On October 22, 2024, the Bombay High Court, in Maruti Krishana Naik & Ors vs. M/s. Advani Oerlikon Ltd. & Anr., W.P. No. 2052 of 2006, dismissed the claim of workmen seeking reinstatement with full back wages following their termination without a disciplinary enquiry, which they argued violated principles of natural justice and labour laws. The Court upheld the employer's decision not to hold an enquiry, citing the environment of fear and intimidation created by violent strikes led by the workmen. The employer provided evidence of multiple incidents of intimidation and assault on managerial staff. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Workmen of Motipur Sugar Factory Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Motipur Sugar Factory (AIR 1965 SC 1803), stating that it is not illegal for an employer to terminate workers in situations where they pose a threat to workplace security and safety.

Recently, the Delhi High Court in Matthew Johnson Dara vs. Hindustan Urvarak and Rasayan Ltd., W.P. (C) No. 11818 of 2024, directed the employer to accept the joining of the employee, who had successfully cleared the selection process. The employee had faced delays in receiving the relieving letter from his previous employer, which had hindered his joining. However, after the employee was subsequently relieved, the Court ruled that the cause of the hindrance no longer existed. The Court further stated that the new employer could not issue a fresh process to fill the position and prevent the employee from joining.

On November 6, 2024, the Delhi High Court in Ravinder Mandal vs. M/s D.L.F. Universal Ltd., W.P. (C) No. 15094 of 2024, dismissed the workman's claim that his transfer order was mala fide and disguised as a termination order. Upholding the labour court's judgment, the court clarified that the employer's decision regarding the place of posting is based on bona fide considerations, and unless proven to be mala fide, there is no need to scrutinize the validity of transfer orders.

Recently, the Delhi High Court in Dr. G K Arora vs. State & Anr (CRL.M.C. 5431/2014 & CRL.M.A. 18526/2014), observed that an employer cannot be held liable for abetment of an employee's suicide without clear evidence of intent. The court noted that an employer's decisions, even if perceived as harsh, made in the discharge of official duties do not inherently establish liability in such circumstances. This ruling was reinforced by findings from thorough, impartial investigations by the Delhi Police, the National Commission for Women, and the Shri B.L. Garg Commission, all of which supported the employer's stance.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Lenin Kumar Ray vs. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 11709 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5660 of 2023) and Civil Appeal No. 11710 of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12876 of 2024), noted that in the absence of concrete evidence about the nature of an employee's work, the employment orders issued by the management would be relied upon. Since the employee held a managerial position and was supervising two juniors, the Court concluded that he did not qualify as a "workman" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act ").

On October 17, 2024, the Meghalaya High Court in Shri. Senora Johny Arengh vs. The Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, WP(C) No. 248 of 2021, reinstated an employee who was terminated for misconduct without a disciplinary inquiry, stating that an inquiry must be conducted before any action is taken against the employee to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice.

On October 17, 2024, the Guwahati High Court in Jatin Rajkonwar & 6 Ors vs. Union of India & Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., WP(C)/3871/2020, dismissed a claim by 6 (six) contract laborers seeking regularization with the principal employer. The court ruled that it was the contractor, not the principal employer, who was responsible for engaging and disengaging the laborers. Additionally, the court noted that while the contractor had not held a valid license under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 ("CLRA Act"), this violation only resulted in penalties under the Act and did not entitle the contract labours to permanent employment with the principal employer.

On October 14, 2024, the Chhattisgarh High Court in Kudiam Bhima vs. State of Chhattisgarh, WPS No. 227 of 2020, reinstated an employee who had been dismissed for unauthorized absence due to personal hardship. The Court held that dismissal may be considered excessive when the employee has a long record of service, and the absence is due to compelling personal reasons, such as illness or family emergencies, which cannot be deemed deliberate unless there is clear evidence to support such a conclusion.

On October 4, 2024, the Orissa High Court in Dr. Kanishka Das vs. Union of India and others W.P.(C) No. 14616/2021, affirming that fact-finding inquiries are administrative processes aimed at gathering relevant information. The court emphasized that such inquiries are preliminary and not penal, which means they do not require the same procedural safeguards as disciplinary inquiries, such as granting a hearing or allowing cross-examination. The court noted that fact-finding inquiries can be conducted ex-parte, allowing them to proceed without the participation of the concerned employee.

Recently, the Bombay High Court in Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay vs. Tanaji Babaji Lad, W.P. 12746 OF 2024, upheld the order of the controlling authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("Gratuity Act"), directing the principal employer to pay gratuity to contract labourers. The Court noted that the principal employer continuously employed several contract labourers through multiple contractors over an extended period. The labourers worked consistently on the principal employer's premises, and the Court found a continuous connection between their services and the principal employer. The Court rejected the argument that the terms and conditions of service were solely determined by the contractors, noting that in this case, one of the labourers had rendered 39 years of service. It further emphasized that this arrangement appeared to be one where the salaries were merely routed through contractors, and that the principal employer had a degree of control over the labourers. The Court, therefore, ruled that these labourers were entitled to gratuity under the Gratuity Act.

