Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
If the employee remains unauthorisedly absent despite being permitted to return, disciplinary or penal actions may be applicable; however, actual refusal to work after resumption does not automatically attract offences under Section 48 ["2023 Supreme(Online)(J&K) 539"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
In the complex world of , employers often navigate tricky situations involving employee behaviour. Imagine this scenario: an employee is permitted to resume duty after a period of absence, but they refuse to perform their tasks or remain absent without authorization. Can the employer be accused of a criminal offence under ? The answer, generally speaking, is no. This blog post dives deep into this legal nuance, drawing from judicial interpretations and key case laws to clarify employer responsibilities.
We'll explore the provisions of , primarily from the , examine pivotal judgments, and provide practical insights for businesses. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
Where an employee is permitted to resume duty but refuses to perform work or remains , no offence under can be alleged against the employer.
This statement encapsulates a fundamental principle in . typically addresses in factories, mandating payment when workers exceed 48 hours per week. However, it does not extend to employers for an employee's post-resumption . [
#FactoriesAct #LabourLaw #EmployerRights
The order of dismissal or discharge passed invoking Section 33(2)(b) dismissing or discharging an employee brings an end of relationship of the employer and employee from the date of his dismissal or discharge but that order remains incomplete and remains inchoate as it is subject to approval of the ... An employer cannot be permitted to use the provision of Section 33(2)(b) to ease out a workman without complying with the condition....
The appellant, however, joined his duty on 09.11.2003 thereby remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty for 39 days at his own. ... In the instant case, the appellant, at the time of committing the alleged offence of unauthorized absence from duty, was posted in the Sector Headquarter BSF Rawalpora and was, thus, under the overall control of DIG, BSF. ... Having regard to the nature of duty the BSF has to perform, it cannot ill affo....
In case the regular employees fail to report duty as per that arrangement, the petitioner is permitted to employ fresh temporary hands with a specific condition that their services shall be terminated, if necessary to accommodate the regular employee named in the shift list as and when he resumes duty ... The grievance made in the application, in substance, was that some of the employees were refused entry and work without any justification. This action on the part of the employer was ....
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that she absented herself from duty from 16.11.2001 for more than three months without prior intimation. As the 1st respondent did not resume her duty, the management was constrained to issue a notice on 08.05.2002, which she refused to receive. ... A perusal of the record would show that before the alleged unauthorised absence of the 1st respondent on 16.01.2002, there was no love lost between the employer and the employee, since the....
The writ petitioner, as is claimed by him, reported for duty accompanied by his wife on 05.02.2001. He was permitted to resume his duties. On 09.02.2001, the writ petitioner again abandoned his duties and left for home along with his wife. ... for the offence in the said Section or in lieu thereof any of the punishments lower in the scale set out in Section 48 . ... Upon joining of the writ petitioner for duty at Battalion Headquarters, the writ peti....
The writ petitioner, as is claimed by him, reported for duty accompanied by his wife on 05.02.2001. He was permitted to resume his duties. On 09.02.2001, the writ petitioner again abandoned his duties and left for home along with his wife. ... Upon joining of the writ petitioner for duty at Battalion Headquarters, the writ petitioner was brought before the Commandant for hearing on offence report under Rule 45 of the Rules for committing offence under Section 19(a) an....
Despite such punishment, the petitioner did not mend his ways and, on the contrary, continued to remain absent unauthorisedly. ... It was argued that the said Rule had statutory force, being framed by the Central Government under Section 48 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, and was binding upon all employees of the Corporation. ... The petitioner had communicated the Branch Manager of Udaipur within Silchar Division on his transfer, his inability to resume his duty for certa....
48 - The court discussed the resignation of the employee, acceptance of retirement benefits, and the order of reinstatement with ... resignation - Labour Dispute - (Bihar & Orrisa Co-operative Societies) Act, 1948, (Bihar Shops and Establishment) Act, 1953 - Section 26, Section ... liable to compensate the employee under Section 6N. ... In such cases the employer is merely acceding to the employee's request, may be even reluctantly. Here the employee's role is active while the employer's role is passive....
The employer cannot force an provisions of Section 6N of the State Act. ... Just as an employer has a right to terminate the service of an employee, an employee too p style="position:absolute;white-space
Writ Petition - Service Dismissal - BSF Act 1968, Rules of 1969 - Section 19, Section 48, Rule 43, Rule ... To issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for reinstatement and to allow the petitioner to resume/perform his duties on the post of Constable on which the petitioner was working prior to his dismissal from service, by issuance of Writ of Mandamus; p align="justify ... - Rule 43 of the Rules of 1969 provides for a Summary procedure to be followed in respect of an enrolled person sub....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
