived of it except by due process of
law.
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd v Kherulla Hasanali Pathan, (2005) 1 Mah LJ 317 : 2005
LLR 286 (Bom HC).
• Equal wages of regular employees cannot be claimed by the contractual employees engaged for fixed
tenure.
Yuvneet Kumar v Municipal Corp of Delhi, 2005 LLR 366 (Del HC).
• When the contractual employees failed to prove that they were performing the duties as identical with
the regular employees, they cannot claim equal wages.
Yuvneet Kumar v Municipal Corp of Delhi, 2005 LLR 366 (Del HC).
• Inaction on the part of the Government in not revising minimum wages for 13 years will not be justified
hence revision be made within six months.
Page 17 of 35
President Cinema Workers Union Affiliated to Bharatiy Mazdoor Sangh v The Secretary Social Welfare
and Labour Department, 2005 LLR 648 (Karn HC).
• Allowing upward revision of wages and allowances by the Industrial Tribunal on the basis of industry-
cum-region formula will not be justified.
Concept Pharmaceuticals Ltd v Concept Pharmaceuticals Kamgar Sanghatana, 2005 LLR 675 (Bom
HC).
• Minimum wages to the safai karamcharis cannot be denied on the ground that they work on part-time
basis.
Sonu v Municipal Corp of Delhi, 2005 LLR 778 (Del HC).
• The directors of a Company cannot be held personally liable for payment of wages to the employees.
P.C. Agarwala v Payment of Wages Inspector, MP, (2005) 8 SCC 104 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1089 : (2005) 6
Serv LR 401 : (2005) 107 Fac LR 826 : 2005 LLR 1073 (SC).
• The workers, designated as semi-skilled, will be entitled to the wages in accordance with Wage Board.
Director, Experimental Sugar Factory, Kanpur v Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur, 2006 LLR 343 (All HC).
• Since the main function of a Hospital is to give medical treatment, as such not covered by the Factories
Act or Payment of Wages Act.
Indraprastha Medical Corp Ltd v National Capital Territory of Delhi, 2006 LLR 628 (Del HC).
• Private security guards through contractor, will not be entitled to minimum wages in the absence of
“scheduled employment”.
Lingegowd Detective & Security Chamber Pvt Ltd v Mysore Kirloskar Ltd, (2006) 5 SCC 180 [LNIND
2006 SC 357] : (2006) 3 LLN 777 AIR 2006 SC 1967 [LNIND 2006 SC 357]: (2006) 2 KLT 768 : 2006
LLR 729 (SC).
Page 18 of 35
• A teacher, not being a workman, will neither be covered under Payment of Wages Act nor Minimum
Wages Act.
Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad Allahabad v Prescribed Authority, under Payment of Wages Act,
Jhansi, 2006 LLR 869 (SN) (All HC).
• “No work, no wages” will be applicable when workers have resorted to illegal strike.
Lt. Governor, Govt of NCT v Delhi Flood Control Mazdoor Union, 2006 LLR 1113 (Del HC).
• Deduction of full day wages of employees abstaining from work for few hours for staging dharna is
justified.
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Diploma Engineers’ Association v Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board,
2006 LLR 1132 (MP HC).
• A Society is liable to pay minimum wages to its employees.
Delhi Council for Child Welfare v Sheela Devi, 2006 LLR 1181 (Del HC).
• “No work, no pay” will apply when employees absented from work and resorted to strike.
Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board Diploma Engineers’ Association v Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board,
2007 LLR 89 (MP HC).
• Pendency of industrial dispute will not debar employees to claim wages under the Minimum Wages Act.
Steel Authority of India Ltd v Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 2007 LLR 79 (MP HC).
• A workman will be entitled to his last drawn wages from his filing of affidavit during pendency of
proceedings in the higher court.
Kodungallor Town Co-op Bank Ltd v Surendra Babu, 2007 LLR 105 (Ker HC).
• Earned wages will become due only after working for prescribed period.
Page 19 of 35
Dr. Mala Bhandari v Authority under the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act, 1954, 2007 LLR 195 (Del
HC).
• Birla Institute of Technology will be liable to pay the wages as per Minimum Wages Act.
Birla Institute of Technology v State of Bihar, 2007 LLR (SN) 330 (Jhar HC).
• In the absence of relationship of master and servant, the weighmen will not be entitled to minimum
wages.
Agricultural Produce Market Committee v Weighmen’s Association, Tiptur, 2007 LLR (SN) 333 (Karn
HC).
• Deduction of wages of the workers for slowing down of work, in the absence of opportunity, will not be
justified.
Workmen of Bata India Ltd, Represented by its General Secretary v Commissioner of Labour in
Karnataka, 2007 LLR 443 (SN) (Karn HC).
• Claim pertaining to stoppage of increment will not be tenable under Payment of Wages Act.
Sant Narain v General Manager, Haryana Roadways, Rohtak Depot, 2007 LLR 621 (P&H HC).
• Collection and distribution of milk without rearing of milch cows will not be within “Dairy Farming”
under Minimum Wages Act.
Secretary, Padippu K.S. Sangam Ltd v C. Varghese, 2007 LLR 783 (SN) (SC).
• When the wages are more than the minimum rates, no separate VDA will be payable.
Indure Pvt Ltd v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2007 LLR 1038 (All HC).
• Petrol Pump employees will be entitled to minimum wages.

Page 20 of 35
Ajay Bansal v State, 2007 LLR 1040 (Del HC).
• “No work, no pay” will be applicable when the workman did not resume duty despite offers.
Sikand and Co v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2008 LLR 58 (HP HC).
• Allowing equal benefits to the canteen workers as available to VIP Guest House employees liable to be
set aside.
Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v Metallurgical and Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd, 2008 LLR 1 (SC).
• Bonus, Provident Fund and unpaid increments would not form part of minimum wages.
MICA Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd v State of Jharkhand, 2008 LLR 468 (Jhar HC).
• Onus is on employee to prove his claim for being paid lesser than fixed minimum wages.
MICA Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd v State of Jharkhand, 2008 LLR 468 (Jhar HC).
• Prosecution under Minimum Wages Act, is to be quashed when complaint does not spell out the accused
and offence.
Shriram Centre () v State, 2008 LLR 125 (Del HC).
• Similar wages to workers of contractor not payable when they were doing only intermittent work of
regular employees.
Himmat Singh v I.C.I. India Ltd, AIR 2008 SCW 1165 : AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1453 : 2008 LLR 357
(SC).
• Ten times penalty for short payment than minimum wages is to be modified to the equivalent to the
amount.
Kerala Automobiles Ltd v Naveetha P., 2008 LLR 677 (Del HC).
Page 21 of 35
• Reimbursement for treatment to a non-recognised hospital, is to be allowed under the Payment of Wages
Act.
Superintending Engineer, Electricity Transmission Circle, Kanpur v Prescribed Authority, (Payment of

Wages Act) City Magistrate, Kanpur, 2008 LLR 729 (All HC).
• A claim for leave pay and bonus is beyond the scope of section 20 (1) of the Minimum Wages Act.
MICA Manufacturing Co Pvt Ltd v State of Jharkhand, 2008 LLR 891 (SN) (Jhar HC).
• In the absence of an order for regularsing the absence of employee, the deduction from wages was
proper.
Kailash Chandra Tiwari v Second Additional District Judge, 2008 LLR 893 (SN) (All HC).
• An employee getting wages above prescribed ceiling cannot invoke the forum under Payment of Wages
Act.
Sulabh International Social Service Organisation, Ghaziabad v Prem Chandra Jha, 2008 LLR 911 (All
HC).
• House rent allowance forms a part of wages, hence the claim under Payment of Wages Act, will be
tenable.
HC).
• Writ petition against the Authority under Payment of Wages Act, by a social organization will be
entertained.
HC).
• Neither back-wages nor bonus would be part of wages under the Payment of Wages Act.
Dhirajlal G. Vadgama v UOI, 2008 LLR 1111 (SN) (Guj HC).

Page 22 of 35
• Deduction from salary cannot exceed 75% if worker is covered by Payment of Wages Act.
S. Hussain Bee v A.P. State Road Transport Corp, Hyderabad, 2008 LLR 1258 (AP HC).
• Five times compensation is appropriate when wages are less than the prescribed minimum rates.
A.S. Lally, Major (Retd) v Assistant Labour Commissioner, 2009 LLR 100 (P&H HC).
• Burden of proof lies upon the workman claiming “equal wages for equal work”.
Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board v Aziz Ahmad, (2009) 2 SCC 606 [LNIND 2009 SC 119] : 2009
LLR 552 (SN) (SC).
• When the claimant has failed to establish employer-employee relationship, his claim for wages will be
untenable.
Sapan Kumar Burman v Rajan Kumar Shrivastav, 2009 LLR (SN) 550 (Jhar HC).
• Workmen having not worked for seven years, are not entitled to get back wages on the principle of “No
work, No pay”.
Bharat Heavy Electricials Ltd, rep. by its General Manager, Tiruchirapalli v Presiding Officer, Labour
Court, Tiruchirapalli, 2009 LLR 327 (SN) (Mad HC).
• A cleaner, who was allowed to drive the bus occasionally, can’t claim driver’s salary.
Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co Ltd, Nagpur v Dyaneshwar Pralhad Sondawale, 2009
LLR 761 (Bom HC).
• Agricultural employees do not come within the purview of Payment of Wages Act.
Ashraf (Dead) by LRs v Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut, 2009 LLR 717 (All HC).
• ALC not justified in directing to pay wages to security personnel when already paid.
Page 23 of 35
Lt. Col. Babu George Neptune Security v All Kerala Ex-Servicemen Security Staff, 2009 LLR 743 (Ker
HC).
• Contract workers could not claim “equal pay for equal work”.
Tumkur Poura Karmikara Sangha v Municipal Council, Tumkur, 2009 LLR 1010 (Ker HC).
• If an employee fails to comply with transfer order, he will not get any wages.
N. Uthandavan v Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, Chennai, 2010 LLR 223
(SN) 2009 (4) LLN 588 (Mad HC).
• Labour Commissioner has erred in allowing equal wages to contractor’s workers as those of regular
workers.
Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Board v U.P. Vidyut Mazdoor Sangh, 2010 LLR 453 (SC).
• After filing writ, instead of paying last drawn wages, reinstated workman will get equal minimum
wages.
Delhi Transport Corp v Phool Singh, 2010 LLR 571 (Del HC).
• Minimum wages will be payable by a Society covered by the Delhi Shops & Establishments Act.
Multipurpose Training Centre for Deaf v Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2010 LLR 728 (Del HC).
• Penalty of 8 times the amount of difference for short wages liable to be quashed when the Authority had
personal bias.
Haryana Tourism Corp Ltd v Authority under Minimum Wages Act, Faridabad, 2010 LLR 987 (P&H
HC).
• Penalty of Rs 25 is appropriate if the claim pertains to withholding of wages.

Page 24 of 35
Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur v Labour Court, Chandrapur, 2010 LLR (SN) 1127 (Bom HC).
• Claim for “equal work, equal wages” not tenable if not supported with evidence.
Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam v Navin Kumar Saini, 2011 LLR 6 (SC).
• Three times penalty for delayed payment of minimum wages not to be interfered.
Tiruchirappali North Sarvodhaya Sangam, rep. by its Secretary, Trichy v Secretary to Government,
Labour and Employment, Govt of T.N., Chennai, 2011 LLR 33 (Mad HC).
• Principal employer not to pay 10 times difference of wages to employees of contractor.
Fertilizer Corp of India Ltd, G Unit v Authority under M.W.A.C. for W.A.L.C., 2011 LLR 172 (All HC).
• Minimum Wages Act, not applicable upon Society registered under Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies
Act.
Management, Dindigul Ladies Polythene Workers Industrial Co-op Society Ltd v Controlling Authority
under the Minimum Wages Act, Dindigul, 2011 LLR 283 (Mad HC).
• Workers, even engaged through the contractor, will get minimum wages in the scheduled employment.
Sirpur Paper Mills Ltd v Govt of A.P. Rep. by its Secretary, L.E.T. & P. Department, 2011 LLR 250 (AP
HC).
• Prosecution of exempted employer under Minimum Wages Act, will not be tenable.
Reliance Telecom Ltd v State of Bihar, 2011 LLR 306 (Pat HC).
• Daily wagers not entitled to invoke doctrine of “equal work, equal pay”.
Hindustan Salts Ltd v Drang Salt Mine Labour Union, 2011 LLR 402 (HP HC).
Page 25 of 35
• Allowing wages for not providing work after reinstatement of workman not illegal.
Nagar Palika Nigam, Khandwa v Tulsiram, 2011 LLR 405 (MP HC).
• Prosecution, for non-production of record under Minimum Wages Act, will be tenable.
Radhe Shyam Makharia v State of Bihar, 2011 LLR 443 (SN) : 2011 (128) Fac LR 272 (Pat HC).
• A Society, imparting education to deaf, is to be covered by Minimum Wages Act.
Multipurpose Training Centre for the Deaf v Govt of NCT of Delhi, 2011 LLR 548 (Del HC).
• Company Judge cannot direct for payment of minimum wages under the Act.
Bikramaditya Mishra v Official Liquidator, Rohtas, 2011 LLR 553 (SN) : 2011 (128) Fac LR 1096 (Pat
HC).
• Deduction of wages of an employee will not be legal when no loss to employer is established.
Charan Singh v General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Hoshiarpur, 2011 LLR 579 (P&H HC).
• No wages to workman who failed to join duty after revocation of suspension.
Chaman Lal v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala, 2011 LLR 577 (P&H HC).
• Daily-wagers would get payment of wages for six days if there is five-days a week in the establishment
General Manager, Govt Milk Scheme v Shivaji Basvantrao Paril, 2011 LLR 752 (Bom HC).
• Minimum wages are guaranteed irrespective of paying capacity of the employer.
Tool Room & Training Centre v Delhi Industrial Security Guards (Regd.), 2011 LLR 827 (Del HC).
Page 26 of 35
• Construction of residential house will be covered by Payment of Wages Act.
Shashi Sharma v Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, 2011 LLR 841 (P&H HC).
• Challenging order of the employer proposing to make deduction of 8 days’ wages of the striking workers
under Article 226 of Constitution of India will not be appropriate since the appropriate forum has been
provided under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936.
Hind Khadan Mazdoor Federation v Coal India Ltd, 2011 LLR (SN) 896 : 2011 (130) Fac LR 125 (MP
HC).
• Principle of “no work, no wages” not applicable if reinstated workman was not allowed to join.
Panipat Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 2011 LLR 918 (P&H HC).
• Wages to be payable to a workman when not permitted to resume duties after acquittal.
Inderjeet Singh v Delhi Transport Corp, 2011 LLR 901 (Del HC).
• Casual workers not entitled to “equal pay for equal work”.
Air India Ltd v Presiding Officer, CGIT, 2011 LLR 951 (Del HC).
• Although no employer is under an obligation to offer check-off (collecting membership from members)
facility to the Union but when such a facility has been extended for 21 years, its withdrawal all of a
sudden would be arbitrary.
Rashtriya Colliery Majdoor Congress v South Eastern Coalfields Ltd, 2011 LLR (SN) 1001 : 2011 (130)
Fac LR 248 (MP HC).
• Principle of “equal pay for equal work” not to apply for casual workers.
Air India Ltd v Presiding Officer, CGIT, 2011 LLR 1080 (Del HC).
• “Wages” under Industrial Disputes Act include travelling concession etc.