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in Dasrathbhai Narsangbhai Chaudhary vs. The State of West Bengal & Another, C.R.R. 1395 of 2022, held that the non-payment of outstanding salary or performance bonus does not constitute criminal offences under Sections 420 (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 406 (criminal breach of trust), or 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC"). The Court ruled that these claims must be addressed through civil remedies and that criminal charges cannot be imposed in such cases unless a prima facie case of dishonesty or breach of trust is established. Additionally, the complaint must clearly disclose any specific role or act leading to the commission of the alleged offences for criminal liability to be imposed. The Court dismissed the criminal charges against the employer under Sections 406 and 34 of the IPC, reiterating the need for substantial evidence to support such allegations.

On October 4, 2024, the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court issued a stay on the Single Bench order dated September 30, 2024, in the case of Ms. X vs. Internal Complaints Committee Ani Technologies Private Limited (W.A. No. 1493/2024). The Single Bench had declared the OLA driver as an 'employee' under Section 2(f) of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act"). Following this declaration, the Single Bench had directed the Internal Complaints Committee of ANI Technologies Private Limited, the parent company of OLA, to conduct an inquiry into the complaint made by the female petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of the PoSH Act. Additionally, the Single Bench ordered the company to pay compensation of ₹5,00,000/- (Indian Rupees Five Lakhs) to the petitioner, along with an additional sum of ₹50,000/- (Indian Rupees Fifty Thousand) to cover litigation expenses.

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in Phul Chandra Thakur vs. The State of Jharkhand W.P (S) No. 5240/2021, addressed the pension and gratuity of a retired employee. The Court refrained from considering the employer's argument questioning the validity of the employee's appointment. It reiterated the Supreme Court ruling in Ratni Oraon and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. S.L.P.(C) No. 24661/2016, emphasizing that if no objection regarding the appointment was raised during the employee's entire service period, the employer cannot contest the validity of the appointment after the employee's retirement or death.

Recently, the Delhi High Court in Punjab National Bank vs. Sh Niraj Gupta and Anr. LPA 907/2024, upheld the controlling authority's order under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("Gratuity Act"), which directed the release of gratuity that had been withheld by the employer following the employee's dismissal for sexual harassment, as established in the proceedings conducted under the PoSH Act. The Court observed that, although the employee faced serious allegations, no FIR was registered against him, and the claims were never proven in a Court of Law. The Court clarified that, according to Section 4(6)(b) of the Gratuity Act, gratuity payment can only be denied to an employee when two conditions are met: (i) the terminated employee must be convicted of an offense punishable by law, and (ii) the offense must involve moral turpitude.

Recently, the Delhi High Court upheld the single bench judgment in Punjab and Sindh Bank vs. Sh. Raj Kumar CM APPL 53223/2024, which modified the employee's punishment from 'dismissal' to 'compulsory retirement.' The court noted that the employee had challenged the severity of his punishment, citing the principle of parity with co-delinquents who received lesser penalties for similar charges. The court highlighted that there was no substantial difference in the charges against the three co-delinquents that would justify unequal treatment in terms of punishment. It further observed that the only distinguishing factor was the employee's role as a bank manager, which involved signing the relevant documents and/or reviewing the transactions in question. However, the court concluded that this distinction alone was insufficient to warrant a harsher penalty, particularly since one co-delinquent faced compulsory retirement while another was dismissed. The court pointed out that the dismissal led to the forfeiture of the employee's entire past service and deprived him of all retiral and terminal benefits, leaving his dependents in a precarious financial situation.

Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the industrial court's order in the case of Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. vs. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors. C.A No. 1689/2016, allowing temporary workers to avail themselves of weekly holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays. The Court noted that, except for daily-wage employees, all other categories of employees are entitled to public holidays as sanctioned by the Government for these categories.

On September 20, 2024, the Supreme Court, in Zahid Showkat Alias Mir vs. Joint Secretary, Prime Ministers Office & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 493/2024, dismissed a writ petition filed by an ex-employee of Google regarding religious discrimination. The Court observed that since the cause of action arose from a private employment contract, recourse to Article 32 of the Constitution of India would not apply.

Recently, the Supreme Court, in S.D. Manohara vs. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors(SLP (C) No. 15788/2021), upheld the reinstatement of an employee who had withdrawn their resignation before it was formally accepted. The court stated that the employer's argument, claiming the resignation had been accepted through an internal communication, was invalid because the acceptance had not been officially communicated to the employee. The court further pointed out that if the resignation had truly been accepted, the employer would not have later requested the employee to report for duty and explain his absence.

Recently, the Gauhati High Court in Mrs. Sangeeta Kormel Yadav vs. Union of India and 4 Ors. WP(C)/6973/2015, while granting the female employee maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 ("Maternity Act") after the cessation of her employment, rejected the employer's contention that the employee had not disclosed her pregnancy during her service period and only made a claim for benefits post-employment. The court referred to the Supreme Court's ruling in Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Anr. (2000) 3 SCC 224, which held that the Maternity Act does not preclude maternity benefits from extending beyond the period of employment, thereby entitling the employee to such benefits.

Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Sujata Mehta vs. Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam & Ors., reiterated that pension is not a charity and that delayed pension payments should incur interest, reaffirming the state's duty to provide timely pension benefits to its employees.

On September 4, 2024, the Supreme Court in Kerala Agricultural University & Anr. vs. T.P. Murali (SLP (C) No. 20817/2024) upheld the High Court's decision to overturn an employee's termination for overstaying his leave due to health issues and COVID-19 restrictions. The Supreme Court stressed that, according to service rules, before starting a disciplinary inquiry, the authority must first confirm there is a clear reason to act against the employee. Since this step was not followed, the Court found the disciplinary action invalid and emphasized that any deviation from set procedures makes such actions legally unenforceable.

On September 3, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Shankarlal Namdeo vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (W.P No. 17827/2024), set aside the transfer order of an employee accused of sexual harassment under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("POSH Act"). The Court observed that transferring the employee merely because of pending Internal Committee ("IC") proceedings is not justified when there is no recommendation from the IC to do so. It further emphasized that the proceedings had reached a stalemate due to actions by the complainant herself, indicating that the transfer was not based on any substantive findings or necessity. The Court stated that such a transfer, in the absence of due process or proper reasoning, effectively results in undue victimization and harassment of the employee, which contradicts the principles of fair and just treatment in disciplinary matters.

On September 3, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court in Mahendra Singh vs. Union of India S.B.C.W.P 5065/2002 addressed issues of procedural fairness in disciplinary inquiries. The Court noted that the Enquiry Officer had acted improperly by serving as both prosecutor and judge, which compromised impartiality. This finding was based on the Supreme Court's principle that an adjudicator must be unbiased, must not act as a prosecutor, and must not use personal knowledge or external influences in the inquiry. As the Enquiry Officer's dual role violated these principles, the High Court set aside the dismissal order and directed that a new, impartial inquiry be conducted.

On September 2, 2024, the Delhi High Court in National Power Training Institute vs. Office of Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disability & Ors. (W.P. (C) No. 11104/2024) set aside the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities' order staying the transfer of an employee with disabilities. The Court observed that the Chief Commissioner lacks the authority to issue interim orders halting administrative actions such as transfers, pending further inquiry. The interim order was deemed invalid as it exceeded the Chief Commissioner’s investigatory and recommendatory powers under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Recently, the Delhi High Court in Vishav Bandhu Gupta vs. Union of India and Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 1522/2018) upheld the dismissal of an employee who was both unauthorizedly absent and made scandalous communications with the media, leading to unnecessary controversies. The Court held that continuously disparaging an employer with false and scandalous allegations undermines the employee's right to remain in service with that employer.

Recently, the Bombay High Court in Anil Govind Ganu vs. Innovative Technomics Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. (W.P No. 160/2024) rejected the gratuity claims of directors based on a balance sheet entry for gratuity payments. The Court noted that the directors were not included in the list of employees covered by a gratuity insurance policy under Section 4A of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("Gratuity Act"). It observed that, even if a specific agreement under Section 4(5) of the Gratuity Act was provided, it would have been necessary to substantiate the claim. The Court determined that a balance sheet entry made shortly before the sale of the directors' stake in the company did not constitute a valid agreement under the Gratuity Act.

On August 28, 2024, the Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs. Brijesh Kumar & Anr. SLP(C) No. 10546/2019 while reinstating a contractual employee terminated by the employer for committing misconduct without conducting a disciplinary inquiry observed that even in case of contractual employment the stigmatic termination order could not have been passed without following the principles of natural justice.

On August 22, 2024, the Supreme Court in Indian Council of Agricultural Research Through the Director General and Anr. vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors. CA No. 97-98/2012 ruled against the technical officers who sought incentive packages similar to those awarded to scientists for obtaining Ph.D. degrees. The Court determined that these incentives were specific to the roles and responsibilities of scientists, who were governed by different rules and criteria. It held that the technical officers, with different duties and regulations, were not entitled to the same benefits.

On August 29, 2024, the Calcutta High Court ruled in the case Subal Makhal vs. Indian Red Cross Society & Ors. WPCT 225/2023, ordering the reinstatement of an employee who had been acquitted in a criminal trial initiated by the employer. The employer had dismissed the employee following a disciplinary inquiry for alleged theft. The Court noted that the allegations in both the criminal and disciplinary proceedings were similar and focused on a supposed breach of trust. The Court directed the employer to reconsider the punishment, highlighting that the prosecution had failed to prove that the employee was entrusted with any property in the criminal trial. The Court emphasized that mere suspicion should not replace concrete evidence in legal proceedings or internal inquiries.

