Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court stated that recovery of excess amount from the employee was not permissible, if there was no misrepresentation or suppression by the petitioner.
Both Labour as well as Industrial Court have concurrently held that apart from performing supervisory nature of duties, the petitioner did not himself perform any manual, skilled, unskilled or clerical work.
“An employee on the strength of the transfer policy cannot claim that he cannot be transferred in any manner whatsoever, even when no prejudice has been caused to him.”
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 Good Samaritan law states that a person who chooses to take steps to aid a person a distress should not be harassed for showing kindness and if in the process the Good Samaritan suffers some injury or fatal consequence, the law must come to his rescue.
“If petitioner is able to obtain any amount of money towards tax deducted from his income at source for Assessment Years 2009-10, 2011-12 and 2012- 13 from his employer, the same shall be deposited by him with the revenue.”
“Petitioner is conscious of the fact that he is a Christian and his marriage is with a Christian lady and the marriage is solemnized in a church as per the Christian rites and church formalities.”
“Any action of transfer based on political pressure brought by any employee for being posted to a particular place is not only required to be annulled, but such an employee cannot be granted the requested posting”.
On 29-09-2022, Governor Newsom signed AB 1949, which creates protected bereavement leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA). As
Gujarat High Court: The instant petitions came up before the Court challenging the Award of the Labour Court, Vadodara, whereby which it
“A business practice that requires workers to assume the appearance of an independent business entity — a company in name only — could give rise to an inference that such a practice was intended to obscure the employer’s responsibility to remit its fund contributions as mandated by the State’s employee protections statutes”
Delhi High Court: Manoj Kumar Ohri J. dismissed the petition as the employer-employee relationship was established by a witness before the court
Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. while noting that there were no legitimate grounds to deny the employee of gratuity and other
Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore (CESTAT): The Coram of S.K. Mohanty (Judicial Member) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member)
Gujarat High Court: Biren Vaishnav, J., reiterated that, interest on delayed payment of gratuity is mandatory and not discretionary. The petitioner had
by Sridhar Rajagopalan*
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and S.G. Mehare, JJ., expressed that, for condoning the interruption in service, the
Madras High Court: S.M. Subramaniam, J., expressed that employees cannot seek any direction to fill up the post or claim a promotional
Patiala House Courts: Preeti Parewa, SCJ/CCJ/ARC, NDD, while addressing the alleged case of sexual harassment against the CEO of ScoopWhoop, wherein it
“One of the basic tenets to be followed by every Hindu is tolerance. Tolerance must be his own community or religion and