#Labour and Employment Law

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that an insurer cannot escape liability under the Employees Compensation Act merely because the employer violated policy terms-so long as the worker’s death occurred during employment. The insurer retains a right to recover from the employer later, but the statutory duty to compensate dependents is absolute and non-negotiable, reinforcing the welfare-centric intent of the law.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that interest under a Lok Adalat settlement is enforceable regardless of whether the delay in payment is bona fide, rejecting the Commissioner’s attempt to excuse non-compliance due to bank account restraint. This sets a critical precedent for claimants: compromise awards are binding contracts, and delays-even those beyond the insurer’s immediate control-trigger automatic interest liability as stipulated in the award.

Bombay High Court sets aside an EPF Appellate Tribunal order that relied on a Delhi HC judgment later overturned by the Supreme Court. The ruling reinforces that judicial orders based on overruled precedents lack legal validity, impacting employers and EPF authorities under Section 14B of the EPF Act.

The Bombay High Court quashed an EPF Appellate Tribunal order built entirely on a Delhi HC judgment later overturned by the Supreme Court. This ruling establishes that tribunals cannot depend on judicial precedents that have been expressly set aside - reinforcing that binding law must reflect the highest court’s current interpretation, not defunct rulings. Employers and employees alike must now expect adjudications grounded in live, authoritative precedent.

The Bombay High Court set aside a PF Appellate Tribunal order that depended on a Delhi HC judgment later overturned by the Supreme Court, reinforcing that tribunals cannot anchor decisions on precedent rendered legally void. This clarifies that binding authority in EPF adjudication requires current, unchallenged jurisprudence - protecting employers and employees from legally unsound liability determinations.

Bombay High Court rules that criminal prosecution under Section 85(g) of the ESI Act requires proof of deliberate default, not mere failure to re-produce already verified records. Employers cannot be penalized for non-compliance with repeated verification demands unless a fresh statutory violation is established.

Bombay High Court holds that a qualified medical practitioner need not have treated the injured worker to issue a valid disability certificate under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923.

Bombay High Court holds that administrative delays in corporate insurance firms do not constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.