On August 24, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in President, Birla Corporation Ltd and Another vs. Rajgovind Singh Misc No. 1383/2019 overturned a labour court order requiring the employer to provide 15 (fifteen) days of compulsory work per month to a badli workman. The Court clarified that under Section 25C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a "badli workman" is one who temporarily replaces another workman listed on the muster rolls but loses this status if they complete one year of continuous service. Since the labour court found that the workman did not prove he worked for more than 240 (two hundred forty) days in a year and was thus a badli workman, the directive for compulsory work was deemed illegal.

Recently, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in SBTS Devi vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (W.P No. 6396/2024) overturned the termination of a contractual employee who was dismissed for allegedly demanding bribes via WhatsApp. The Court held that if termination is based on allegations, it must be treated as stigmatic and punitive, and the employee must be given a chance to defend themselves. The ruling emphasized that even contractual employees are entitled to a hearing before their dismissal.

On August 22, 2024, the Supreme Court in Swati Priyadarshini vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. CA No. 9758/2024, reinstated an employee whose employment contract had not been renewed due to alleged unsatisfactory performance and dereliction of duty. The Court observed that the termination, which was stigmatic in nature and related to alleged misconduct involving moral turpitude, could not have been carried out without conducting a proper inquiry.

On August 8, 2024, the Karnataka High Court, in Ms. Tanvi Sinha vs. Internal Complaints Committee Ani Technologies Private Limited (WP 8127/2019), addressed a petition from a woman requesting that the Ministry of Women and Child Development direct ANI Technologies, Ola's parent company, to investigate her sexual harassment complaint against an Ola driver under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act"). Ola sought dismissal of the petition, arguing that the PoSH Act does not apply because the drivers are independent contractors, not employees. The Court dismissed Ola's argument, noting the negligence and failure of the authorities to properly handle the serious complaint. The Court criticized the dismissal of the woman’s complaint by Ola's internal committee, which was based solely on external legal advice rather than a thorough consideration of the PoSH Act. The Karnataka High Court has reserved its judgment on the case.

On August 13, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Mukesh Kumar vs. Union of India (S.B.C.W.P No. 13929/2010), overturned a government order that had rejected the referral of an industrial dispute involving a workman. The rejection was initially based on the fact that the workman had been employed for only 85 days and could not provide documentary evidence to support his claim for further employment. The Court, however, relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Telco Convoy Drivers Mazdoor Sangh and another vs. State of Bihar and Others (1989) 3 SCC 271, which established that the role of the appropriate Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is administrative rather than judicial or quasi-judicial. The Court emphasized that the government cannot assess the merits of the dispute or determine whether the individual raising the dispute qualifies as a workman, as this falls outside the scope of its administrative powers.

On July 22, 2024, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, in Abrar Ahmad Tantray vs. State of J&K (1759/2018), directed the Power Development Department to pay ₹20,00,000/- as compensation to a child who suffered an electric shock from an open, uncovered, or uninsulated electric wire, resulting in 78% permanent disability. The court reaffirmed the principle established in the Supreme Court judgment of M. C. Mehta v. Union of India (AIR 1997 SC 734), which holds that enterprises engaged in hazardous or inherently dangerous activities are strictly and absolutely liable to compensate those affected by accidents arising from such activities, without any exceptions to the principle of strict liability.

Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Suresh Kumar vs. State of H.P. and Ors. (CWP No. 1748/2019), directed the Labour Commissioner to reconsider the referral of an industrial dispute to the tribunal. This dispute was filed seven years after the workman’s disengagement from service. The court's decision aligns with the Supreme Court's principles established in Jai Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors. (CWP No. 2190/2020), it clarified that while delay does not remove the government’s authority to consider referring an industrial dispute to a tribunal, it is a crucial factor in determining whether the dispute is still valid, has become stale, or has faded away. The assessment of a dispute's status—whether it remains active or has become obsolete—must be based on the specific facts of each case, as no universal rule applies.

Recently, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, in Varinder Kumar vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (CWP No. 9379/2023), quashed a disciplinary inquiry against an employee that remained unresolved after 8 (eight) years. The court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Prem Nath Bali vs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi and Another (2015) 16 SCC 415, which states that every employer (whether state or private) must make a sincere effort to conclude departmental inquiry proceedings within a reasonable time, ideally within 6 (six) months as an outer limit. If unavoidable delays occur, the inquiry should be completed within a reasonably extended period, depending on the cause and nature of the inquiry, but not exceeding 1 (one) year.

Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of XXX vs. XXX (CRM M 60168/2023), directed the Director General of Police of Haryana to investigate a woman suspected of filing multiple false sexual harassment cases. The court emphasised that false complaints of sexual harassment must be addressed rigorously to deter such actions and protect the interests of innocent individuals. The court noted that false implications have a deeply stigmatic impact and impose a significant psychological burden on those wrongfully accused.

On July 26, 2024, the Karnataka High Court, in the case of Karnataka Lokayuktha Police vs. T. Manjunath (CMP No. 422/2018), dismissed the employee's petition to quash criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The employee argued that the case should be dropped because he had already been cleared in the departmental proceedings and that the allegations in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal case were identical. However, the Court did not accept this argument and observed that when criminal misconduct, such as illegal demands for money supported by evidence from a raid, is alleged, the case must still be tried in court. The Court concluded that exoneration in the departmental inquiry does not prevent the criminal trial from proceeding.

