Blog

In a case relating to compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court held that retrospective seniority cannot be claimed from a date when an employee is not even borne in service.

Copy of the judgement

Mere delay in relieving an employee from duties, under a VRS, would not impact the acceptance of his resignation – Supreme Court

Copy of the judgement is attached

Chairman/Managing Director/Executive Director/Deputy General Manager/Planner & Executor,cannot be held vicariously liable unless there are specific allegations and averments against them with respect to their individual role

Copy of the judgement

Considering the principles laid down in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden is on the employee to come out with a case that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period

Copy of judgement

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while extending the date for mandatory E-Seeding of Aadhar number with UAN has issued the following interim directions”

Subject to adjudication of the legal issues which have been raised in this petition, the following interim directions are issued:

a) Insofar as the employees qua whom Aadhaar numbers have already been provided to the EPFO are concerned, the provident fund shall be permitted to be deposited by the employers without awaiting verification from the Unique Identification Authority of India. The process of verification shall however continue;

b) Insofar as those persons for whom the Aadhaar number seeding is yet to take place are concerned, the date for completing the seeding and verification shall stand extended till 30th November, 2021. In the meantime, employers shall be permitted to deposit the provident funds in respect of employees for whom seeding has not taken place and no coercive measures shall be taken against them for non-seeding of Aadhaar numbers with UANs. During this period, the EPFO would appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer who can be contacted by the Petitioner’s members or any other employer, to ensure that the deposits are not delayed and are made in a timely manner, in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme.

c) Insofar as the difficulties which were faced by the employers during the period from 1st June, 2021 to 15th June, 2021 during which period the software was amended, are concerned, no coercive measures shall be taken against the employers for the time being in respect of such belated payments until final decision in the present writ petition.

Kindly refer to the judgment

A caretaker/servant, acquires no interest in the subject property irrespective of his long possession.

HIMALAYA VINTRADE PVT. LTD. V Md ZAHID

Copy of the judgement

The Supreme Court in the case of Ranbir Singh v Executive Engineer, PWD has held that in a case where it is found that, though the appellant had worked for 240 days, appellant’s service was terminated, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act and where the employer is a public authority reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of Section 25F being established, suitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy.

Copy of the judgement

In the case of Somesh Thapliyal v HNB Garhwal University the Supreme Court held that bargaining power is vested with the employer itself and the employee is left with no option but to accept the conditions dictated by the authority. If that being the reason, it is open for the employee to challenge the conditions if it is not being in conformity with the statutory requirement under the law and he is not estopped from questioning at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved.

Copy of the judgement

In exercise of the powers, conferred under Section 10(2)(1) of the Disaster Management Act 2005, the Ministry of Home Affairs has issued an order dated 28th August 2021 directing that order dated 29th June, 2021, that the containment measures for COVID-19, as conveyed vide Ministry of Health & Family Welfare (MoHFW) DO No. Z.28015/85/2021-DM Cell dated 28th June 2021, will remain in force upto 30th September, 2021.