Page 27 of 35
Manager, Naaz Cinema v Vasantben Rameshbhai Ghumadiya, 2011 LLR 1092 (Guj HC).
• Check-off facility to a union already allowed cannot be stopped.
Coimbatore Periyar Districts Dravida, Panjalai Thozhilalar Munnetra Sangam, rep. by its Gen. Secretary
S. Doraisamy v National Textile Corp Ltd, Coimbatore, 2011 LLR 1076 (Mad HC).
• When the employer has not been given full opportunity of hearing before passing the Orders for
payment of minimum wages by the Labour Commissioner, such an Order requires reconsideration.
Hasmat Rai Burman v UOI, 2011 LLR (SN) 1118 : 2011 (130) Fac LR 578 (AP HC)
• “Equal pay for equal work” not to apply when two units are in different parts of India.
Workmen represented by Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd v Management of Hyderabad

Industries Ltd, 2011 LLR 1269 (Jhar HC).
• Principle of “no work, no-pay” not applicable when the employee is willing to work.
Uttar Pradesh Co-op Bank Ltd v P.O., Labour Court, 2011 LLR 1247 (All HC).
• Minimum wages of State will apply for a bank.
Tops Security Ltd, Mumbai v A.K. Agarwal, Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 : 2012 LLR 265
(Bom HC).
• Imposing 10 times penalty for unpaid wages without supporting reasons is to be set aside.
Mohandas v Authority, Minimum Wages Act/Dy. Commissioner Labour, 2012 LLR 630 (Mad HC)
• Minimum wages for shops & establishments would also apply to unscheduled employments.
Mantec Consultant Pvt Ltd v State, 2012 LLR 789 (Del HC).
Page 28 of 35
• A charitable hospital will also pay minimum wages.
Bishop Dr. Samuel R. Thomas v State of Jharkhand, 2012 LLR 1090 (Jhar HC).
• “Equal pay for equal work” is not applicable in abstract.
New Delhi Municipal Corp v NDMC General Majdoor Union, 2012 LLR 1020 (Del HC).
• Bishop cannot be prosecuted for non-payment of minimum wages.
• Right to get minimum wages, is included in the right to life hence its non-payment would amount to
breach of Article 23 of the Constitution of India.
Mohiuddin Khan v State of Jharkhand, 2012 LLR (SN) 1119 : 2012 (134) Fac LR 908 (Jhar HC).
• Minimum Wages Act is Authority empowered to decide claim for lesser wages.
Arati Jaiswal v State of Jharkhand, 2012 LLR 1211 (Jhar HC).
• In the absence of any positive evidence for payment of minimum wages to the claimant, the concerned
authority has rightly awarded three times of the amount claimed hence the High Court dismissed the
petition with Rs10,000 as cost payable to the workman.
General Security & Information Services Pvt Ltd v Chief Rolling Stock Engineer, East Coast Railway
Administration, B.B.S.R, 2012 LLR (SN) 1231 : 2012 (135) Fac LR 63 (Ori HC).
• VDA or DA forms part of minimum wages.
Sunrise Industries, Bangalore v Sunrise Industrial Unit, AITUC, 2013 LLR 60 (Karn HC).
• A Call centre is also liable to pay minimum wages.

Page 29 of 35
• “No work, no pay” principle is not rigid.
Sharfraj Khan v UOI, 2013 LLR 176 (Gau HC).
• Reasons are must for imposing10 times damages for short of minimum wages.
Archana Jindal v Authority Minimum Wages, 2013 LLR 366 (All HC).
• Principle of “no work no pay” applies for denial of wages on absence.
Management of B.H.E.L., represented by General Manager v H.N. Chikkaiah, C/o General Secretary,
B.H.E.L. Employees Association, Bangalore, 2013 LLR 718 (Karn HC).
• Wages payable if employer declines to provide work to the worker.
Chairman, Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v Brahmjeet Singh, 2013 LLR 1262 (P&H HC).
• “Basic wages” comprise components which are universally, necessarily and ordinarily paid to all
employees.
Kichha Sugar Co Ltd, throught General Manager v Tarai Chini Mill Majdoor Union, Uttarkhand, 2014
LLR 113 (SC).
• A compensatory allowance is given to meet the high cost of living in certain areas or for hardship to an
employee.
Kichha Sugar Co Ltd, throught General Manager v Tarai Chini Mill Majdoor Union, Uttarkhand, 2014
LLR 113 (SC).
• The sum of total minimum wages and the dearness allowance should not be less than the minimum
wages as notified.
Page 30 of 35
Ram Prasad Soni v Authority under Payment of Wages Act, 2014 LLR (SN) 218 : 2013 (139) Fac LR
1099 (MP HC).
• If the consolidated amount comprising of the wages and the variable dearness allowance is more than the
notified minimum wages, it would not be reduced.
1099 (MP HC).
• Variable dearness allowance forms a part of the minimum wages.
1099 (MP HC).
• Minimum wages for managers not legal since they are not employees.
Kerala Rubber Foot Wear Manufacturers and Exporters Association v State of Kerala, 2014 LLR 415
(Ker HC).
• Providing “service weightage” for fixing minimum wages would not be bad in law.
Kerala Rubber Foot Wear Manufacturers and Exporters Association v State of Kerala, 2014 LLR 415
(Ker HC).
• “No work, no wages” will not be applicable when workman is wrongly kept away from work.
State Bank of India v Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Chandigarh, 2014 LLR
487 (P&H HC).
• Any Director of a Company, not responsible for its affairs, can’t be prosecuted under Minimum Wages
Act.
Deputy Manager, Bharat Heavy Electrical Ltd v State of Himachal Pradesh, 2014 LLR 831 (HP HC).
• A complaint under Minimum Wages Act against top executives without arraigning the Company is
untenable.
Page 31 of 35
• Only in-charge can be prosecuted under Minimum Wages Act.
• Imposition of penalty upon a charitable society for violation of Minimum Wages Act not justified.
Dhanvanthri Co-op Hospital & Medical Research Centre v Senior Labour Inspector, Mysore, 2014 LLR
1068 (Karn HC).
• Reasons for condonation of delay are imperative when application for minimum wages filed after six
months.
Hira Lal v State of Bihar, 2014 LLR 1214 (Pat HC).
• Non-filing of separate application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act is not
fatal.
Naresh Kumar Sachdeva v J.K. Steel, 2015 LLR (SN) 218 (Del HC).
• Discrepancy in wages of permanent and temporary workmen is not permissible.
Umrala Gram Panchayat v The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, 2015 LLR 449 (SC).
• Full wages payable for suspension period in absence of any in Service Rules or Standing Orders.
Statesman Ltd v Ms. Anil Dogra, 2015 LLR 795 (Del HC).
• The Minimum Wages Act would be applicable even if the wages are higher than the minimum wages
notified.
Director General of Works, C.P.W.D., C.P.W.D. Mazdoor Union (Regd.) v Sushil Kumar, 2015 LLR (SN)
1002 : 2015 (146) Fac LR 285 (Del HC).
Page 32 of 35
• For appeal under Payment of Wages Act decreed amount is to be deposited.
Sabir and Brothers v Rajesh Sen, 2015 LLR 1061 (MP HC).
• No additional dearness allowance to be paid when the total wages are higher than revised VDA.
Auto Cars, Aurangabad v State of Maharashtra, 2016 LLR 319 (Bom HC).
• Washing, children education allowances and bonus not part of “wages” under Minimum Wages Act.
Auto Cars, Aurangabad v State of Maharashtra, 2016 LLR 319 (Bom HC).
• Chairman not managing day-to-day affairs cannot be prosecuted for violation of Minimum Wages Act.
Kanubhai Chunibhai Patel v State of Gujarat, 2016 LLR 349 (Guj HC).
• Deduction of wages only on written authorisation of employee.
National Fertilizer Ltd v Nangal Fertilizer Workers Union, 2016 LLR 512 (P&H HC).
• Performance of duties of higher ranks would justify claim for “equal pay for equal work”.
Municipal Corp of Delhi v Rajvir Singh, 2016 LLR 597 (Del HC).
• Deduction of wages for causing loss sans opportunity for hearing not legal.
Sube Singh v Manoj, 2016 LLR 613 (P&H HC).
• A time barred complaint under Minimum Wages Act is to be rejected.
Rajendra Gopalakrishna v State of Karnataka, 2016 LLR 751 (Karn HC).

