Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Checking relevance for Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel & Towers Employees & Workers Union VS Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. ...
Grand Kakatiya Sheraton Hotel & Towers Employees & Workers Union VS Srinivasa Resorts Ltd. - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 397 : Under Section 47(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988, an employee who is physically or mentally unfit, as certified by a registered medical practitioner, is entitled to voluntary cessation of employment after giving notice of at least 15 days (or one month if aged 60 or above). In such cases, the employee is entitled to service compensation amounting to fifteen days'''' average wages for each year of continuous service. If the employer refuses to honor this right—particularly when the employee has provided medical certification and a legal notice—the employee may file a complaint with the Inspector under the Act. The law explicitly prohibits termination during the pendency of a complaint regarding denial of benefits under labor welfare enactments. Furthermore, if the employer fails to pay the service compensation or gratuity due upon resignation on medical grounds, the employee can seek redressal through the Inspector or appropriate labor authorities. The employer’s refusal to buy out the notice period despite medical urgency constitutes a violation of statutory rights, and the employee’s remaining options include filing a formal complaint with the Inspector, seeking enforcement of service compensation, and potentially pursuing legal remedies under the Act.Checking relevance for Pyare Lal Sharma: Managing Director, Jammu And Kashmir Industries LTD. , Srinagar VS Managing Director: Pyare Lal Sharma...
Checking relevance for Shashikala Devi VS Central Bank of India...
Shashikala Devi VS Central Bank of India - 2014 0 Supreme(SC) 941 : If an employee submits a notice for voluntary retirement due to medical urgency and the employer refuses to process it or buy out the notice period, the employee (or their legal representative) may pursue legal remedies. The court in this case held that when an employee has completed qualifying service and is entitled to voluntary retirement under pension regulations, a letter using the term ''''resignation'''' can be interpreted as a request for voluntary retirement if the circumstances—such as serious illness—demonstrate intent to retire rather than resign. The employer''''s refusal to accept such a request cannot result in forfeiture of pensionary benefits if the employee meets eligibility criteria. In such cases, the court may direct the employer to treat the notice as a voluntary retirement application, process retiral benefits, and release them within six months. Failure to comply results in interest at 10% per annum on the unpaid amount. Thus, the employee’s remaining option is to file a writ petition or appeal before a competent court to compel the employer to recognize the notice as a voluntary retirement request and release benefits.Checking relevance for Management Of Brooke Bond India Private LTD. VS Y. K. Gautam...
Management Of Brooke Bond India Private LTD. VS Y. K. Gautam - 1973 0 Supreme(SC) 255 : If an employer refuses to buy out the notice period despite medical urgency and ignores a legal notice, the employee may have the right to seek reinstatement and back wages through industrial adjudication. The court held that even where an employment contract allows termination without notice during probation, the termination must be in bona fide exercise of power. If the termination is found to be malefide, capricious, arbitrary, or amount to victimization or unfair labour practice—especially when the employee is ill and has provided medical proof—the industrial tribunal has jurisdiction to set aside the termination. In such cases, the employee is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages from the date of discharge. The employer’s failure to consider medical grounds or to follow principles of natural justice may constitute an unfair labour practice, justifying intervention by the tribunal.Checking relevance for Viveka Nand Sethi VS Chairman, Jammu And Kashmir. , Bank LTD. ...
Checking relevance for Sanjay Jain VS National Aviation Co. Of India Ltd. ...
Sanjay Jain VS National Aviation Co. Of India Ltd. - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 1622 : If an employee gives a valid resignation notice (e.g., 30 days for a permanent employee under Standing Order 18 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946), the resignation becomes effective upon the expiry of the notice period without requiring acceptance by the employer. The court held that the employee has a right to resign by giving such notice, and the resignation is effective even if the company refuses to accept it. In this case, the employer''''s refusal to accept the resignation was legally invalid, and the employee could proceed with termination after the notice period. If the company ignores a legal notice and refuses to buy out the notice period despite medical urgency, the employee may still be entitled to claim benefits (such as gratuity, provident fund, and wages) and can pursue legal remedies through labor courts or tribunals to enforce their rights. The employee’s resignation is deemed effective upon completion of the notice period, regardless of employer acceptance.Checking relevance for M. L. Kamra VS Chairman-cum-managing Director, New India Assurance Company LTD. ...
Checking relevance for J. BENJAMIN VS MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LIMITED, KOLAR GOLD FIELD...
J. BENJAMIN VS MANAGEMENT OF BHARAT EARTH MOVERS LIMITED, KOLAR GOLD FIELD - 2005 0 Supreme(Kar) 476 : If an employer refuses to buy out the notice period despite medical urgency and ignores a legal notice, the employee may have the right to challenge the termination as illegal and vitiated under principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. According to Regulation 98 of the Employees State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950, termination on grounds of medical unfitness requires three conditions: (1) the employee’s service conditions must allow such termination; (2) the medical board must declare the employee medically unfit under clauses (i), (ii), or (iii); and (3) the employee must be given notice of the intention to terminate and an opportunity to be heard. If these conditions are not met—particularly the failure to issue notice—the termination order is illegal and can be set aside. In such cases, the employee is entitled to consequential benefits including reinstatement, continuity of service, and full back wages, less any benefits already received (such as disablement or gratuity). If reinstatement is not possible (e.g., due to superannuation), the employee is still entitled to full back wages reduced by amounts already paid. Therefore, the employee’s remaining option is to pursue legal remedies through a Labour Court or appropriate forum to claim reinstatement, back wages, or compensation, especially if the employer failed to follow due process and ignored legal notices.