On July 25, 2024, the Kerala High Court in C.K. Sasidharan vs. The Welfare Fund Inspector (W.P. No. 22691/2013) ruled that an employee managing a shop is not liable for welfare fund contributions under the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Act, 1969. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Joseph vs. State of Kerala (2002 KHC 171), which clarified that mere involvement in business operations does not make someone an employer responsible for welfare fund contributions. The judgment reinforced that without proof of an intermediary's role as an employer, only the principal employer is liable, and authorities were directed to recover the amount from them.

Recently, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Bashir Ahmad Wani vs. J&K Forest Development Corporation & Others (W.P. No. 2183/2020) reinstated an employee terminated for unauthorized absence, noting that the absence was due to medical reasons supported by medical records. The Court ruled that the absence could not be deemed deliberate, especially since the employee had applied for leave, which was not rejected. The Court also noted that if the employer had doubts about the authenticity of the medical records, they could have sought a second medical opinion.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court, in AS vs. State of U.P. (WP No. 9427/2023), affirmed the employee's fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India by directing the employer to accept the employee's voluntary retirement request. The Court observed that compelling the employee to continue working could result in irreparable harm, given her severe depression and anxiety neurosis, on account of which she is unable to perform prolonged sitting or desk work as per the doctor's recommendation.

On July 23, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in P.D. Agrawal vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (MCC No. 445/2007) rejected the contractor's petition to quash criminal charges under Sections 304 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that the contractor's company had egregiously failed to place safety signs or flags during road construction, resulting in a fatal accident. The Court noted that the lack of safety signage on either side of a culvert led to the commuter's fatal fall into a ditch. The Court stated that this failure constituted a serious breach of safety duties, justifying the criminal charges against the contractor for the resulting death.

On July 18, 2024, the Delhi High Court in Ircon International Ltd. vs. Bhavneet Singh CM No. 9793/2024, set aside the order transferring the differently abled employee because of interpersonal problems with co-workers observed that when a transfer order is passed concerning a differently abled person, the burden to prove that it was triggered due to administrative exigencies or constraints would be on the employer. The Court further noted that if the terms and conditions of the employment contract executed between an employer and a differently-abled person are found to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the latter would prevail.

Recently, the Delhi High Court in Lily Packers Private Limited vs. Vaishnavi Vijay Umak ARB P 1210/2023, observed that reasonable lock-in periods in employment contracts that apply during the term of employment are valid in law and do not violate fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Recently, the Supreme Court, in Nipun Malhotra vs. Sony Pictures Films India Private Limited & Ors. (C.A No. 7230/2024), addressed the portrayal of physical impairments in films under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court differentiated between 'disabling humour,' which demeans persons with disabilities, and 'disability humour', which seeks to understand and challenge stereotypes about disability. The Court noted that while disability humour can be constructive, disabling humour is harmful. In this case, the appellant had not proven that the film's portrayal, which aimed to highlight the resilience of persons with disabilities, was offensive or violated their sensibilities.

Recently, the Orissa High Court, in Supriya Jena vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 30616 of 2020), granted 180 (one hundred and eighty) days of maternity leave to a female employee, despite her service code lacking provisions for surrogacy-related maternity leave. The Court emphasized that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right to motherhood and the child's full development. It asserted that maternity leave should be provided to all new mothers, including those who become parents through surrogacy, to ensure equal treatment. The Court also highlighted that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, should be interpreted inclusively to support all forms of motherhood.

Recently, the Kerala High Court, in Federal Bank Ltd. vs. Federal Bank Officer's Association (OP(C) No: 2332 of 2023), restrained the trade union from staging protests within a 50-meter radius of the bank's head office and nearby branches. The Court noted that there is no fundamental right to protest at any location of choice, and reasonable restrictions can be imposed on such rights if justified.

Recently, the Karnataka High Court, in M R Nagarajan vs. The Syndicate Bank & Others (W.P 1337/2015), emphasized that punishment for a delinquent employee should be proportional to the gravity of the offence. The Court highlighted the need to consider mitigating factors such as the employee's long and exemplary service, promotions earned, awards received, and the short time remaining until retirement when determining the appropriate punishment.

Recently, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Mohammad Shahbaz Mir vs Union of India & Others (SWP No. 181/2016) observed that an employer is not expected to conduct an exhaustive search for an absconding employee, noting that sending communications to the employee’s residential address suffices. The Court highlighted that the enquiry officer had fulfilled this requirement by dispatching notices to the last known address of the employee. Consequently, the Court concluded that the principles of natural justice were not violated in this case. The judgment reaffirmed that such procedures are adequate to meet the fair hearing standards required.