Page 33 of 35
• Scheduled Employment under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 as per sections 2 (g) and 27 means
employment specified in the Schedule to the Act.
Tantrik Shikshan Karamachari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit v Assistant Commissioner of Labour-cum-
Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, 2017 LLR (SN) 98 (Bom HC).
• A Co-operative Society for rendering personal service to its members could not be treated to be a
“commercial establishment” or an industry and the employees as workmen, would not be entitled to
attract Minimum Wages Act.
• Any settlement against the provisions of Minimum Wages Act is not sustainable.
Management Muruga Home Industries, Rep. by its Managing Partner N. Vittal Pai v Deputy
Commissioner of Labour, Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 2017 LLR (SN) 107 : 2016-IV LLJ
160 (Mad HC).
• Contractor’s employees are entitled to be paid wages not less than the wages applicable under the
Minimum Wages Act, 1948.
Davinder v State of Harayana, 2017 LLR (SN) 111 : 2016 (151) Fac LR 44 (P&H HC).
• Wages, when higher than minimum rates, no variable dearness allowance to be payable.
Polypharma Pvt Ltd v Shri Rangnath S. Iyer, 2017 LLR 343 (Bom HC)
• Minimum wages also include medical and education of family members etc.
Polypharma Pvt Ltd v Shri Rangnath S. Iyer, 2017 LLR 343 (Bom HC).
• Minimum wages are to be revised periodically with the cost of index.
Polypharma Pvt Ltd v Shri Rangnath S. Iyer, 2017 LLR 343 (Bom HC).
Page 34 of 35
• Prosecution of employer proper for non-payment of earned wages.
International Union of Food AGR. v UOI, 2017 LLR 947 (SC).
• A trainee is not entitled to claim minimum wages, applicable under the Minimum Wage Act, 1948, also.
ABP Ltd v State of West Bengal, 2017 LLR (SN) 988 : 2017 III LLJ 59 (Cal HC).
• 51 days wages rightly allowed under Minimum Wages Act when the claimants have worked for all 365
days.
Jitendra Nath Upadhyaya v State of Jharkhand, 2017 LLR 1252 (Jhar HC).
• Impleading of contractor is necessary for claiming wages from principal employer.
PWD Employees Union v State of Gujarat, 2017 LLR 1240 (Guj HC).
• Compensation and difference of minimum wages is properly allowed by the authority under Minimum
Wages Act.
Jitendra Nath Upadhyaya v State of Jharkhand, 2017 LLR 1252 (Jhar HC).
• Principle of “no-work, no-pay” shall not apply when the workman was not at fault.
Narayan Mishra v Coal India Ltd, 2017 LLR 1260 (Cal HC).
• Contract labour can claim equal wages of one’s category from the principal employer.
Surjeet Shyamal v UOI, 2018 LLR 13 (Del HC).
• Employer himself need not be the member of the Minimum Wages Committee.
Kerala Private Hospital Association v State of Kerala, 2018 LLR 113 [LNIND 2017 SC 2821] (SC).
Page 35 of 35
• Minimum wage can be fixed as per mechanism provided under Minimum Wages Act.
All Kerala Plywood & Block Board Manufacturers’ Association v State of Kerala, 2018 LLR 169 (Ker
HC).
• Prosecution of employer for violation of section 22B of the Minimum Wages Act has to be within six
months from the date of violation alleged.
Mustak Seikh v State of Jharkhand, 2018 (156) Fac LR 44 : 2018 LLR 222 (SN) (Jhar HC).
End of Document
Cases (1990-2018), 12th ed
Chapter 37VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME
*• Option for voluntary retirement can be withdrawn in the absence of contrary provision.
Shambhu Murari Sinha v Project and Development India Ltd, (2002) 3 SCC 437 [LNIND 2002 SC 200] :
(2002) 3 Serv LR 359 : 2002 LLR 605 : AIR 2002 SC 1341 [LNIND 2002 SC 200]: 2002 (94) Fac LR
229 : 2002 (2) LLJ 430 [LNIND 2002 SC 200] (SC).
• VRS employees can not claim benefits of a settlement made after their retirement.
PAL VRS Employees Welfare Association v Premier Automobiles Ltd, 2002 LLR 901 (Bom HC).
• If the request for withdrawing the voluntary retirement is not established the employee will not be
entitled to withdraw.
Manjubala Sinha v State of Bihar, 2002 LLR 1175 (Pat HC).
• Withdrawal for option of voluntary retirement by the employees can be made only before its acceptance
and not thereafter.
Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam v Ch. V.V. Satyanarayana, 2003 LLR 18 : 2003 (96) Fac LR
337 (AP HC).
• Merely marking of attendance by an employee after the acceptance of his option for voluntary retirement
will not be construed that his option stood withdrawn.
Visakhapatnam Port Trust, Visakhapatnam v Ch. V.V. Satyanarayana, 2003 LLR 18 : 2003 (96) Fac LR
337 (AP HC).
• An appeal will not be tenable against the order of Single Judge who has rejected the petition of an ex-
Page 2 of 16
employee having opted for voluntary retirement and not only received the benefits alongwith other such
employees but also released the residential accommodation provided by Hindustan Fertilisers Ltd
Yugeshwar Kumar (Y. Kumar) v UOI, (2003) III CLR 259 : (2003) II LLJ 1021 : 2003 LLR 600 (Pat HC).
• Once a cut off date is fixed for the purpose of calculating the benefits under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme and thereafter an employee is continued in service and if that period happens to be three months
or more, that itself shall be treated as notice period and the employee shall not be entitled for notice period
pay again.
A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd v R. Varaprasad, (2003) 11 SCC 572 [LNIND 2003 SC 533] : AIR 2003 SC 4050
[LNIND 2003 SC 533]: (2003) 3 LLN 774 : (2003) 4 Serv LR 486 : 2003 LLR 707 : 2003 (98) Fac LR
104 (SC).
• Once an employer accepts the application of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, an employee, latter cannot
withdraw from the scheme even if he continues in service beyond the cut off date due to lack of funds to
settle his dues.
Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, A.P.S.I.D.C. Ltd v R. Varaprasad, (2003) 11 SCC 572 [LNIND
2003 SC 533] : AIR 2003 SC 4050 [LNIND 2003 SC 533]: (2003) 3 LLN 774 : (2003) 4 Serv LR 486 :
2003 LLR 707 (SC).
• An employee who has rendered service from 1973 to 1989 in a casual status must be given benefit of
VRS for that period since it will be travesty of justice if such a long period of service is ignored for
calculation of benefits.
Laljit Bhuiya v Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) 898 : 2003 LLR 758 (Jhar HC).
• Withdrawal of an option for voluntary retirement by an employee, as made prior to the effective date,
will be justified and the acceptance by the Management after the withdrawal of the option will be illegal
and the employee will be entitled to reinstatement with back-wages.
B.C. Shivanne Gowd v Hindustan Paper Corp Ltd, (2003) III LLJ 1098 : 2003 LLR 913 (Karn HC)
• Voluntary retirement and superannuation or the retirement of the workman on reaching the age of
superannuation are two different and distinguishable eventualities. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 had
also made a distinction between the two.
Page 3 of 16
Godrej Soaps Ltd v Baban Baburao Nemane, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) 577 : 2003 LLR 1065 : 2003-III LLN
1036 (Bom HC).
• Voluntary retirement under the Scheme would be more akin to resignation of an employee rather than
superannuation hence the order of the Labour Court directing payment of ex gratia to those who had
willingly accepted the voluntary retirement scheme and who were no longer on the rolls of the company
on the date of disbursement of the ex gratia was liable to be set aside.
Godrej Soaps Ltd v Baban Baburao Nemane, (2003) IV LLJ (Supp) 577 : 2003 LLR 1065 : 2003-III LLN
1036 (Bom HC).
• Option, as given by the employees for voluntary retirement under the Scheme as introduced by the
employer cannot be said to be under undue influence since the Scheme was known to the employees much
in advance and also they have challenged the same after more than 15 months and as such the writ
petition, as filed by the Union representing the employees challenging its validity will not be tenable.
Delhi Stock Exchange Karamchari Sangharsh Samiti v UOI, (2004) 105 FJR 886 : (2004) IV LLJ (Supp)
176 : 2004 LLR 77 (Del HC).
• The object of VR Scheme is an invitation to make offer by the employees to avail benefit under it
containing consideration e.g., the employee is forgoing his left-over period of service for which the
employer pays some money as per the Scheme.
Delhi Stock Exchange Karamchari Sangharsh Samiti v UOI, 2004 LLR 77 (Del HC).
• Voluntary Retirement Scheme is contractual in nature and the contractual right derived by the employees
concerned, could be waived by accepting a part of the benefit and as such they cannot be permitted to
approbate and reprobate nor can they be permitted to resile from their earlier stand in opting for the
Scheme.
Punjab National Bank v Virendra Kumar Goel, (2004) 2 SCC 193 [LNIND 2004 SC 87] : (2004) 2 LLN
38 : (2004) 1 LLJ 1057 [LNIND 2004 SC 87] : 2004 LLR 267 : 2004 (100) Fac LR 631 (SC).
• The sentence, “accepted a part of benefit under the Scheme”, would include the withdrawal of the
benefit and utilisation thereof and as such by no stretch of imagination, unilateral deposit of a part of
benefit under the Scheme into the bank account, that too after withdrawal of the application, would
construe that they have accepted the part of the benefit under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and as
such the employees concerned having accepted the benefit accruing under the Scheme by withdrawing
and utilisation thereof, are not permitted to approbate and reprobate.
Page 4 of 16
Punjab National Bank v Virendra Kumar Goel, (2004) 1 LLJ 1057 [LNIND 2004 SC 87] : (2004) 2 SCC
193 [LNIND 2004 SC 87] : (2004) 2 LLN 38 : 2004 LLR 267 : 2004 (100) Fac LR 631 (SC).
• Denial of voluntary retirement to an employee will be justified by an employer when the employee has
not made a request to this effect.
Ashok Kumar Aggarwal v Delhi Vidyut Board, 2004 LLR 282 : 109 (2004) DLT 564 (Del HC).
• Withdrawal of option for Voluntary Retirement Scheme, as closed on 1st March, will not be permitted to
the optees of the Scheme since the VRS was basically a funded scheme and the Management has to work
out the Scheme after certain number of employees have opted for the same hence the High Court erred in
holding that the respondents were entitled to withdraw their option.
State Bank of Patiala v Romesh Chander Kanoji, (2004) 2 SCC 651 : AIR 2004 SC 2016 : (2004) 100
Fac LR 1078 : (2004) 2 LLN 1 : 2004 LLR 377 : 2004 (2) Supreme 230 (SC).
• Option for voluntary retirement can be withdrawn by an employee before it is validly accepted.
S.K. Sharma v Food Corp of India, 2004 LLR 446 (Del HC).
• A show-cause notice cannot be a ground for refusing the option of voluntary retirement under the
Scheme.
John Seraphin v State Bank of India, (2004) 101 Fac LR 979 : (2004) III LLJ 150 : 2004 LLR 679 (Pat
HC).
• After opting for voluntary retirement and receiving the benefits of the Scheme, the employees are
estopped from challenging the validity of the Scheme.
Hindustan Lever Ltd v Presiding Officer, IT No. V, Meerut, (2004) 102 Fac LR 652 : 2004 LLR 907 (All
HC).
• In the absence of specific denial by the employees having received the benefits of Voluntary Retirement
Scheme, they cannot have any claim of any kind.
Hindustan Lever Ltd v Presiding Officer, IT No. V, Meerut, (2004) 102 Fac LR 652 : 2004 LLR 907 (All
HC).
Page 5 of 16
• Since voluntary retirement scheme is not “retrenchment”, the employer has not to comply with the
principle of “last come first go” or to give “notice of change”.
R. Sekar, Son of V.R. Ramachandran v, 1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai 2.
Management, Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd, Chennai, 2004 LLR 1064 (Mad HC).
• Even when there is no provision for voluntary retirement under the Industrial Employment (Standing
Orders) Act, it cannot be treated as retrenchment.
R. Sekar, Son of V.R. Ramachandran v, 1. The Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court, Chennai 2.
Management, Bush Boake Allen (India) Ltd, Chennai, 2004 LLR 1064 (Mad HC).
• Withdrawal of option for VRS by an employee, after receiving the payment, will not be permissible.
BOI v Pale Ram Dhania, 2004 SCC (L&S) 698 : (2004) III LLJ 226 : 2005 LLR 97 (SC).
• A workman who opted for VRS can raise claim under I.D. Act, when the cheque towards payment was
bounced.
Carona Ltd v Sitaram Atmaram Ghag, (2005) 1 LLN 1113 : 2004 Lab IC 3944 : (2005) 1 Mah LJ 513 :
2005 LLR 123 (Bom HC).
• Employees, having opted for and receiving VRS benefits, cannot claim additional benefits accruing out
of subsequent scheme.
Kanan Bihar Das v Hindustan Copper Ltd, 2005 LLR 237 (Jhar HC).
• In a contract between employer and employees pertaining to option for VRS, it is not the Court to re-
write the terms of contract.
Kanan Bihar Das v Hindustan Copper Ltd, 2005 LLR 237 (Jhar HC).
• The allegations of undue pressure upon an employee to write and sign an application for premature
retirement will not be tenable when not supported with evidence.
Page 6 of 16
Tata Iron and Steel Co Ltd, Singhbhum (East) Jamshedpur v Gyanendra Sahay, 2005 LLR 438 (Jhar
HC).
• Unless the employee is relieved from duty after accepting his offer for voluntary retirement, the
relationship of employee and employer does not cease.
State Bank of Patiala v Phoolpati, (2005) 3 SCC 88 [LNIND 2005 SC 187] : AIR 2005 SC 1918
[LNIND 2005 SC 187]: (2005) 2 LLN 659 : (2005) 4 Serv LR 133 : 2005 LLR 480 (SC).
• When an employee seeks voluntary retirement, it cannot be automatically accepted unless it is first
accepted by employer in unequivocal terms.
Hindustan Steel Works Constructions Ltd v Shiva Kant Jha & S.K. Jha, 2005 (1) BLJR 534 (Jhar HC).
• Non-acceptance of option for voluntary retirement on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were
pending against the officer will be set aside when in other similar cases the Bank accepted the options.
State Bank of Mysore v M.S. Srinivasan, 2005 LLR 893 (Karn HC).
• Voluntary Retirement Scheme, with a clause that option once exercised shall not be withdrawn, would
not be valid.
State Bank of India v K.C. Tharakan, (2005) 8 SCC 428 [LNIND 2005 SC 771] : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1159 :
2006 LLR 97 (SC).
• Withdrawal of voluntary retirement option by a Bank employee before its acceptance will be justified.
Punjab and Sind Bank v Mohinder Pal Singh, AIR 2006 SC 533 [LNIND 2005 SC 871]: (2005) 12 SCC
747 : 2006 LLR 105 (SC).
• Once an option for Voluntary Retirement Scheme by the employee has been accepted by the employer,
it cannot be withdrawn.
Shyam Lal v India Tourism Development Corp Ltd, 2006 LLR 230 (Del HC).
Page 7 of 16
• Once an employee opts to retire voluntarily, the claim for a higher salary as revised with retrospective
effect will not be tenable.
HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees Welfare Society v Heavy Engineering Corp Ltd, (2006) 3 SCC 708
[LNIND 2006 SC 139] : AIR 2006 SC 1420 [LNIND 2006 SC 139]: (2006) 2 LLN 75 : 2006 LLR 370
(SC).
• It is for the industrial adjudicator and not the High Court to decide the claim of employees who have
opted for VRS.
Philips India Ltd v P.N. Thorat, Assistant Commissioner of Labour & Conciliation Officer, 2006 LLR
421 (Bom HC).
• An employee, committing deliberate financial irregularity, cannot escape by opting for voluntary
retirement.
General Manager Appellate Authority v Mohd. Nizamuddin, (2006) 7 SCC 410 [LNIND 2006 SC 695] :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1663 : 2006 LLR 1238 (SC).
• A resignation can be tendered at any time but voluntary retirement can be sought only after rendering
prescribed period of service.
K. Appa Rao v Tungabhadra Steel Products Ltd, 2006 LLR 1256 (Karn HC).
• Voluntary retirement from employment is not automatic but depends upon employer’s acceptance of
option.
General Manager Appellate Authority v Mohd. Nizamuddin, (2006) 7 SCC 410 [LNIND 2006 SC 695] :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1663 : 2006 LLR 1238 (SC).
• Withdrawal of voluntary retirement option after its acceptance will not be tenable.
Inderjit Bhanot v Punjab National Bank, 2007 LLR 125 (Del HC).
• Workmen, having opted for voluntary retirement and receiving their dues, cannot allege coercion.
Page 8 of 16
K.V. Ramachandran v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chennai, 2007 LLR (SN) 319 (Mad HC).
• For voluntary retirement, sections 25G and 25N of the I.D. Act, providing for procedure and prior
approval for retrenchment would not apply.
V. Ramalingam v Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, 2007 LLR (SN) 329 (Mad HC).
• Despite acceptance of option by an employee for voluntary retirement, the bank can withdraw it when
disciplinary proceedings are contemplated.
R. Kamaraj v Indian Bank Chennai, 2007 LLR 665 (SN) (Mad HC).
• An employer can treat application of voluntary retirement as resignation.
M.S. Munivenkatappa v State Bank of India, Chennai, 2007 LLR 665 (SN) (Mad HC).
• Acceptance of retiral benefits since the employee was in need of money, cannot be waiver of his right to
withdraw option for retirement.
M.S. Munivenkatappa v State Bank of India, Chennai, 2007 LLR 665 (SN) (Mad HC).
• Withdrawal of option for voluntary retirement will not be allowed after its acceptance.
Tulip Star Hotels v Union of Centaur-Tulip Employees, AIR 2007 SC 2489 [LNIND 2007 SC 634]: AIR
2007 SCW 4432 : 2007 LLR 1002 (SN) (SC).
• Offer of Voluntary Retirement can be withdrawn before its acceptance by employer.
Food Corp of India v Ramesh Kumar, AIR 2007 SC 2864 [LNIND 2007 SC 947]: 2007 Lab IC 3422 :
2007 LLR 1123 (SC).
• Benefits of a settlement arrived subsequent to VRS, will not be available to a person who has opted for
VRS and received the package.
Page 9 of 16
Vijay Kumar v Whirlpool of India, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 1433 : (2007) 13 Scale 379 [LNIND 2007 SC
1355] : 2008 LLR 227 (SC).
• Complaint by workmen, after 13 months of receiving the benefits of VRS, is rightly rejected.
Balasaheb Rangnath Navale v Bharat Forge Ltd, 2008 LLR 523 (Bom HC).
• After opting for Voluntary Retirement and receiving the benefits, a person cannot challenge its validity.
Muir Mills, Kanpur v Presiding Officer, Labour Court Vth, Kanpur, 2008 LLR 649 (All HC).
• Withdrawal from VRS after receiving the benefits, that too after 2½ years, will not be tenable.
Maruti Udyog Ltd v State of Haryana, 2008 LLR 936 (P&H HC).
• Employer–employee contract comes to an end when an employee opts and accepts the benefits of VRS.
Tribal Co-op Marketing Development Federation of India v Siddhartha Kumar, 2008 LLR 915 (Del HC).
• The terms and conditions of VRS are governed by a contract and not by statutory rules.
Tribal Co-op Marketing Development Federation of India v Siddhartha Kumar, 2008 LLR 915 (Del HC).
• When a contract provides for transfer of an employee, his inconvenience has no bearing for its stalling.
• An employee opting and receiving all benefits of VRS cannot take recourse under section 2A of the I.D.
Act.
EID Parry (India) Ltd, Chennai v M.N. Padmanabhan, 2008 LLR 1087 (Mad HC).
• A workman opting for VRS, receiving benefits and collecting provident fund is debarred from
challenging his option.
Page 10 of 16
• After acceptance of benefits under VRS, an employee ceases to be a “workman”.
• Permission for withdrawal of voluntary retirement to be allowed when such many others have been so
allowed.
Dinesh Kumar Urmaliya v M.P. Road Transport Corp, Bhopal, 2009 LLR 111 (SN) (MP HC).
• Unless employee’s offer to avail voluntary retirement was accepted and acceptance is communicated, he
cannot get benefits under Scheme for voluntary retirement floated by employer.
National Textile Corp (M.P.) Ltd v M.R. Jadhav, (2008) 7 SCC 29 [LNIND 2008 SC 961] : AIR 2008
SCW 3753 : 2009 LLJ 224 (SC).
• Regulation of Bank of Baroda contemplates voluntary retirement only after having completed 15 years
of service.
Bank of Baroda v Ganpat Singh Deora, AIR 2009 SC 1745 [LNIND 2008 SC 2469]: 2009 Lab IC 1320 :
2009 LLR 438 (SN) (SC).
• A claim by an employee, drawing more than the prescribed ceiling under the Payment of Wages Act, not
tenable.
D.A.V. Public School (U.P.), Meerut v Prescribed Authority (Minimum Wages Act)/Assistant Labour
Commissioner, Bijnor, 2009 LLR 399 (All HC).
• A senior employee cannot be paid salary less than his juniors.
Er. Gurcharan Singh Grewal v Punjab State Electricity Board, 2009 LLR 318 (SC).
• An employee has no right to claim benefits of VRS when his option is not accepted.
Page 11 of 16
National Textile Corp (M.P.) Ltd v M.R. Jadhav, (2008) 7 SCC 29 [LNIND 2008 SC 961] : AIR 2008
SCW 3753 : 2009 LLJ 224 (SC).
• Directing 10 times compensation for paying of less than minimum wages to workers, employer needs an
opportunity after depositing Rs 25,000 and Rs 10,000 as costs.
Sharda Construction v Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948 : 2009 LLR 286 (Bom HC).
• Direction for payment of “equal wages” without supporting reasons to contractor’s workers, will be set
aside.
Panki Thermal Station v Vidyut Mazdoor Sangthan, AIR 2009 SC 2373 [LNIND 2009 SC 303]: 2009
Lab IC 2318 : 2009 LLR 347 (SC).
• Imposition of 5 times penalty on delayed payment of wages can’t be imposed when it is not a deduction.
Vijay Picture Palace v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 LLR 507 (All HC).
• It is for the Authority under Payment of Wages Act to decide applicability of the Act.
Ordnance Factory Co-op Society Ltd v Prescribed Authority Under (Payment of Wages Act) Assistant
Labour Commissioner, Kanpur, 2009 LLR 265 (All HC).
• Processing for pasteurizing milk and its products is covered under the Minimum Wages Act.
General Manager, Aligarh Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd (Parag Dairy) Sasni, Hathras v
Prescribed Authority, Minimum Wages and Dy. Labour Commissioner, Aligarh, 2009 LLR 316 (All HC).
• Reinstated workman will be paid wages as prevalent and being paid to other employees.
V. Ponnesam v Tamil Nadu Co-opertive Sugar Federation Ltd, 2009 LLR 329 (SN) (Mad HC).
• Exercising option for voluntary retirement will not give a right to an employee to get it accepted by the
employer.
Page 12 of 16
C.V. Francis v UOI, 2010 LLR 29 (Jhar HC).
• High Court will not interfere in the option for VR, accepted by passing resolution.
Limbaji Baburao Shinde v Osmanabad District Central Co-op Bank Ltd, 2010 LLR 15 (Bom HC).
• Withdrawal of option for VR is rightly denied if employee has accepted all retiral benefits which were
available under Voluntary Retirement Scheme.
Milind Pandharinath Behere v Union Bank of India, 2010 LLR 124 (Bom HC).
• After opting and receiving benefits of VRS, the employee will not have any right to withdraw his option.
Milind Pandharinath Behere v Union Bank of India, Mumbai, 2010 LLR (SN) 326 (Bom HC).
• Absence of exit interview of an employee opting for voluntary retirement will not render the acceptance
illegal.
Oil and Natural Gas Commission v L.K. Khan Babi, 2010 LLR 357 (Guj HC).
• VRS optee, after receiving the payment, will not be entitled to benefits of the new VRS.
Managing Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd v Smt. Basanta Bai, 2010 LLR 798 (Chht HC).
• Voluntary retirement of a bank employee rightly presumed when he absented for three months.
Syndicate Bank v Sh. B.N. Pandey, 2010 LLR 903 (Del HC).
• Option for Voluntary Retirement can be withdrawn before it is accepted.
Madhusudan Govindrao Trivedi v UCO Bank, Calcutta, 2010 LLR 1052 (Bom HC).
• Employer can retain talented employee on VRS.

