Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Calcutta High Court noted that as per Section 5(1) of the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, every woman is entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for, the payment of maternity benefits.
The High Court observed that terminating contractual appointments is impermissible without providing an opportunity for a hearing, particularly when the termination is grounded in allegations of misconduct that tarnish the employee’s reputation.
Madhya Pradesh High Court noted that the petitioner had been absent for an extended period, both before and after the court’s interim orders.
“The expression “discharge” is of wide import, and it would include “discharge on conclusion of the contractual period”.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. allowed a writ petition directing
Rajasthan High Court: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J., dismissed a petition which was filed assailing the action of respondents who had terminated his
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of P.R. Ramachandra Menon and Parth Prateem Sahu JJ., rejected the appeal finding no tenable ground
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of P.K. Lohra and Arun Bhansali, JJ. struck down the impugned University Service Regulations, 2001 by
Kerala High Court: The Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque, J. disposed of a petition by stating that maternity benefits cannot be denied