On June 18, 2024, the Kerala High Court in Sujith T.V. vs. Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. (W.P 4754/2009), declined to grant relief to the employee regarding the employer's decision to suspend and issue a warning. This decision stemmed from the employee's admission of unauthorized entry into the ammonia handling section. However, concerning the charge of spreading false information and making libelous statements via messages in a WhatsApp group, the Court noted that the WhatsApp group was private and comprised only of the Company's technicians. The Court upheld the employee's fundamental right to freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, ruling that this charge could not be sustained as it infringed upon the employee's constitutional rights.

On June 16, 2024, the Rajasthan High Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. The Commissioner Persons with Disabilities (W.P(C) No. 7936/2007), reaffirmed the Supreme Court's ruling in State Bank of Patiala & Ors. vs. Vinesh Kumar Bhasin (2010) 4 SCC 368. The High Court emphasized that as an authority operating under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 ("Disabilities Act"), the Commissioner lacks the authority or jurisdiction to direct an employer not to retire an employee. The Court stated that according to the Disabilities Act, neither the Chief Commissioner nor the Commissioner is empowered to issue any interim directives.

On June 12, 2024, the Bombay High Court in Shri. Patil Samgonda Namgonda vs. The State of Maharashtra (W.P No. 4754/2009), rejecting management's argument that the employee's withdrawal of appeals against the termination order constituted an abandonment of his reinstatement claim. The Court noted that the employee's actions did not indicate any intention to abandon his job-saving claim. Despite the management's letter stating removal from his post without explicitly terminating his service, he initially challenged the order as a wrongful reduction in rank. Subsequently, despite being denied attendance, he persisted in seeking reinstatement through various representations. When the management asserted that the letter constituted termination rather than a demotion, he withdrew his appeals and filed a third appeal contesting the termination. The Court concluded that his consistent efforts to retain his job demonstrated his intent to pursue his claim, thereby rejecting the notion of abandonment.

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in Sri. G. Ramesh vs. The Karnataka State Seeds Corporation Ltd. (W.P No. 36199/2014), upheld disciplinary action against a delinquent employee who was absent from duty without authorization, emphasizing that employees are obligated to attend work during scheduled hours unless granted leave. The Court underscored that unauthorized absence constitutes misconduct in industrial employment, warranting disciplinary measures. It reiterated that employees cannot assert a right to leave of absence and that absenteeism without prior approval violates disciplinary norms.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited vs. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union & Anr. (CA No. 6511/2024), clarified that the exemption from the applicability of the TN Permanent Status to Workmen Act is limited to workmen engaged in construction activities, and establishments and their workers exclusively involved in construction qualify for this exemption. However, in the present case, the mere engagement of the establishment (being the Corporation) in construction does not exempt it from responsibilities under the TN Permanent Status to Workmen Act. The Court clarified that construction constitutes only one facet of its varied activities and exempting all workers from the TN Permanent Status to Workmen Act, especially those not directly engaged in construction like the union members, would be unjustified.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Mr. R.S. Madireddy and Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors. (2024 INSC 425), dismissed the plea of ex-employees to file a writ petition against Air India, which had transitioned from a government airline to a private company and ceased performing public functions. The Court held that once a government entity is privatized, it no longer falls under the purview of Article 226 of the Constitution of India for writ jurisdiction. The ruling clarified that while the employees were not denied justice, they would need to seek recourse through alternative legal avenues beyond the High Court for their grievances.

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in Shanti Devi vs. the State of Jharkhand W.P(S) No. 3987/2021, addressed the issue of a retired employee whose pension, gratuity, group insurance, and leave encashment benefits were withheld by the employer due to pending criminal cases. The Court observed that withholding retiral benefits solely based on the pendency of criminal cases, without initiating disciplinary proceedings against the employee, is not justified.

Recently, the Himachal Pradesh Court in Ranjeet Singh vs. The Presiding Officer CGIT-cum-LC, Chandigarh (CWP No. 9957/2023), while allowing the workmen to file a petition under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act") before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT) despite the expiration of the three-year limitation period, referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Purni Devi & Anr. vs. Babu Ram & Anr. (CA No. 4633/2024). The Supreme Court held that if it is evident that the applicant pursued the matter diligently and the delay was due to pursuing remedies before the wrong forum, the time spent before the wrong forum should be excluded when calculating any delay in the competent court. In the present case, the workman initially pursued the matter before the Labour Officer-Cum-Conciliation Officer, who subsequently advised approaching the CGIT. This sequence of events provides a plausible explanation for seeking condonation of delay in applying Section 2A of the ID Act.

On May 15, 2024, the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in Dr. Deepali Gola vs. Government of NCT Delhi and Anr. (OA No. 4050/2023), while allowing 180 days of maternity leaves to an employee appointed on adhoc basis whose employment elapsed before the tenure of her maternity leaves observed that in view of settled law laid down by the Supreme Court in in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Female Workers (Muster Roll) and Anr., 2000 (3) SLJ 369 (SC), that there is no justification for denying the benefit of Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 ("Maternity Act") to casual workers or workers employed on daily wage basis.