Page 13 of 16
Chairman and M.D., Indian Overseas Bank v Tribhuwan Nath Srivastava, 2011 LLR 225 (SC).
• Workman can raise dispute even after receiving benefits of VRS.
Greaves Cotton Ltd v Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2011 LLR 315 (Del HC).
• Option for VRS, after acceptance by the employer, can’t be withdrawn.
Anil Nandwani (Mrs.) v Food Corp of India, 2011 LLR 518 (Del HC).
• Disciplinary proceedings can’t be initiated against an employee relieved after VR.
S.V. Vanajakshi v TUCS Ltd, represented by its Special Officer, 119, Big Street, Triplicane, Chennai-5,
2011 LLR 557 (SN): 2011 (I) LLN 709 (Mad HC).
• When petitioners challenged their being relieved on the basis of VRS, they cannot raise an industrial
dispute.
Bayer Bio Sciences Pvt Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court-I, 2011 LLR 556 (SN) : 2011 (129) Fac
LR 17 (AP HC).
• Disciplinary proceedings after acceptance of voluntary retirement are untenable.
G. Mallaiah v A.P. State Handloom Weavers Co-op Society Ltd, 2011 LLR 986 (AP HC).
• Challenging termination after accepting VRS dues only on refund.
Man Singh v Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, 2011 LLR 1009 (SC)
• After accepting the dues, VRS can’t be challenged.
Man Singh v Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, 2011 LLR 1009 (SC)
• Notice of voluntary retirement can be withdrawn before the effective date.

Page 14 of 16
Mahendra Gajanan Trivedi v Bank of India, 2011 LLR 1096 (Guj HC).
• Acceptance of voluntary retirement is always at discretion of the Management.
C. Madhusoodan v Steel Authority of India Ltd, 2011 LLR 1046 (Karn HC).
• Withdrawal of VRS option only before effective date.
Balaram Saghan Kshetra Samiti v Kanataben Laljibhai Patel, 2011 LLR 1251 (Guj HC).
• Acceptance of VRS after withdrawal request is not legal.
Siddaiah v Management of Mandya National Paper Mills Ltd, Belagula, 2011 LLR 1267 (Karn HC).
• Reinstatement is proper when withdrawal of VRS before effective date was not accepted.
Balaram Saghan Kshetra Samiti v Kanataben Laljibhai Patel, 2011 LLR 1251 (Guj HC).
• When the employee has opted for Voluntary Retirement Scheme and accepted the retrial benefits
without any protest or reservation, he cannot challenge the same – more so when he remained silent for 10
months after receipt of the amount.
Chief Regional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, Chandigarh v Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh, 2012 LLR 330 (SN) : 2012 (132) Fac LR 59 (P&H HC).
• After having received VRS dues in full and final besides provident fund dues without any protest,
raising of any claim later on by the employee is not tenable.
Moinuddin v Guest Keen William Ltd, 2012 LLR 446 (SN) : 2012-I LLN 498 (Cal HC).
• Employer-employee relation ceases on receipt of VRS payment.
Dinesh Chandra Mishra v Project and Development India Ltd, Dhanbad, 2012 LLR 596 (Jhar HC).
Page 15 of 16
• Revised VRS benefits will not be available to those who have already received.
Dinesh Chandra Mishra v Project and Development India Ltd, Dhanbad, 2012 LLR 596 (Jhar HC).
• Those employees, who have opted for voluntary retirement, would not be entitled to the benefits of a
settlement arrived thereafter.
M.R. Prabhakar v Canara Bank, 2013 LLR (SN) 110 : 2012 (135) Fac LR 694 (SC).
• A resignation is distinct from voluntary retirement since an employee can resign at any point of time,
even on the second day of his appointment but in case of retirement, he retires only when opts for
voluntary retirement and his option has been accepted.
M.R. Prabhakar v Canara Bank, 2013 LLR (SN) 110 : 2012 (135) Fac LR 694 (SC).
• VRS benefit cannot be claimed as of right by an employee.
C.V. Francis v UOI, 2013 LLR 785 (SC).
• VRS aims at weeding out the deadwood.
C.V. Francis v UOI, 2013 LLR 785 (SC).
• Reinstatement is proper when workman has withdrawn the option for VRS before acceptance.
M.D., Orissa S.H.W. Co-op Society Ltd v Satyanarayan Pattnaik, 2014 LLR 337 (SC).
• After receiving payments towards VRS, the appellants are barred by principle of estoppel and waiver for
claiming Scheme of Performance Linked Incentive.
P.P. Vaidya v IFCI Ltd, 2014 LLR (SN) 886 : 2014 (II) LLJ 721 [LNIND 2014 DEL 2485] (Del HC).
• The Claim of the appellants, raised after three years of accepting VRS without any demur, suffers from
abnormal delay without plausible explanation.
Page 16 of 16
P.P. Vaidya v IFCI Ltd, 2014 LLR (SN) 886 : 2014 (II) LLJ 721 [LNIND 2014 DEL 2485] (Del HC).
• The terms “superannuation” and “voluntary retirement” have two different and distinct meaning.
Bharat Pumps and Compressors Ltd, Allahabad v Anand Kumar, 2014 LLR (SN) 890 : 2014 (141) Fac
LR 990 (All HC).
• Disputing VRS must be supported by substantial number of workmen.
Lord Krishna Textile Mills/National Textile Corpn. Ltd v Rampal Singh, 2015 LLR 747 (Del HC).
• Compensation received to be returned first if VRS is challenged.
Raijibhai Bhikhabhai Parmar v Reliance Industries Ltd (Formerly known as Indian Petrochemicals Corp
Ltd), 2016 LLR 673 (SC).
* This Chapter was started from 2002.
End of Document
Cases (1990-2018), 12th ed
Chapter 39MISCELLANEOUS
• 240 days working in preceding year is not imperative in UP Industrial Disputes Act.
Sita Ram v Motilal Nehru Farms Training Institute, 2008 LLR 549 (SC).
• A hospital, employing 10 persons, will be covered by the Maternity Benefit Act, even though excluded
by Shops & Establishments Act.
Noorul Islam Educational Trust v Asstt. Labour Officer, 2008 LLR 371 (Ker HC).
• A negligent driver cannot be thrusted by Court on the employer.
Factory Manager, The Gwalior Rayon and Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Co Ltd v Nawab Khan, 2008
LLR 487 (MP HC).
• Adverse inferences will be drawn against the employer on failing to produce employment record.
Sita Ram v Motilal Nehru Farms Training Institute, 2008 LLR 549 (SC).
• Employer and employee relationship will not emerge in the absence of control by employer over night
guards.
Workmen Umashanker Singh v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchi, 2008 LLR 62 (Jhar HC).
• Even beyond 100 metres of the boundary of Company, the union and its members cannot picket or
obstruct the vehicles.
Page 2 of 50
Orchid Employees Union v Orchid Chemicals and Pharmaceuticals Ltd, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 505 (2) :
2008 LLR 519 (SC).
• Existence of control and supervision by principal employer over canteen workers through contractor,
entitles them for regular status.
Hindalco Industries Ltd v Association of Engineering Workers, AIR 2008 SC 1867 [LNIND 2008 SC
705]: 2008 Lab IC 2078 : 2008 LLR 509 (SC).
• For eligibility of gratuity to a working journalist, under the Working Journalist Act minimum period will
be three years.
Management, Assam Tribune Pvt Ltd v State of Assam, 2008 LLR 215 (SN) (Gau HC).
• Maternity benefit is, in the absence of prior notice, not available to Anganwadi worker.
Sunita Baliyan v Director Social Welfare Department Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2008 LLR 130 (Del HC).
• No violation of principles of natural justice can be alleged by the one who fails to participate in enquiry.
Board of Directors H.P.T.C. v K.C. Rahi, AIR 2008 SC (Supp) 1542 : 2008 LLR 449 (SC).
• Paying wages and provident funds contributions of the statutory canteen workers will not deprive them
of regular status.
Hindalco Industries Ltd v Association of Engineering Workers, AIR 2008 SC 1867 [LNIND 2008 SC
705]: 2008 Lab IC 2078 : 2008 LLR 509 (SC).
• Unless a person is not heard for seven years, no presumption about his death can be drawn.
Orient Insurance Co Ltd v Sorumai Gogoi, 2008 LLR 506 (SC).
• When the business continues with the same Manager and family, the retrenched workers will be entitled
to relief.
Page 3 of 50
Ranjit Talkies, Bundi v Judge, Labour Court, Kota, 2008 LLR 58 (SN) (Raj HC).
• A judgment, selectively quoting some portions of the evidence, is liable to be quashed.
Sushil Kumar v University of Delhi, 2009 LLR 472 (Del HC).
• An Award by Labour Court/Tribunal does not expire after one year.
Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corp Ltd v Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, Uttar Pradesh, Varanasi,
2009 LLR 635 (All HC).
• An employee is a workman or not is to be adjudicated and not to be decided by Labour Authorities.
Shahid Ahmad Khan v Deputy Labour Commissioner, Agra, 2009 LLR 603 (All HC).
• An interim order would operate till the next date of hearing when the Court was not available.
Uma Shanker Maurya v Asst.Labour Commissioner/Workmen Compensation Commissioner,

Shahjahanpur, 2009 LLR 523 (All HC).
• Employment of a daily wager commences in morning and comes to an end in evening hence; equality
can’t be claimed.
Baljit Singh v State of Haryana, 2009 LLR 485 (P&H HC).
• Equity in the hands of a judge is not an unguided instrument.
Kolhapur Zilla Sahakari Dudha Utpadak Sangh, Kolhapur v Shivaji Shankar Pharakate, 2009 LLR 452
(Bom HC).
• Final show-cause notice is not obligation before imposition of punishment.
Kannam Nageswara Rao v Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd, Visakhapatnam, 2009 LLR 491 (AP HC).
Page 4 of 50
• For absorption of employees, it is imperative to consider statutory rules.
State of Uttar Pradesh v Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khaniji Vikas Nigam Sangharsh Samiti, 2009 LLR 683
(SN) (SC).
• High Court will not be picking holes here and there in the Award on trivial points.
• Industry survives on discipline and ought not to perish by indisciplined workers.
(Bom HC).
• It is highly improbable that a chowkidar would not get alternative job for 14 years.
Babu Ram Sagar v Presiding Officer, Labour Court-VII, Delhi, 2009 LLR 463 (Del HC).
• It is unbelievable that 30 big soup-spoons can be hidden in a shoe by stealing.
Ashok Kumar Sharma v Oberoi Flight Services, 2009 LLR 660 (Del HC).
• Maintaining integrity and honesty must rank a foremost concern in today’s troubled times.
(Bom HC).
• No increment for interregnum to reinstated workman without any attendant benefits and back-wages.
V.V.G. Reddy v A.P.S.R.T.C., Nizamabad Region, AIR 2009 SC 1654 [LNIND 2009 SC 2588]: 2009 Lab
IC 1245 : 2009 LLR 561 (SC).
• No justification required for introduction of a cutoff date for extension of health scheme to the workers.
Page 5 of 50
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp (Coimbatore Division-I) Ltd v The Presiding Officer, Industrial
Tribunal, Chennai, 2009 LLR 557 (SN) (Mad HC).
• No wages or other benefits can be claimed after-Award when the workman did not report for duty on his
reinstatement.
Somabhai Babubhai Parmar v Gujarat State Road Transport Corp, 2009 LLR 678 (SN) (Guj HC).
• Preventing an employee from wearing khadi uniform can’t be a construed misconduct.
S. Kasthuri v Chairman, Airports Authority of India/National Airports Division, New Delhi, 2009 LLR
629 (Mad HC).
• Regularisation/absorption of the canteen workers, engaged through a contractor not within the purview
of the Court.
Badarpur Power Engineers & Workers Union v The General Manager, Badarpur Thermal Power Station,
2009 LLR 584 (Del HC).
• Setting aside dismissal of a workman guilty of sexual harassment at workplace is grossly erroneous.
Management of Tata Tea Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, 2009 LLR 645 (Mad HC).
• Striking off names by the employer, without issuing charge-sheets or holding of enquiry, will be illegal
and hence liable to be set aside.
• Temporary employees as dismissed for committing theft not entitled to any relief.
(Bom HC).
• When initial appointments were violative of Employment Exchanges (CNV) Act, reinstatement is not
proper.
Page 6 of 50
State of Bihar v Upendra Narayan Singh, (2009) 5 SCC 65 [LNIND 2009 SC 627] : (2009) 4 Scale 282
[LNIND 2009 SC 627] : 2009 LLR 551 (SN) (SC).
• A decent balance needs to be maintained for protecting the interest of the employees and the Bank.
T. Gopal Rao v Andhra Bank, Head Office, Hyderabad, 2009 LLR 443 (SN) (AP HC).
• A dispute by son, daughter or the legal heirs of the deceased for seeking compassionate appointment will
be an “industrial dispute”.
Delhi Development Authority v Sudesh Kumar, 2009 LLR 448 (SN) (Del HC).
• A driver, engaged by a Bank executive who pays him salary after reimbursement, will not become
employee of the bank.
Dilip Singh v Union Bank of India, 2009 LLR 321 (Raj HC).
• A safai karamchari is rightly discharged for his unauthorised habitual absence.
Kiritchandra Chinubhai Pandya C/o Kalubhai P. Thakor v Central Bank of India, 2009 LLR 424 (Guj
HC).
• A worker, not regular to his duties, is not entitled to any relief.
Ram Chandra Sitaram Kale (Deceased) v Maharashtra S.R.T.C, 2009 LLR 353 (Bom HC).
• Denial of back-wages on reinstatement will not deprive workman for pensionary/retiral benefits.
P. Jayaraman v Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd, Trichy, 2009 LLR 301 (Mad HC).
• Interim injunction, merely on apprehension about removing raw material and the machinery, liable to be
vacated.
Malco General Workers Union & Aluminiam Thozhilalar Sangam v State of Tamil Nadu & The Madras
Aluminiam Co, 2009 LLR 416 (Mad HC).
Page 7 of 50
• Question of jurisdiction must be taken up at trial Court stage.
Management of Horticulture/Forest Department, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v The Presiding Officer, 2009
LLR 412 (Del HC).
• Relationship of employer and employee is a question of fact which can be decided only by adjudication.
Kanpur Electricity Supply Co Ltd v Shamim Mirza, AIR 2009 SC 638 [LNIND 2008 SC 2196]: 2009 Lab
IC 415 : 2009 LLR 226 (SC).
• While dismissing a bank employee, the disciplinary authority has to state the supporting reasons.
Roop Singh Negi v Punjab National Bank, 2009 LLR 252 (SC).
• “Continuity of service”, on reinstatement without back-wages, will be construed for calculation of

