U.P. Industrial Disputes Act

Jasbir Singh, a peon employed by Punjab & Sind Bank, was accused of embezzling Rs 25,000, forging a depositor's signature and tampering with bank records. He faced a criminal trial under IPC §§ 409 and 201 and was acquitted, and a civil recovery suit filed by the bank was also decided in his favour, the judgment attain…

The Hydro‑Electric Employees Union and other petitioners challenged the U.P. State Electricity Board’s decision to amalgamate the posts of Meter Readers, Sub‑Station Operators and Switch Board Attendants into a single cadre and the regulation framed under Section 79(c) of the Electricity Supply Act, 1948. The Board arg…

Arjunlal Rajak was appointed as a daily‑wage chowkidar by the State of Madhya Pradesh without a written offer or compliance with recruitment rules. He worked in various departments, the last being the production division of the Forest Department, which was later abolished, and his services were terminated without obser…

The Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (SRTC) required its drivers to undergo annual medical examinations under Regulation 17(2). Regulation 17(3) allowed the corporation to dispense with the service of drivers who failed the fitness test, with a discretionary power to offer them alternative jobs. After med…

Bhola Singh was engaged as a trainee/apprentice under a state‑sponsored training scheme in the cane department of Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. After 45 trainees were interviewed, only 11 were regularised; Singh was not qualified and continued as a trainee until the scheme ended on 16 November 1987, when all remaining train…

Kuldeep Singh, a data entry operator, was terminated by the Instrument Design Development and Facilities Centre without complying with the notice and compensation requirements of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He made numerous representations to various government officials, after which the Haryana G…

The Uttar Pradesh Municipal Corporation (Nagar Mahapalika) appointed several workers as apprentices on an ad‑hoc basis before the State sanctioned the temporary posts for which they were purportedly hired. After the sanctioned period ended, the workers were terminated. The Labour Court held that, because they had worke…