On May 13, 2024, the Calcutta High Court in Rita Ghoshdastidar vs. St. Joseph & Mary's School and Ors. (WPA 19024/2014), dismissed a writ petition brought by an employee seeking reinstatement in service. The Court emphasized that the employee's contract of service is a private agreement not governed by statutory provisions. It stated that any alleged breach of this private contract constitutes the employee's cause of action, which falls outside the purview of judicial review under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. The Court further clarified that decisions made by private entities in service disputes are not subject to challenge through this constitutional provision.

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in Stone Hill Education Foundation vs. Union of India (W.P. No.18486/2012), ruled para 83 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 ("EPF Scheme") and para 43A of Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 framed under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("EPF Act") as unconstitutional, arbitrary, and in violation of Article 14 of the Indian Constitution. The court's decision was based on various factors, including the subordinate nature of the EPF Scheme compared to the EPF Act, disparities in benefit thresholds between international and Indian workers, discrimination against international workers based on origin, arbitrary demands for PF contributions on global salaries, the principle of equal treatment for all workers in India, lack of nexus between the provisions and EPF Act objectives, failure of the Government of India to justify the provisions, and the incomparability of provisions for international workers with those for other specialized worker categories. The Court concluded that the classification was unreasonable, lacked clear differentiation, and failed to establish a connection with the objectives of the EPF Act.

Recently, the Bombay High Court in Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Mr. Yogesh Vinayak Tipre (WP No. 4916/2007), reinstated an employee who was dismissed from service, citing the misconduct—absence from work for a few hours—as not of a serious nature. The court deemed the penalty of dismissal as shockingly disproportionate, especially considering that the employer's attempt to justify it through past misconduct was unsupported by the issuance of mere warning or caution letters as disciplinary actions.

Recently, the High Court of Orrisa in Madhusmita Dutta vs. State of Orissa & others (W.P.(C) No. 13296/2006) adjudicated on whether an employee is entitled to back wages upon reinstatement following an unlawful termination. The court observed that the management failed to demonstrate that the employee was gainfully employed during the termination period, as she diligently pursued her case for reinstatement. Consequently, the Court ruled that the period of termination should be regularized with all consequential benefits, rejecting the principle of "no work no pay" to prevent rewarding the management for their illegal inaction.

Recently, the Kerela High Court in Area Manager, Food Corporation of India vs. P.T. Rajeevan (MFA (ECC) NO.52/2018), rejected the employer's argument against reimbursing medical bills submitted by an employee. The Court emphasized that no employer circular can override the mandate of Section 4(2A) of the EC Act, which entitles employees to reimbursement of actual medical expenses incurred due to work-related injuries. The Court criticized the notion that employees must seek treatment only from panel hospitals designated by the employer, stressing that injured employees have the right to choose the hospital providing the best medical care.

Recently, the Bombay High Court in Prakash S. Hande vs. Hindustan Lever Limited (WP. 6125/2007), rejected the claim of a temporary employee seeking retrenchment benefits under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, on the grounds of insufficient proof of completing 240 days of continuous service. The court stressed that the responsibility to establish the completion of 240 days of service, especially in the 12 months preceding the alleged termination, rested with the employee.

On April 23, 2024, the Delhi High Court in Delhi State Legal Services Authority vs. Annwesha Deb (23.04.2024 - DELHC) : MANU/DE/2951/2024, examined an issue as to whether the appointment of the female individual, as a panel lawyer by the Delhi State Legal Services Authority, can be held as an "employment for wages", for the said individual to claim benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 ("Maternity Benefit Act"). The Court while dissecting the definitions of 'employer,' 'woman,' and 'wages' as outlined in the Maternity Benefit Act, emphasized the necessity of an employer-employee relationship and further affirmed that the benefits conferred by the Maternity Benefit Act are specifically intended for women employed within an establishment under the direct control of the employer responsible for her wages. The Court emphasized the fact that the individual lawyer was getting an 'honorarium' for her services which is quite distinct from wages typically provided to employees for their regular work.

On April 29, 2024, the Madras High Court in R. Rajamani vs. The State of Tamil Nadu WP(MD) 9989/2024, while quashing the employer's order of retrospectively revising the salary and consequential pensionary benefits of the employee post his retirement from service based on audit objection, observed that once the employee retired from service by superannuation the relationship between the employee and the employee comes to an end, hence the employer holds no authority to re-fix the salary and the consequential benefits of the employee.

On April 25, 2024, the Supreme Court in Shriram Manohar Bande vs. Uktranti Mandal & Ors. [SLP(C) 21401/2022], while rejecting the contention of the employee that resignation would come into effect only after its acceptance is communicated to an employee, observed that as per service jurisprudence laid down by this court in North Zone Cultural Centre and another vs. Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar (2003) 5 SCC 455, resignation would be effective on its acceptance, even if the acceptance is not communicated as long as rules or guidelines governing the resignation do not mandate such acceptance of resignation is to be communicated to employee.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Sandeep Kumar vs. Gb Pant Institute of Engineering and Technology Ghurdauri & Ors. SLP(C) 8788/2023, while rejecting the contention of the employer that there was no requirement to hold a regular inquiry before terminating the services of the employee whose appointment on the post was illegal because he did not possess the requisite qualifications as per the service rule, observed that termination of the services of the employee without holding disciplinary inquiry is unjustified and dehors the requirements of law and in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Consequently, the Court ordered the reinstatement of the employee to the post, along with all associated benefits.