retirement benefits.
H. Rangaiah v Divisional Controller, KSRTC, Davanagere, 2009 LLR 938 (Karn HC).
• In the absence of wilful disobedience of the court order; the contempt application is to be dismissed.
Md. Alamdar v State of Jharkhand, 2009 LLR 878 (Jhar HC).
• On receipt of retrenchment compensation, worker’s demand of reinstatement is not sustainable.
Assistant Project Engineer, Ganga Pollution Control Unit U.P. Jal Nigam, Mirzapur v Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Varanasi, 2009 LLR 900 (All HC).
• State government can delegate the powers of Labour Commissioner to a Delegatee.
Garment and Hosiery Udyog Karmchari Union v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 LLR 894 (All HC).
• There is no illegality in eligibility criteria that electrical contractors must have PF and ESI Codes.
Page 8 of 50
West Bengal State Electrical Contractors Association v The Commissioner, Employee’s Provident Fund
Organisation, 2009 LLR 943 (SN) (Cal HC).
• When a provision has been made in an enactment, it has to be given effect and followed.
Ram Sanjeevan v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, U.T. Chandigarh, 2009 LLR 867 (P&H HC).
• Industrial peace is a necessity but it cannot be at the expense of Management’s right.
Kerafibertex International Pvt Ltd v Kerafibertex Employees Association, 2009 LLR 985 (Ker HC).
• Definition of one Act cannot be applied for another Act.
Chander Sain v J.B. Garments, 2009 LLR 959 (Del HC).
• It is settled proposition that a person should not be a judge in his or her own cause.
S. Muthuram v C.E.O., T.N. Khadi & Village Board, Chennai, 2009 LLR 1108 (Mad HC).
• Setting aside dismissal of the workman, who has neither submitted explanation to the charge-sheet nor
participated in the enquiry, is erroneous.
Ahmedabad Electricity Co Employees Co-op Vividhkarayakari v Nilesh M. Delhiwala, 2009 LLR 1103
(Guj HC).
• A suit, claiming Rs 1 crore towards damages stating that termination clause was against the public
policy, not tenable.
Y.K. Sethi v BASF India Ltd, 2009 LLR 1127 (Del HC).
• Compensation Commissioner erred in holding that the Bank Manager was a “workman”.
Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank v Paramjeet Kaur (Smt.), 2009 LLR 1117 (Raj HC).
Page 9 of 50
• An employee, guilty of sexual harassment to a superior lady officer, deserves no sympathy.
Sunil Kumar v Delhi Development Authority, 2009 LLR 1090 (Del HC).
• Any interference with punishment for sexual harassment will give impetus to persons with such
proclivities to indulge again.
Sunil Kumar v Delhi Development Authority, 2009 LLR 1090 (Del HC).
• Promotion to a senior employee cannot be denied unless found totally unfit.
Haryana State Electronics Development Corp Ltd v Seema Sharma, 2009 LLR 1162 (SN).
• Principle of merit-cum-seniority puts greater emphasis on merits and ability.
Haryana State Electronics Development Corp Ltd v Seema Sharma, 2009 LLR 1162 (SN) (SC).
• Interpretation of an Award will be made keeping in view earlier settlements.
Biddle Sawyer Ltd v Chemical Employees’ Union, 2009 LLR 1163 (SN) (Bom HC).
• Authority under I.D. Act, not High Court, can issue directions for implementation of Award.
Ganga Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2009 LLR 1166 (SN) (All HC).
• Compassionate employment to successor of the employee, dying in accident will, not be available when
the employee suddenly collapsed and died.
Steel Authority of India Ltd v Madhusudan Das, 2009 LLR 1166 (SN) (SC).
• A complaint for unfair labour practice can’t be estopped for invoking relief.
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corp v Alfred James Gamare, 2009 LLR 1165 (SN) (Bom HC).
Page 10 of 50
• When two delinquents are charged for the identical misconduct, no discrimination in punishment should
be shown.
P.M. Ratnakar v UCO Bank, through its Regional General Manager, 2009 LLR 1164 (SN) (Bom HC).
• ESIC is liable for payment of compensation on suicide by workman after employment injury.
Employees’ State Insurance Corp v Leela, 2009 LLR 1167 (SN) (Ker HC).
• There is marked distinction between a daily wager and a permanent employee.
Jagbir Singh v Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board, AIR 2009 SC 3004 [LNIND 2009 SC 1449]:
2009 Lab IC 3366 : 2009 LLR 966 (SC).
• Conciliation Officer is not empowered to decide as to whether the enquiry is valid or not.
A.B.N. Amro Bank N.V. v UOI, 2009 LLR 1204 (Cal HC).
• Employer-employee relationship cannot be established between a driver and the bank if engaged by an
Executive in his personal capacity.
Subash Chand v Mitsui & Co, 2009 LLR 1176 (Del HC).
• No damages payable when termination of employee is not against contract of service.
A.N. Shukul v Philips India, 2009 LLR 1179 (Del HC).
• Compassionate appointment aims at enabling the penurious family to tide over certain financial crisis.
Smt. Sanjulata Dewangan v State of Chhattisgarh, 2009 LLR 1203 (Chht HC).
• A daily wager also works in temporary capacity; he is not a permanent employee.
State Bank of India v Chandra Deo, 2009 LLR 1189 (All HC).
Page 11 of 50
• Court dealing with the review application cannot act as an Appellate Court and consider the merits of the
judgment.
Virendra Prasad Srivastava v Vaishya Brothers & Co Pvt Ltd, 2009 LLR 1183 (All HC).
• When a workman is guilty of serious lapses, he will not be posted on sensitive job.
Ramkrishna Shivram Gadekar v Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai, 2009 LLR 1296 (Bom HC).
• Granting relief to bus conductor for not issuing tickets, amounts to misplaced sympathy.
S. Govindaraju v Divisional Controller, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp, 2009 LLR 1299 (Karn
HC).
• No regularisation of a ward boy can be made by the Court.
Manik s/o Ramachandra Waghmode, Latur v State of Maharashtra, 2009 LLR 1308 (Bom HC).
• Non-confirmation of a driver amounted to victimisation and discrimination when juniors are promoted.
Uttar Pradesh State Bridge Corp Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gorakhpur, 2009 LLR 1301
(All HC).
• SAIL is neither the government department nor its employees are government employees.
• Unless findings are based on no material or perversity, Labour Courts are the final courts pertaining to
fact finding.
C.H.D. Developers Ltd v Rajinder Prasad, 2009 LLR 1284 (Del HC).
• A complaint under MRTU & PULP Act, 1971 is not tenable against Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, as the
relevant government is Central and not State.
Page 12 of 50
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd v Nashik Workers Union, Nashik, 2010 LLR 207 (SN) : 2009 (123) Fac LR
398 (Bom HC).
• A daily wager cannot challenge his termination alleging it to be violative of sections 25F and 25G of the
I.D. Act.
Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtak v Jagat Singh, 2010 LLR 39 (P&H HC).
• Compensation and not regularization is appropriate to a driver appointed for 29 days and extended after
notional breaks.
Sree Vinayaka Devasthana Samithi, Bangalore v Smt. Kamalamma, 2010 LLR 110 (SN) : 2009 (123)
• Contractor and not principal employer will pay the cess for construction workers. The Building & Other
Construction Worker’s Welfare Cess Act, 1996.
Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 LLR 184 (MP HC).
• Dismissal of an employee for dishonesty, fraud or misappropriation should not be interfered by courts.
Pepsu Road Transport Corp, Patiala, through its Managing Director v Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Patiala, 2010 LLR 152 (P&H HC).
• Holding of enquiry for dismissal of workman will be only an empty formality when he is convicted by
the criminal court.
The Tata Power Co Ltd v K.T. Mane, 2010 LLR 88 (Bom HC).
• Liability for payment of cess not excluded when nature of construction activity undertaken to
commission pertains to a refinery.
Gannon Dunkerley & Co Ltd v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 LLR 184 (MP HC).
Page 13 of 50
• Merely because the contractor employing 20 workers was not having a licence, no absorption can be
directed.
V.I.P. Industries Ltd v Athar Jameel, 2010 LLR 9 (Bom HC).
• Merely because the workers have worked for 240 days in a calendar year, it will not give any right for
absorption/regularisation.
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd v Workmen Bharat Coking Coal Ltd, 2010 LLR 69 (Jhar HC).
• Merely some higher posts are lying vacant, the employee will not have a right to be promoted.
Haryana Power Generation Corp Ltd, Panchkula v Mai Chand, 2010 LLR 58 (P&H HC).
• Merely working 240 days in a year would not entitle the contractual or casual workers to claim
regularization.
Prem Shankar Pandey v National Thermal Power Corp Ltd, 2010 LLR 73 (All HC).
• No employee has a right to be promoted, at best he has a right to be considered for promotion by the
employer.
Haryana Power Generation Corp Ltd, Panchkula v Mai Chand, 2010 LLR 58 (P&H HC).
• No regularization of a workman who has completed 730 days’ service before alleged termination.
Dharamvir Singh (Shri) v The Management of Shri Aurbindo College, 2010 LLR 92 (Del HC).
• Principal employer will be liable to ensure deposit of ESI and PF contributions for employees engaged
through contractor and in turn the principal employer can recover them from the contractor.
Gangadhar Bajpai v Indian Oil Corp, 2010 LLR 120 (Del HC).
• Principle of construction of a contract must be read as a whole to ascertain the true meaning of its
several clauses.
Page 14 of 50
BOI v K. Mohandas, AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 2783 : 2010 LLR 209 (SN) : 2009 (123) Fac LR 973 (SC).
• Rejection of an appeal when it happens to be the same disciplinary authority, by employee asking for
reconsideration of his removal from service, will not be proper.
Deepak Narayan Bhandarkar v Chairman, Union Bank of India, 2010 LLR 123 (Bom HC).
• Whenever an employee is charged by the employer for specific misconduct, the onus is on the employer
to prove the charges.
Z.A. Siddiqui v District Manager, Food Corp of India, Sitapur, 2010 LLR 221 (SN) : 2009 (123) Fac LR
841 (All HC).
• Casual worker not entitled to claim continuity of service, reinstatement and back wages.
Central Bank of India v Mr. Sanjay E. Dolaskar, Ahmednagar, 2010 (124) Fac LR 305 (Bom HC).
• Courts should normally not interfere with decision of competent authority for compassionate
appointment in regard to facts.
Sushma v State Bank of Indore, 2010 (124) 381 (MP HC).
• Security Guards engaged through contractor, principal employer is liable to pay under PF & ESI Act.
Gangadhar Bajpai v Indian Oil Corp, 2010 (124) Fac LR 316 (Del HC).
• Code of Discipline in Industry can be made applicable when both employer and employees agree.
Bharatiya Kamgar Karmachari Mahasangh v UOI, 2010 LLR 251 (Bom HC).
• Section 630 of the Companies Act, provides speedy relief to the company where its property is withheld.
Tata Steel Ltd v State of Jharkhand, 2010 LLR 283 (Jhar HC).
Page 15 of 50
• Appellate authority could either affirm, modify or set aside the order as passed by the disciplinary
authority.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 LLR 290 (All HC).
• Appointment obtained by misrepresentation will be void ab initio.
Satish Chandra Gupta v Steel Authority of India Ltd, Bokaro, 2010 LLR 405 (Jhar HC).
• An offence committed under section 630 of the Companies Act, for unauthorised retention of company’s
property is a continuing one.
Tarapada Roy v State of Jharkhand, 2010 LLR 373 (Jhar HC).
• Casual workers, not appointed in accordance with the prescribed procedure, would not be regularised.
Indian Oil Corp Ltd v General Secretary, Vadodara Kamdar Union, 2010 LLR 366 (Guj HC).
• Nomination does not confer any beneficial interest since the amounts so received are to be distributed to
legal heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Shipra Sengupta v Mridul Sengupta, 2010 LLR (SN) 447 (SC).
• Even when a guarantor has agreed to pay the loan, if not paid can be recovered from terminal benefits
except PF and gratuity.
Kunju Mohammed v Kerala State Financial Enterprises Ltd, 2010 LLR (SN) 447 (Ker HC).
• Precedent for Industrial Disputes Act, pertaining to a workman would not be applicable under
Workmen’s Compensation Act.
Pradeep Naik, Goa v Yesso Tulshidas Naik, Goa, 2010 LLR (SN) 446 (Bom HC).
• A personal driver of the General Manager is wrongly held to be company’s employee.

Page 16 of 50
Mudra Communications Ltd v Ganesh Kumar, 2010 LLR 763 (Del HC).
• Cess under the Welfare Act, it is to be paid by the owner and not the contractor.
Adani Agri Logistics Ltd v The State of Haryana, 2010 LLR 752 (P&H HC).
• 58 years, as retirement age, is generally followed by public and private sector industries.
Devaki M. v B.P.L. Group of Cos, 2010 LLR 801 (Ker HC).
• Acquittal of employer will not be set aside when provident funds contributions have been paid.
Provident Fund Inspector, Jaipur v P.M. Rungta, 2010 LLR 819 (Raj HC).
• Reversion of an employee, provisionally promoted, not to be interfered.
Nemi Chand Mittal v Zonal Manager (N), FCI, 2010 LLR (SN) 892 (Del HC).
• Nursing allowance will be available to nurses working not only in the hospitals but also in dispensaries.
Government of NCT of Delhi v Rita Luthra, 2010 LLR (SN) 896 (Del HC).
• Daily wagers cannot claim regular pay scales as a matter of right.
Surendra Nath Pandey v U.P. Co-op Bank Ltd, 2010 LLR (SN) 893 (SC).
• School in Delhi is not required to seek approval of Director of Education for removal of an employee.
G. Vallikumari v Andhra Education Society, AIR 2010 SC 1105 [LNINDORD 2010 SC 218]: 2010 Lab
IC 1423 : 2010 LLR (SN) 891 (SC).
• HRA is wrongly granted when employer has provided accommodation.

Page 17 of 50
Municipal Corp of Delhi v Workmen as rep. by Delhi Municipal Karamchari Ekta Union, 2010 LLR 968
(Del HC).
• Denial of annual increments to the petitioner has to be by a speaking order.
Prahlad Kumar Vishwakarma v M.P. State Textile Corp Ltd through Its M.D. Bhopal, 2010 LLR 1000
(MP HC).
• Banks perform multiple/diverse functions and the entire trade and commerce is dependent.
Syndicate Bank v Sh. B.N. Pandey, 2010 LLR 903 (Del HC).
• Termination of an employee, obtaining job by producing false caste certificate belonging not to be
interfered.
R. Venkateswarlu v Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Hyderabad Division,

Secunderabad, 2010 LLR (SN) 1018 (AP HC).
• Convict can’t do job after his release under Probation of Offenders Act.
Sushil Kumar Singhal v The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, 2010 LLR 1025 (SC).
• Moral turpitude implies anything contrary to honesty or good morale.
Sushil Kumar Singhal v The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, 2010 LLR 1025 (SC).
• A bank employee has to protect interests of the bank with utmost honesty.
V. Marimuthu v R. Ramachandran, 2010 LLR 1096 (Mad HC).
• Second show-cause notice before imposing punishment is must in nationalised bank.
Punjab National Bank v K.K. Verma, AIR 2011 SC 120 [LNIND 2010 SC 832]: 2011 Lab IC 31 : 2010
LLR 1138 (SC).
Page 18 of 50
• Merely putting in long service may not be a ground to regularise services.
Jivanbhai Gopabhai v Bhavnagar Mahanagarpalika, 2010 LLR 1229 (Guj HC).
• Mere publication of notice in the newspaper will not substitute enquiry for unauthorised absence.
Shiv Shanker Sharma v Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd, 2010 LLR 1175 (Raj HC).
• Employer can create or abolish posts depending upon requirement.
Super Screw Pvt Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. II, Faridabad, 2010 LLR 1163 (P&H HC).
• Superannuation of an employee not valid; when Medical Board certified his age only 38 years.
C.S.I. Rainy Multispeciality Hospital, Chennai v G. Doss, 2010 LLR 1213 (Mad HC).
• Claim for employment of workman who was working for other employers also was rightly rejected.
Prem Nath Yadav v Sh. Chandra Bose, 2010 LLR 1208 (Del HC).
• Allowing regularisation of 113 ad hoc employees by Labour Court will not be interfered.
Bhubaneswar Development Authority, represented through its Secretary v B.D.A’s Workers Union,
represented through its Secretary, 2010 LLR 1276 (Ori HC).
• Adverse inference is rightly drawn on employer’s failure to produce record despite directions.
Naveen Singh Bhadoriya v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 LLR 1291 (MP HC).
• Direction of Industrial Tribunal to employer to create post for the regularized workman is to be set aside.
State of Uttar Pradesh v Industrial Trubunal – IV, Agra, 2010 LLR 1285 (All HC).
Page 19 of 50
• It is for the employer and not for Industrial Tribunal to create a permanent post.
State of Uttar Pradesh v Industrial Trubunal – IV, Agra, 2010 LLR 1285 (All HC).
• A letter by UPC can’t be presumed to have been received by the addressee.
Shiv Kumar v Hansita, 2011 LLR 13 (Del HC).
• High standard of integrity and honesty is expected from a bank employee.
Sanat Kumar Vijjan v UCO Bank, 2011 LLR 85 (Uttr HC).
• An unsuitable workman would not be thrusted upon the employer.
Prakesh Chand Agrawal v Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), Kanpur, 2011 LLR 167 (All HC).
• Authority not bound to decide preliminary issue of applicability of Payment of Wages Act.
Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd v Prescribed Authority, 2011 LLR 170 (All HC).
• Vacancies in employment in public sector establishment are to be notified under Employment

Exchanges Act.
Thota Srinivasa Rao v Director, Telugu Academy, Hyderabad, 2011 LLR 138 (AP HC).
• A cashier in a bank has to discharge his duties with utmost caution.
B.K. Basavalingappa, since deceased by his L.Rs v Chitradurga Gramin Bank, represented by its
Chairman, 2011 LLR 189 (Karn HC).
• No compassionate appointment for the legal heir of the deceased employee who has been dismissed for
misappropriation.
Page 20 of 50
B.K. Basavalingappa, since deceased by his L.Rs v Chitradurga Gramin Bank, represented by its
Chairman, 2011 LLR 189 (Karn HC).
• When the Authority to punish has differed from the findings of the enquiry officer, he should record
reasons otherwise the dismissal could not be sustained.
Kichha Sugar Co Ltd, Kichha v Gulshan Kumar, 2011 LLR 224 (SN) : 2010 (IV) LLJ 360 (Uttr HC).
• Industrial Disputes Act prohibits an employer from engaging the workmen as “badlis”, “casuals” or
“temporaries” and to continue them, as such, for years together would amount to unfair labour practice.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corp (Madurai Division-IV) Ltd (formerly known as Rani Mangammal
Transport Corp Ltd), Dindigul v (1) Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (2) Secretary, Rani
Mangammal Pokkuvarathu Thozhilalar Sangam, Dindigul, 2011 LLR 219 (SN): 2010 (4) LLN 703
(Mad HC).
• Applicability of Building and OCW Act, not to be excluded upon a factory under construction.
Sterlite Energy Ltd v State of Orissa, 2011 LLR 322 (Ori HC).
• Even after crossing initial period, a casual employee can’t claim permanency.
UOI v Vartak Labour Union, 2011 LLR 337 (SC).
• Prosecution for MD and Chief Regional Manager for Equal Remuneration Act, violation not proper
when they were not directly responsible.
P.K. Goel v Labour Enforcement Officer (Central)-I, Bangalore, 2011 LLR 410 (Karn HC).
• Working Journalists Act etc., will prevail over Gratuity Act, for gratuity to newspaper employees.
• Gratuity Act, is special enactment with over-riding effect over the Provident Fund Act.
Page 21 of 50
Administrative Officer, T.M.S.S.M. Library and Research Centre, Thanjavur v Appellate Authority under
• Regularization of daily-wagers liable to be quashed.
Superintending Engineer v Secretary, 2011 LLR 422 (Guj HC).
• Court will not normally sit in appeal over the findings arrived of by the Enquiry Officer.
Delhi Transport Corp v Subhash Chand, 2011 LLR 341 (Del HC).
• When an enquiry is found to be defective, the employer can adduce supporting evidence.
Mumbai Cricket Association v Pramod G. Shinde, 2011 LLR 386 (Bom HC).
• Regularisation of temporary employees of LIC will not be tenable.
Hashmuddin v Life Insurance Corp of India, 2011 LLR 511 (All HC).
• In disciplinary proceedings, the Court cannot act as an appellate court.
State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v Nemi Chand Nalwaya, AIR 2011 SC 1931 [LNIND 2011 SC 247]:
2011 Lab IC 2162 : 2011 LLR 634 (SC).
• IIT is employer when exercising control and supervision upon hostel employees.
Indian Institute of Technology v The Presiding Officer, 2011 LLR 591 (Mad HC).
• The words “riotous or disorderly” mean that such acts must be tinged with violence, which causes a
major disruption of the work.
• Onus to prove Mala fide is on the person who alleges.

Page 22 of 50
Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd v Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142 [LNIND 2011 SC 379] : AIR
2011 SCW 3240 : 2011 LLR 673 (SC).
• Regularisation of canteen employees not proper; when it was run by an independent establishment.
Balwant Rai Saluja v Air India Ltd, 2011 LLR 739 (Del HC).
• Disciplinary Authority should give supporting reasons for initiating an enquiry.
Chairman-cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd v Ananta Saha, (2011) 5 SCC 142 [LNIND 2011 SC 379] : AIR
2011 SCW 3240 : 2011 LLR 673 (SC)
• An aggrieved party under B&OCW Cess Act can file appeal, not writ in High Court.
Tanks and Tube-wells Class-A Category Contractor v Collector/District Magistrate, Allahabad, 2011
LLR 849 (All HC).
• A person has to produce appointment letter or other supporting documents to prove to be an employee.
Rahimuddin v Gossini Fashions Ltd, 2011 LLR 824 (Del HC).
• Interpretation of statute should tilt in favour of whom it is enacted.
Lowtan And Co v Presiding Officer, Employees’ Provident Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, 2011 LLR 807
[LNIND 2010 PAT 1355] (Pat HC).
• Ex-parte proceedings under Payment of Wages Act can be set aside within 30 days.
Shashi Sharma v The Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, 2011 LLR 841 (P&H HC).
• A legal practitioner, in the capacity of an office-bearer of an Association, can represent an employer

before the Labour Court.
Page 23 of 50
South Arcot Vallalar District Mazdoor Union v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Cuddalore, 2011 LLR
(SN) 891 : 2011 (129) 995 (Mad HC).
• Principle of “no work, no wages’ not applicable if reinstated workman was not allowed to join.
Panipat Co-op Sugar Mills Ltd v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 2011 LLR 918 (P&H HC).
• 1% Cess under Cess Act is payable after 4 February 2009 in U.P.
Jain Construction Co v Moradabad Development Authority, 2011 LLR 925 (All HC).
• Penal rent to be charged for not vacating official quarter.
Asha Saxena (dead) by LRs v U.P. State Electricity Board, 2011 LLR 924 (All HC).
• On differing with Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority has to ask for show cause to delinquent.
Dandapani Muli v P.O., Industrial Tribunal, BBSR, 2011 LLR 910 (Ori HC).
• Fixed-term employees not entitled to regularization.
The Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Ltd v The Saraswat Co-Op. Bank Employees Union, 2011 LLR 1059 (Bom
HC).
• Consequential relief on reinstatement mean back-wages on higher post.
Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corp Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Punjab,
2011 LLR 1090 (P&H HC).
• Globalization/liberalization can’t be at the cost of human exploitation.
Bhilwara Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari S. Ltd v Vinod Kumar Sharma Dead by LRs, AIR 2011 SC 3546
[LNIND 2011 SC 840]: AIR 2011 SCW 5288 : 2011 LLR 1079 (SC)
Page 24 of 50
• Removal of the bank officer, for granting extra loan, will not be set aside.
Sunil Kumar Srivastava v Unioin of India, 2011 LLR 1036 (All HC).
• Various factors are relevant for granting relief to a terminated workman.
State of Uttar Pradesh v Hind Majdoor Sabha, Meerut, 2011 LLR 1024 (All HC).
• Removal justified when the employee neither complies transfer nor appears before medical board.
S.P. Arya v UOI, 2011 LLR 1139 (Del HC).
• A mistake can always be corrected at any time.
Jossie v Flag Officers Commanding-in-Chief, 2011 LLR 1168 (Ker HC).
• Protection from illegal termination only when workman worked for 240 days.
Dharmender Singh v The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Union Territory,
2011 LLR 1215 (P&H HC).
• No fresh claim can be made after settlement of all dues.
R. Udayakumar v The Presiding Officer, II Additional Labour Court, Chennai, 2011 LLR 1265 (Mad
HC).
• An employee not respecting his superiors, can’t be retained.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp through Regional Manager, Kanpur Nagar v Rajendra Singh,
2011 LLR 1257 (All HC).
• “Equal pay for equal work” will not to apply when two units are in different parts of India.
Page 25 of 50
Workmen represented by Hyderabad Asbestos Cement Products Ltd v Management of Hyderabad

Industries Ltd, 2011 LLR 1269 (Jhar HC).
• Principle of “no work, no-pay” not applicable when the employee is willing to work.
Uttar Pradesh Co-op Bank Ltd v P.O., Labour Court, 2011 LLR 1247 (All HC).
• Cess on building construction is charged for special service rendered to individual’s agency.
Dewan Chand Builders & Contractors v UOI, 2012 LLR 1 (SC)
• “Calendar year” and “block of twelve months” are interchangeable.
H.S. Rajashekara v State Bank of Mysore, 2012 LLR 113 (SC)
• Declaring “protected workmen” is not automatic process.
Balakrishnan v Labour Court, 2012 LLR 166 (Ker HC).
• An enquiry not necessary when removal as per conditions of appointment.
Malagar Singh v Himachal Road Transport Corp, 2012 LLR 151 (HP HC).
• Non-disclosure of material information in the application for employment is a serious dereliction.
Canara Bank v Ram Ratan, 2012 LLR 143 (Raj HC).
• Mere acquittal in a criminal case by itself would not be a ground not to initiate a departmental
proceedings against him or to drop the same if already initiated.
Balaji Digambarrao Kotgire v Enquiry Authority/Chief Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2012
LLR 208 (SN) (Bom HC).
• When a settlement has been made subsequent to issuing of Voluntary Retirement Scheme, the
Page 26 of 50
employees, who have opted for the same, would be entitled to the dearness allowance at par with the State
Government employees.
Managing Director, M.P. State Road Transport Corp v Prantiya Rajya Parivahan Karmachari Sangh
(Congress), 2012 LLR 208 (SN) (MP HC).
• Disciplinary Authority is not bound by the findings of the Enquiry Officer.
Bharati Boro (Smt.) v State Bank of India, 2012 LLR 223 (SN) (Gau HC).
• Rules for regular staff do not apply to contractual employees.
Gridco Ltd v Sri Sadananda Doloi, AIR 2012 SC 729 [LNIND 2011 SC 2466]: 2012 Lab IC 516 : 2012
LLR 225 (SC)
• Cess under BOCW Act is payable by contractor/employer.
P.M.R. Infrastructures Pvt Ltd, Badwel, Kadapa District v Govt of A.P., reptd. By its Principal Secretary,
Irrigation and Command Area Development, Hyderabad, 2012 LLR 273 (AP HC).
• The term “natural justice” cannot be imprisoned in a straight-jacket of a rigid formula as its scope
depends upon the circumstances of the case, nature of enquiry, rules, scheme, character of rights of
persons affected and policy of the statutes under which the Tribunal has to deal with the matter etc., etc.
Oriental Bank of Commerce v R.K. Uppal, AIR 2011 SCW 5779 : 2012 LLR 324 (SN) : 2011-II LLN
493 (SC).
• Right of appeal is not defeated in absence of personal hearing when relevant regulation does not
expressly provide for personal hearing.
Oriental Bank of Commerce v R.K. Uppal, AIR 2011 SCW 5779 : 2012 LLR 324 (SN) : 2011-II LLN
493 (SC)
• Regularisation of the workmen will not be interfered by the High Court in writ petition when they have
worked for 240 days and served for nine years.
Page 27 of 50
Orissa Mining Corp Ltd v Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Bhubaneswar, 2012 LLR 326 (SN) (Ori HC).
• Non-compliance of directions of the Courts provisions of Building & Other Construction Workers
(Regulation of Employment & Conditions of Service) Act and the BOCWW Cess Act would amount
Contempt of Courts Act which provides imposition of fine and sentence upon the defaulter.
National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour v UOI, 2012 LLR 336
(SN) (SC)
• An order, not passed by the Appropriate Authority, is unsustainable.
Birla Sun Life Insurance Co Ltd v The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I (Ministry of Labour and
Employment, Govt of India), 2012 LLR 392 (Bom HC).
• Religious or spiritual activity of an establishment will not be “industry”.
Aseem Abbas v Rajghat Samadhi Committee, 2012 LLR 520 (Del HC).
• Insurance Company not liable to pay compensation when the Policy expired before the accident.
S.M. Sharmila v National Insurance Co Ltd, 2011 LLR 449 (SC).
• Appellate Authority is not bound by the findings of the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority.
Municipal Corp of Delhi v B.B. Bajaj, 2012 LLR 484 (Del HC).
• Merely because a temporary or casual worker has been engaged beyond the period of his employment,
he would not be absorbed in regular service or made permanent if the original appointment was not in
terms of the process envisaged by the relevant rules.
Commissioner, Mysore City Corp v State of Karnataka, 2012 LLR (SN) 557 : 2012 (132) Fac LR 1005
(Karn HC).
• When once fraud is detected, the appointment order itself becomes tainted and liable to be recalled and
voidable.
Page 28 of 50
Prabhulingappa H.M. v The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C, 2012 LLR (SN) 559 : ILR 2011 Kar 4757
(Karn HC).
• Benefits extended to some persons in an illegal or irregular manner, cannot be claimed by others on the
plea of equality.
Prabhulingappa H.M. v The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C, 2012 LLR (SN) 559 : ILR 2011 Kar 4757
(Karn HC).
• Maternity benefit will be available even when the Service Rules don’t provide.
C. Vidya Murthy v Bangalore Metro Rail Corp Ltd, 2012 LLR 602 (Karn HC)
• On enhancement of retirement age, the retired employees during interregnum will get monetary benefit.
Kennametal India Ltd v Kennametal India Employees’ Association, 2012 LLR 600 (Kar HC)
• Employer to provide light nature of work to a person not physically fit.
P. Venkatesan v Management, Samco Metals and Alloys Ltd, Vellore, 2012 LLR 584 (Mad HC)
• Mere coverage under Provident Fund & Bonus Acts, of trainees, will not make them regular employees.
Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v Govt of India, 2012 LLR 690 (Guj HC).
• Generation, distribution of power and electric lines come within “building and other construction work”
under BOCW Act.
Technical Associates Ltd v Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jabalpur, 2012 LLR 817 (MP HC).
• For proving that workman was engaged through contractor, there must be a valid agreement.
Management of K.S.B. Pumps Ltd, Coimbatore v Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, 2012
LLR 824 (Mad HC).
Page 29 of 50
• Holding workman guilty without reference to any document or evidence is unfair.
S. Vedaraj v The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corp, 2012 LLR 866 (Mad HC).
• Social welfare legislation should receive liberal and beneficial construction. When two views are
possible, one in favour of the employees should be upheld.
Tata Co’s Employees Union v Tata Power Co Ltd, 2012 LLR (SN) 891 : 2012-II CLR 369 (Bom HC).
• Overweight can’t be the ground for non-renewal of contract for a cabin crew employee.
Salome Singsit v Airline Allied Services Ltd, 2012 LLR 980 (Del HC).
• Employer cannot be responsible to provide housing accommodation to workers.
Hindalco Industries Ltd, Sonbhadra v Industrial Tribunal, 2012 LLR 940 (All HC).
• Senior can’t be denied benefit extended to juniors.
General Manager, RG-I, Singareni Collieries Co Ltd v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-I,
• Workman is to be heard if Disciplinary Authority disagrees with findings of Enquiry Officer.
Delhi Transport Corp v Parmanand, 2012 LLR 987 (Del HC).
• “Last come, first go” is not applicable in case of termination for habitual absence.
Prem Singh v P.O. Labour Court No. V, 2012 LLR 989 (Del HC).
• Discipline at the work-place is very vital.

Page 30 of 50
Management of Metropolitan Transport Corp (Now known as Metropolitan Transport Corp, Chennai) Ltd
v Presiding Officer, 1 Additional Labour Court, Chennai, 2012 LLR 1074 (Mad HC).
• Employer-employee relation is must for seeking absorption.
Workmen, represented by the President, Madras Fertilizers General Workers’ Union, Chennai v
Management, Madras Fertilizers Ltd, 2012 LLR 1077 (Mad HC).
• Transfer is right of employer but deputation is not.
HC).
• Bishop cannot be prosecuted for non-payment of minimum wages.
• Merely because the petitioner is the purchaser of property of Jawahar Mills Ltd even in auction, there is
no escape from the liability of payment of dues towards ESI and provident fund contributions.
V.S. Murugan v Indian Overseas Bank, 2012 LLR (SN) 1117 : 2012 (134) Fac LR 855 (Mad HC).
• BOCW Act provides safety, health and welfare measures for workers.
G.V.P.R. Engineers Ltd v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 LLR 1193 (MP HC).
• “Building and other construction work” includes cost of construction.
G.V.P.R. Engineers Ltd v State of M.P, 2012 LLR 1193 (MP HC).
• A cess is leviable on total cost of construction.
G.V.P.R. Engineers Ltd v State of M.P, 2012 LLR 1193 (MP HC).
Page 31 of 50
• A teacher lacking character, will be like salt without its savour.
Guru Harkrishan Public School v S.K. Shukla, 2012 LLR 1260 (Del HC).
• Girl students, should not be exposed to tardy process of cross-examination if charges pertain to modesty.
Guru Harkrishan Public School v S.K. Shukla, 2012 LLR 1260 (Del HC).
• No presumption of service when letter sent through UPC.
India Yamaha Motors Pvt Ltd v Labour Court-II, 2012 LLR 1276 (All HC).
• Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act not
applicable to private sector.
Munna Prasad v The Mgt. of Sawhney Rubber, 2012 LLR 1255 (Del HC).
• Discipline is must for growth and prosperity of any institution.
Holy Spirit Hospital v Benjamin Fernandes, 2013 LLR 73 (Bom HC).
• Prosecution justified for violation of Delhi Shops and Establishments Act.
• Cases of sexual harassment shall be dealt seriously by the courts.
Sumitraben Mangaldas Mehta v Manager, Lyka Labs Ltd, 2013 LLR 146 (Guj HC).
• Termination of the petitioner who has been sexually harassed and retaining person who has been
harassing her would justify her reinstatement - more so when the guidelines as laid down by the 2013
LLR (SC) in the case of Vishakha have not been followed by the Management of the Research
Foundation.
Page 32 of 50
Shantilata Pattanaik v Swaminathan Research Foundation, 2013 LLR (SN) 223 : 2012 (135) Fac LR 808
(Ori HC).
• Removal of a worker, who worked for 240 days, without reason is untenable.
State Bank of India v Mitra Kumar Mondal, 2013 LLR 251 [LNIND 2012 CAL 1539] (Cal HC).
• Personal allegations without impleading the official is untenable.
Minerva Diesel Engines Pvt Ltd v P.O., Labour Court, Agra, 2013 LLR 256 (All HC).
• Mere identity card is not sufficient evidence for employer-employee relationship.
Rampat v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, 2013 LLR 323 (P&H HC).
• Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act has parallel provisions to section 17B of the ID Act.
Swadeshi Cotton Mills v Labour Court II, U.P., Kanpur, 2013 LLR 285 (All HC).
• On reinstatement, increments can’t be claimed.
R. Gangabyraiah v General Manager, Spinning and Manufacturing Mills, Minerva Mills, Bangalore,
2013 LLR 292 (Karn HC).
• A disciplinary authority, when differs with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, has to issue show-cause
notice to the delinquent for the proposed punishment.
Ratan Kumar Singh v Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board, Patna, 2013 LLR (SN) 332 : 2012 (135)
Fac LR 912 (Jhar HC).
• “Hire and fire” policy, in a PSU, is illegal.
Balmer Lawrie & Co Ltd v Partha Sarathi Sen Roy, 2013 LLR 337 (SC).
Page 33 of 50
• A personal driver of an official can’t claim to be bank employee.
Hari Om v Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2013 LLR 400 (P&H HC).
• A contract of personal service cannot be enforced.
Hari Om v Oriental Bank of Commerce, 2013 LLR 400 (P&H HC).
• An Industrial Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to High Court under the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
Shrikant Pandey v Ramshabad Mishra, 2013 LLR (SN) 447 : 2013 (136) Fac LR 869 (All HC).
• Workmen temporarily engaged can’t be regularized
Hindustan Engg. & Genl. Mazdoor Union (R) v All India Council for Technical Education, 2013 LLR
748 (Del HC).
• An employee deliberately causing financial loss to employer deserves to be prosecuted.
D.R.K. Raju v Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal, 2013 LLR 755 (AP HC).
• Qualification (s) for promotion cannot be introduced as a fresh requirement.
Bihar State Text Book Workers Union v State of Bihar, 2013 LLR (SC); Mahesh Chand v Management of
Le Meridien, 2013 LLR 854 (Del HC).
• A claim rejected in Civil Court can’t be raised under Industrial Disputes Act.
General Manager, Punjab Roadways v Amrik Singh, 2013 LLR 919 (P&H HC).
• Courts cannot assume the function of departmental authorities.

Page 34 of 50
Lucknow K. Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) v Rajendra Singh, 2013 LLR
(SN) 1007 (SC).
• Specific instances are must for serious misconducts.
Fertilizers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd, Represented by its Chief Personnel Manager (Marketing),
Cochin v P.S. Giri, 2013 LLR 1026 (Ker HC).
• An employer knows best where the services of an employee can be used more effectively.
• In banking services, integrity of employees is very important.
Y.S. Kapoor v Central Bank of India, 2013 LLR 1017 (Del HC).
• Dismissal justified for preventing ingress/egress of willing workmen, materials and extending threat to
senior (s).
The Management of V.G. Textiles Pvt Ltd v The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore, 2013 LLR
1028 (Mad HC).
• Date of birth in voter list can’t be substituted/superseded as recorded in service record.
Board of Directors, Allahabad Agricultural Institute v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2013 LLR 1094 (All HC).
• No fault can be found in the judgment of trial court in convicting the petitioner for not vacating the
accommodation as allotted to him by virtue of his employment after cessation of his employment.
A.B. Singh @ Azir Bihari Singh v State of Jharkhand, 2013 LLR (SN) 1111 : 2013 (138) Fac LR 742
(Jhar HC).
• Supreme Court will not interfere in factual finding of Tribunal as upheld by High Court.
State of Uttaranchal v Shiv Ram, 2013 LLR 1161 (SC).

Page 35 of 50
• Compulsory retirement for sexual harassment not to be interfered.
S. Raju Aiyer v Jawaharlal Nehru, 2013 LLR 1213 (Del HC).
• Regularization of a part-time sweeper justified working for long time.
U.P. State Road Transport Corp, Kanpur v Roadways Karamchari Sanyukt Parishad, Uttar Pradesh,
Kanpur, 2013 LLR 1140 (All HC).
• Reliance on the statements during police custody is erroneous.
V. Nagaiah v The Industrial Tribunal, rep. by its Presiding Officer, 2013 LLR 1168 (AP HC).
• A school is a temple of learning, even a single misconduct would justify removal.
Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v J. Hussain, 2013 LLR 1174 (SC).
• Rectification of date of birth of an employee with justifiable supporting reasons will be allowed.
Sukumar Dawn v Coal India Ltd, 2013 LLR (SN) 1228 : 2013 (138) Fac LR 860 (Cal HC).
• High Court will not interfere merely with the draft notification in regard to minimum wages.
Anamalai Ambdkar Thotta Makkal Sangam v State of Tamil Nadu, 2013 LLR (SN) 1226 : 2013 (138) Fac
LR 904 (Mad HC).
• Termination by Appellate authority not legal since the right to appeal will be defeated.
Uttar Pradesh Power Corp Ltd v Virendra Lal (Dead) through L.Rs., 2013 LLR 1233 (SC).
• Increment or promotions can’t be claimed by a reinstated employee.
Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corp v Shivabasavegowda, 2014 LLR 85 (Karn HC).

Page 36 of 50
• Retiral dues will be denied if employee fails to vacate accommodation.
B.M. Bhatnagar v Hindustan Vegetable Oils Corp Ltd, 2014 LLR 15 (Del HC).
• The State government has no power to exempt the levy of cess under the Building & Other Construction
Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 upon the construction work for the special economic zone.
Primal Projects Ltd v UOI, 2014 LLR (SN) 106 : 2013 (139) Fac LR 169 (Karn HC).
• A hospital being run through a Charitable Trust, carrying on professional work, extending medical
services for a fee, would out come out of the definition of “commercial establishment”.
Lourdes Hospital v Dr. Abraham Mathew, 2014 LLR (SN) 102 : 2013 (4) KLT 402 (Ker HC).
• The workmen, who are not appointed through prescribed process, cannot be granted regularization.
Hindustan Engineering and General Mazdoor Union v All India Council for Technical Education, 2014
LLR (SN) 112 : 2013 (139) Fac LR 587 (Del HC).
• In the absence of a notification under section 1 (3) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, the respondent-
university will not be liable to extend the benefit.
Jisha P. Jayan v Sree Sankaracharya University of Sanskrit, Kalady, 2014 LLR (SN) 109 : 2013 (139)
Fac LR 740 (Ker HC).
• A personal driver of an executive whose salary was reimbursed by the bank would not be a bank
employee.
N. Veerappan v Chairman and Managing Director, Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi, 2014 LLR 151
(Mad HC).
• No limitation prescribed for raising an industrial dispute.
Nagar Panchayat v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2014 LLR 305 (All HC).
Page 37 of 50
• Appointment letter is decisive to determine as to who is employer.
Indian Oil Corp Ltd v Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
Asansol, West Bengal, 2014 LLR 244 [LNIND 2013 CAL 2089] (Cal HC).
• A person appointed illegally cannot complain that termination procedure of his services was arbitrary or
illegal.
Management of Forest Plantation Divisional Officer, Gaya v Rajendra Prasad Singh, Gaya, 2014 LLR
(SN) 328 : 2014 (140) Fac LR 125 (Pat HC).
• Termination of an employee need not be necessarily by the appointing authority since the higher
authority would also be competent to issue charge-sheet, appoint Enquiry Officer and pass an order for
termination.
P.N. Parashar v Delhi Power Supply Co Ltd, 2014 LLR (SN) 333 : 2014 (1) LLN 120 (Del HC).
• Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act,
1996 makes it clear and excluded its applicability to workers involved in “Building or other construction
works” in a factory.
Larsen & Toubro Ltd v Commissioner of Labour, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, 2014 LLR (SN) 444 :
2014 (I) CLR 445 (AP HC).
• Non production of postal receipt would not justify receipt of the document.
Badshah Singh v Delhi Water Supply, 2014 LLR 461 (Del HC).
• Unless the services of workman are expressly terminated, employee-employer relationship would
persist.
Badshah Singh v Delhi Water Supply, 2014 LLR 461 (Del HC).
• Removal of an employee from service of the Bank with retrospective effect is not justified.
Page 38 of 50
State Bank of Patiala v Ram Niwas Bansal (Dead) through LRs., 2014 LLR (SN) 557 : 2014 (2) Supreme
257 (SC).
• Alteration of retirement age can be challenged when espoused by appreciable number of workmen.
Devi Prasad v Taj Sats Air Catering Ltd, 2014 LLR 604 (Del HC).
• Employer-employee relationship will be established when workman was getting monthly remuneration.
Institute for Steel Development & Growth v The State of West Bengal, 2014 LLR 642 [LNIND 2014 CAL
392] (Cal HC).
• “Hire and fire” rule extraneous for achieving social justice.
Institute for Steel Development & Growth v The State of West Bengal, 2014 LLR 642 [LNIND 2014 CAL
392] (Cal HC).
• Disciplinary action, initiated with biased mind, is not tenable.
Kashinath Chakraborty v West Bengal State Electricity Board, 2014 LLR 764 [LNIND 2014 CAL 51]
(Cal HC).
• Acting as Enquiry Officer and imposing punishment will violate natural justice.
Ejaz Alam Siddique v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, 2014 LLR 757 (Ori HC).
• A claim is to be quashed if employer-employee relationship is not proved.
Charan Singh v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurgaon, 2014 LLR 747
(P&H HC).
• U.P. Industrial Disputes Act has no parallel to section 2 (oo)(bb) of Central Act.
Bhuvnesh Kumar Dwivedi v Hindalco Industries Ltd, 2014 LLR 673 (SC).
Page 39 of 50
• Mere alleging or filing an affidavit by the workman is not sufficient to discharge burden of proof
establishing employer-employee relationship.
Uttar Pradesh Financial Corp v Vikram Singh, 2014 LLR (SN) 782 : 2014 (141) Fac LR 637 (All HC).
• Signature on appointment letter is conclusive proof of date of appointment.
Tej Pal v Ajex & Turner Wire Dies Co, 2014 LLR 981 (Del HC).
• Beneficial interpretation should give preference in a social welfare legislation.
Nirmala College v Employees’ State Insurance Corp, 2014 LLR 1048 (Ker HC).
• Letters sent by Management having wrong address of the workman are not acceptable in evidence.
Management of TTK-LIG Ltd, rep. by its General Manager, H.R. v Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Madurai, 2014 LLR (SN) 1114 : 2014 (II) LLR 1001 (Mad HC).
• Prosecution of Managing Director under Maternity Benefit Act not proper when he was not dealing day-
to-day affairs.
Thomas John Muthoot, Thiruvananthapuram v Assistant Labour Officer, Punalur, 2014 LLR 1208 (Ker
HC).
• Supervision and control by an employer is a decisive factor for determination of relationship of

employer and employee.
Rattan Brothers v Appellate Authority, 2014 LLR 1171 (P&H HC).
• Ex-gratia can’t be claimed as a matter of right.
The Management of Behubar Tea Estate v The Secretary, Assam Chah Karamchari Sangha, 2014 LLR
1201 (Gau HC).
• A bank employee must observe high standard of integrity.

Page 40 of 50
Amrendra Kumar Singh v Central Bank of India through its Zonal Manager, Patna, 2014 LLR 1164
(Jhar HC).
• Show cause notice is sufficient compliance of principles of natural justice.
Subas Kumar v State of Jharkhand, 2015 LLR 1235 (Jhar HC).
• Contract of employment between a workman and his employer comes to an end with superannuation of
workman.
Delhi Transport Corp v Prem Singh, 2015 LLR 1250 (Del HC).
• Any act of Director without authority can be ratified by the Board of Directors.
Abaskar Construction Pvt Ltd v Devi Dutt, 2015 LLR 16 (Del HC).
• Relationship of employer-employee can be proved by pay slip, wages register, etc.
Mallikarujan s/o Basawanthappa Ambekar v Associated Cement Co Ltd, Gulbarga, 2015 LLR 92 (Karn
HC).
• Mere acquittal of delinquent would not exonerate him for the charge as levied.
UOI v Bharat Singh, 2015 LLR 43 (J&K HC).
• Major ingredients to establish relationship of employer-employee are appointment letter,

attendance/wages registers, identity cards etc.
Piaggio Vehicles Pvt Ltd v Mr. Jagannath Vithal Jagtap, 2015 LLR 137 (Bom HC).
• The State Act having received Presidential Assent to the subsequent amendment made in Central Act,
will prevail over the Central Act.
Phoenix Overseas Ltd v Asstt. Labour Commissioner, UP, G.B. Nagar, 2015 LLR (SN) 208 (All HC).
Page 41 of 50
• When excess payment is made to an employee due to no fault on his part such amount cannot be
deducted after his retirement from his post retiral dues.
Food Corp of India v Tapan Kumar Chowdhury, 2015 LLR (SN) 210 (Cal HC).
• The purpose of a show-cause notice is to understand the precise case set-up against an employee.
Gorkha Security Services v Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2015 LLR (SN) 207 : 2014 (143) Fac LR 591 (SC).
• If an employee has not produced any certificate or documentary proof showing his date of birth, his
retirement, it can be based on medical report.
Rolla Sathaiah v Singareni Collieries Co Ltd, 2015 LLR (SN) 209 : 2014 (143) Fac LR 624 (AP HC).
• Disputing the date of birth at the time of retirement, would not be justified since the employee was
accepting his date of birth as indicate in the documents in his service records.
Rolla Sathaiah v Singareni Collieries Co Ltd, 2015 LLR (SN) 209 : 2014 (143) Fac LR 624 (AP HC).
• A dispute untenable when employer offers reinstatement to worker.
Madhuri Chandulal Lakhani, Proprietor of Jenny Colour Lab & Studio, Chembur, Mumbai - 400071 v
Prashant Shripad Satpute, Chembur, Mumbai - 400071, 2015 LLR 239 (Bom HC).
• A letter bearing correct address would be presumed to have been served.
New Age Advertising & Printers v Rajinder Kumar, 2015 LLR 235 (Del HC).
• Restricting territorial jurisdiction in appointment letter is not legal.
Torrent Pharmaceutical Ltd v Pradeep Kumar Sharma, 2015 LLR 501 (MP HC).
• For espousing cause of a single employee, it need not be exclusive union of organization.
Page 42 of 50
Ushodaya Enterprises Pvt Ltd v State of Andhra Pradesh, 2015 LLR 534 (AP HC).
• Recruitment of workmen as daily-wagers is not prohibited.
Umrala Gram Panchayat v The Secretary, Municipal Employees Union, 2015 LLR 449 (SC).
• A contractor is bound to pay cess in respect of its labourers.
Hasrat Ali v Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 2015 LLR 504 (All HC).
• Labour cess not a tax of the State Government.
Hasrat Ali v Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, 2015 LLR 504 (All HC).
• Labour Laws are not applicable to Sulabh International Social Service Organization.
Bindeshwar Pathak v State (Central) (sic) State of Gujarat, 2015 LLR 597 (Guj HC).
• Courts can’t direct regularisation of employees engaged through backdoor.
Satish Kumar Singh v State Bank of India, 2015 LLR 573 (Del HC).
• No relief by the Labour Court to an unauthorised absentee failing to respond show cause notice or
participating in the enquiry.
Ram Avadh & Magru v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat, 2015 LLR
731 (P&H HC).
• A circular can act as an aid but cannot override the statute.
Road Transport Corp v Central Board of Trustees, EPF Organisation, 2015 LLR 697 (Del HC).
• Merely control is not sufficient to determine a relationship of employer.

Page 43 of 50
The Indian Express Ltd v Shri P.P. Kothari, 2015 LLR 850 (Bom HC).
• Cess under BO&CW Act is to be calculated and paid on entire construction work.
M.L. Anidharan, Secretary, Sree Narayana Health Care Society v UOI, 2015 LLR 860 (Ker HC).
• In banking services it is not too much to expect absolute integrity and impeccable honesty from its
employees in discharge of their banking function.
Punjab National Bank v Labour Court, 2015 LLR (SN) 1007 : 2015-II LLN 400 (Ker HC).
• One member in ICC for sexual harassment should be independent, preferably from an NGO.
Smt. Shobha Goswami v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2015 LLR 1038 (All HC).
• A nominee has to disburse the collected amount to legal representatives of the deceased.
Alamelu v Pushkala, 2015 LLR 1098 (Ker HC).
• Lady member of ICC not necessarily to be senior in rank of the complainant.
• Lady member of ICC in sexual harassment is to be of senior level.
• One half of the members of ICC for sexual harassment are required to be women.
Shardaben Murlibhai Gurjar v State of Gujarat, 2015 LLR 1095 (Guj HC).
• Under BO&CW Act Cess is fee for services to construction workers.

Page 44 of 50
A. Prabhakara Reddy & Co v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2015 LLR 1233 (SC).
• Service to the workers is not a condition precedent for the levy of the BO&CW Cess.
A. Prabhakara Reddy & Co v State of Madhya Pradesh, 2015 LLR 1233 (SC).
• Employer-employee relationship depends upon various factors including who pays wages and exercises
control.
The Management of BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan v Mahadeva, 2016 LLR 36 (Karn HC).
• Mere working in the premises of principal employer not sufficient to establish relationship of employer-
employee.
Indira Gandhi National Open University v UOI, 2016 LLR 12 (Del HC).
• Residing in the quarter allotted by employer is sufficient to establish employer-employee relationship.
The Management of BWSSB, Cauvery Bhavan v Mahadeva, 2016 LLR 36 (Karn HC).
• During maternity period, employment is to be protected.
Zee News Ltd v Sonika Tiwari (Smt.), 2016 LLR 328 (Bom HC).
• Termination of a woman employee during maternity leave for unauthorised absence to be set aside.
• Appeal against BOCW Cess Act only when cess, as imposed, is deposited.
K.R.B.L. Infrastructure Ltd v UOI, 2016 LLR 308 (All HC).
• Penalty not justified when enquiry is biased.

Page 45 of 50
Phukan Chandra Nath S/o Late Jupak Chandra Nath, Assam v Indian Oil Corp rep. by the Chairman-
cum-Managing Director, 2016 LLR 398 (Gau HC).
• Official car driven by driver, creates presumption of his doing official work.
Rama Petro Chemicals Ltd, Kolhapur v Prakash Surve C/o Anant Yeshwant Surve, Mumbai, 2016 LLR
419 (Bom HC).
• Act of misappropriation not dissolved-making by deposit of money later on.
Dalbara Singh v Presiding Officer, 2016 LLR 463 (P&H HC).
• Who employs, pays salary and exercises control will determine employee-employer relationship.
Manoj Kumar v Sintex Industries Pvt Ltd, 2016 LLR 580 (HP HC).
• Termination of school employee without DoE’s approval is illegal.
Raj Kumar v Director of Education, 2016 LLR 561 (SC).
• Receipt of letter cannot be presumed when posted at incomplete address.
Orchid Overseas Pvt Ltd v Presiding Officer, 2016 LLR 743 (P&H HC).
• Sympathy towards an employee guilty of forgery would be misplaced.
The Chief Executive Officer, The Ahmednagar District Central Co-op Bank Ltd v Prakash Ramachandra
Waghmare, 2016 LLR 1014 (Bom HC).
• A personal driver of Company Executive not to be treated employee of Company.
Shivnanda Singh v Standard Chartered Bank, 2016 LLR 1097 (Cal HC).
• Every litigant is expected to state truth whether it is pleadings, affidavit or evidence.

Page 46 of 50
Maya Press Pvt Ltd v UOI, 2016 LLR 1057 (All HC).
• Dishonest and unscrupulous litigants have no place in law Courts.
Maya Press Pvt Ltd v UOI, 2016 LLR 1057 (All HC).
• Limitation period is to be considered from the date of receipt of copy of the order or from the date of
knowledge of the order.
Sampuran Singh v Special Secretary Cooperation, Punjab, 2017 LLR (SN) 100 (P&H HC).
• Requirement of compliance of “principles of natural justice” include an opportunity of hearing to be

given to the delinquent employee before imposing any penalty upon him.
• Awarding 75% back-wages to an employee guilty of forgery will amount to reward.
The Chief Executive Officer, The Ahmednagar District Central Co-op Bank Ltd v Prakash Ramachandra
Waghmare, 2016 LLR 1014 (Bom HC).
• A bank employee must maintain utmost honesty and integrity.
A. Govindan v State Bank of Travancore, 2016 LLR 1198 (Ker HC).
• Notice sent through registered post, if comes back with postal remarks “wrong address”, it would be
treated as “not served”.
• A Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is included in “commercial
establishment”.
Page 47 of 50
• If a notice sent through registered post is received back with postal remarks “refused”, it would be
treated as “served”.
• Engagement of an employee without following any procedure of selection and recruitment, is illegal.
Rameshbhai Jesangbhai Solanki v Medical Officer, 2017 LLR (SN) 110 : 2016 (151) Fac LR 133 (Guj
HC).
• Provisions of welfare Statutes must receive broad interpretation.
Lanco Anpara Power Ltd v State of Uttar Pradesh, 2017 LLR (SN) 223 (SC).
• Extension after retirement is discretion of the employer.
Devender Mohan v The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, 2017 LLR 269 (P&H HC).
• Internal Committee under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (PPR) Act is empowered to
enforce attendance.
Ashok Kumar Singh v University of Delhi, 2017 LLR 366 (Del HC).
• Penalty for sexual harassment based on evidence not to be interfered by the Court.
Vidya Akhave v UOI, Department of Women and Children, 2017 LLR 357 (Bom HC).
• Erection of building, if not under Factories/Mines Act, will attract cess under BO&CW Act.
Wardha Power Co Ltd v The State of Maharashtra, Department of Labour, 2017 LLR 339 (Bom HC).
Page 48 of 50
• When junior employees are regularised, senior must be allowed.
Rajbir Singh v The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, 2017 LLR 411
(P&H HC).
• Employees, appointed without any test or interview i.e., without any selection procedure, are not entitled
to claim regularization.
Mahapalika Arogya Seva Karmachari Sanghtana v Municipal Corp of Greater Mumbai, 2017 LLR (SN)
437 (Bom HC).
• Mere quoting a wrong provision in respect of demand notice and reference does not mean that demand
of the workman for scale of wages would wipe out.
Deputy General Manager, Canara Bank v Rajesh Kumar, 2017 LLR (SN) 447 (P&H HC).
• Statutory provisions shall prevail over departmental circulars/notifications.
Smt. Kavita Pant v State of Uttarakhand, 2017 LLR 467 (Uttr HC).
• Family members must vacate residential quarters after death of employee.
Unichem Laboratories Ltd v Rani Devi, 2017 LLR 562 (SC).
• Building and Other Construction Workers (RECS) Act as well as ESI will be applicable for construction
workers.
Vikrampore Engineering and Infrastructural Co Pvt Ltd v Employees’ State Insurance Corp, 2017 LLR
617 (Cal HC).
• A registered letter received by family member of the addressee would be deemed to have been delivered.
Orissa State Beverages Corp Ltd v Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2017 LLR 663 (Ori HC).
• No relief can be granted if terminated workman fails to prove to have worked for 240 days.
Page 49 of 50
Suresh Pal v The Management of Municipal Corp of Delhi, 2017 LLR 684 (Del HC).
• Notice for claiming maternity benefit is only a procedural formality.
• Having invoked the remedy under civil suit, an employee cannot raise industrial dispute.
Jaspal Singh v Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bathinda, 2017 LLR 1054 (P&H HC).
• Denial of opportunity for cross examination of witnesses would vitiate inquiry by Internal Committee
under POSH Act.
• Internal Committee under POSH Act is obliged to follow natural justice.
• Interpretation for social legislation cannot be stretched beyond specific words with restrictive meanings.
Latikaben v Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corp, 2017 LLR 1079 (Guj HC).
• Legal proceedings can only be at the place of sexual harassment.
Biplab Kumar Das v IDBI Bank Ltd, 2017 LLR 1148 (Gau HC).
• Salary certificate is the basis of evidence establishing the relationship of employer-employee.
Management of Chemflo Industries (India) Pvt Ltd v Sahadev Pandav, 2017 II CLR 881 : 2017 LLR (SN)
1230 (Ori HC).
• Accidental physical contact would not amount to “sexual harassment”.

Page 50 of 50
Shanta Kumar v Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CDIR), 2018 LLR 8 (Del HC).
• Allegation of intemperate language cannot constitute sexual harassment.
Anil Rajagopal v State of Kerala, 2018 LLR 24 (Ker HC).
• Sexually determined physical contact would constitute sexual harassment.
Shanta Kumar v Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CDIR), 2018 LLR 8 (Del HC).
• Natural justice and equity warrant a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed.
Manvish Info Solutions Pvt Ltd v Employees Provident Fund Organisation, 2018 LLR 87 (Ker HC).
End of Document

HK Kumar Digest of Important Laws

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

HK Kumar Digest of Important Laws

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date and Time: Friday 10 December 2021 3:29:00 PM IST

Job Number: 159617305

Ugam Ram v Judge, Labour Court, 1998 LLR 53 (Raj HC).

• Termination of an employee for over-staying of leave without retrenchment compensation will be

• Termination of a workman for over-staying of leave will be set aside.

• Increase of National holidays by the State Government will not be constitutional.

• Denial of leave on justifiable grounds will be violative of principles of natural justice.

Chhotey Lal v General Manager, 2001 LLR 144 (Del HC).

University of Delhi v Suresh Chand, 2007 LLR 344 (Del HC).

• No earned leave on reinstatement with back wages unless specifically granted.

• Sanction of leave can’t be presumed merely on sending application.

• An employee, under suspension, will not be entitled to earned leave.

• An employee, under suspension, will not be entitled to earned leave.

• Mere submission of application cannot be presumed the grant of leave.

• Leave application is either to be rejected or accepted.

• Casual workers also entitled to maternity leave.

• Employer cannot arbitrarily reject leave application.

• Rejection of leave application is required to be informed to the workman.

• Entitlement of leave is a valuable right of the employees.

• Leave is to be earned by an employee while working.

• Staying away from work, without availing leave, not justified.

Management of Singareni Collieries Co Ltd, Ramagundam & Godavarikhani, Krimnagar v Industrial

• Treating absence as leave without pay would not be sanctioned leave.

Delhi Transport Corp v Bir Singh, 2016 LLR 61 (Del HC).

• Plea of illness without a medical record is not tenable.

• A probationer will remain on probation till confirmation.

Chapter 26PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972

(i) APPLICABILITY OF THE ACT

• Panjarapol will not be covered under the Act.

• An unaided school will be covered under the Act.

Ramgopal v Shikshan Sansthan Jaipur, 1996 LLR 527 (Raj HC).

• A polytechnic in which activity of imparting knowledge of training is carried on systematically would be

• Non-Governmental educational institutions are bound to pay gratuity to its employees.

• An educational institution run by a registered Trust shall be covered by Gratuity Act.

• Delhi Development Authority is an “establishment” under Gratuity Act.

• Gratuity Act will be applicable upon a Library.

• A teacher being entitled to gratuity can get it w.e.f. 3 April 1997.

• A temple is also covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act.

• Gratuity Act will apply when there are 21 employees.

• Gratuity Act, 1972 is not restricted to only commercial establishments.

• Payment of Gratuity Act does not apply to working journalists.

• Gratuity Act also applies to charitable trusts.

(ii) APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY

• On filing appeal, the wages as by Controlling Authority directed are to be deposited.

• Limitation for filing gratuity appeal is to be counted from receipt of order.

• Deposit of awarded gratuity is must for filing appeal.

• Appeal against Controlling Authority lies only on deposit of decreed amount.

(iii) WITHHOLDING/FORFEITURE OF GRATUITY

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld even if he fails to surrender employer’s land.

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld by an employer.

• Forfeiture of gratuity is permissible if an employee is dismissed for misappropriation.

• No deductions can be made from gratuity except shortage or assessed misappropriation.

• Gratuity of an employee will not be forfeited on subsistence allowance.

• Deduction of gratuity with employee’s consent cannot be challenged.

• A notice must be issued to the employee before forfeiting his gratuity.

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld for non-vacation of staff quarter.

• Forfeiture of gratuity of an employee for misbehaviour will not be justified.

• No deduction, whatsoever, except as stipulated by section 4 (6) pertaining to forfeiture of gratuity on

• Forfeiture of gratuity order, passed after retirement, would not be justified.

Motilal Sharma v University of Rajasthan, 1998 II LLJ 1021 (Raj HC).

• Gratuity of an employee cannot be withheld for occupying residential quarter.

Sardar Sohan Singh v UOI, 2007 LLR 763 (Cal HC).

• For forfeiture of gratuity, there has to be positive dismissal for misconduct.

• Gratuity of an employee can be forfeited only under prescribed conditions.