Recently, the Kerala High Court in Cherplassery Co-Operative Hospital Ltd. vs. State of Kerala WP(C) No. 32291/2014, highlighted a crucial aspect regarding the employment conditions within cooperative societies. While acknowledging the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 ("Societies Act") as governing the service conditions of employees of the cooperative society, the Court emphasized that the fundamental labour laws of India also apply to them. The Court specifically noted the applicability of significant labour legislations such as the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1960, the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, and the Festival Holidays Act. These laws ensure the enforcement and inspection of various welfare and social security measures for employees, which may not be fully addressed by the provisions of the Societies Act. Recognizing these enactments as essential social security measures operating in different domains with distinct purposes and objectives, the Court inferred that they should extend to charitable societies as well.

Recently, the Supreme Court in The VVF Ltd. Employees Union vs. M/S. VVF India Limited & Anr. CA No. 2754/2023, determined that when revising wages and other benefits, the standard practice followed by industrial adjudicators is to employ the industry-cum-region test. This approach essentially entails comparing the existing pay and allowances with those of similarly situated industrial units in the same region. In assessing the comparability of these units under the industry-cum-region test, the financial capacity of the employer emerges as a significant consideration.

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in Sk. Ekbal vs. The State of West Bengal and Ors. (WPA 23541/2024), disallowing the gratuity claim of the employee for the period he remained as a badli worker observed that the primary burden rests upon the workman to demonstrate that he has completed 240 days in a calendar year and considering that the workman was unable to show any document demonstrating that he had worked for 240 days or was in continuous service in the years between 1968 and 1978, he cannot claim gratuity for the said period.

On March 14, 2024, the Supreme Court in Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. vs. Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers' Union, [Civil Appeal No(S). 4092-4093/2024], observed that the workers employed to perform perennial/permanent nature of work couldn't be treated as contract workers under the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 to deny them the benefit of regularization of a job.

Recently, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Ashok Kumar vs. Union of India through Secretary to Govt Industries Department, while referencing the landmark case Bangalore Water Supply Board v. R. Rajappa case [(1978) 2 SCC 213], reaffirmed the 'triple test' to determine if an organization qualifies as an 'industry'. This test includes (i) systematic activity, (ii) cooperation between employer and employee, and (iii) production or distribution of goods/services to fulfil human needs. The court further emphasized that a direct or indirect nexus between employee services and organizational activities is essential to classify an organization as an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The court also clarified that duties performed by an individual who does not contribute to the organization's intended services do not categorize the organization as an 'industry'.

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in Satyajit Ray Film and Television vs. Subhadro Choudhury [MAT 1414/2022], held that the jurisdiction of an Internal Committee ("IC") under the PoSH Act is limited to determining whether the charges against an employee have been substantiated and if the charges are proven, the IC is only empowered to recommend to the employer that the actions of the delinquent employee be treated as misconduct in accordance with the company's policies and that the IC does not possess the authority to recommend the termination of the delinquent employee as punishment for his actions.

Recently, the Delhi High Court in Management of M/S Colonel Security vs. Seema and Anr [W.P.(C) 2281/2010], re-iterated a settled position of law that temporary absence does not constitute abandonment of a job and to establish abandonment, it must be demonstrated that the employee has left the job with a clear intention not to return to duty.

Recently, the Madhya Pradesh High Court in I.D. Makrani vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.[WP No. 8370/2023], while quashing the suspension order of an employee held that merely forwarding a message in a WhatsApp group should not be automatically construed as an expression of the employee's personal opinion. The court further referred to the Madras High Court judgment in A. Lakshminarayanan vs. Assistant General Manager [W.P (MD) No.9754/2023], wherein the court observed that an employee has the right to vent and the management cannot take disciplinary action for messages sent in a private WhatsApp Group as long as they are within the legal bounds.

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in Neeta Kumari vs. Union of India & Ors [WPA 29978/2013], held that contractual terms of an employment contract cannot limit and override the entitlement of women to receive benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Dr. Mrs. Suman V. Jain vs. Marwadi Sammelan [CA No. 1480/2012], validated the employee's request for withdrawal of the prospective resignation prior to the effective date and observed that allowing the prospective or intending resignation would be complete and operative on the arrival of the indicated future date in the absence of anything contrary in the terms and conditions of the employment contract. The Court further clarified that intimation sent in writing to the competent authority of the employer by the incumbent employee of his intention or proposal to resign from his office/post from a future specified date can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Union Of India and Others vs. Ex. Lt. Selina John [CA No. 1990/2019], held that women cannot be terminated on the basis of their marital status and termination of the employment of a woman because of her marriage is a coarse case of gender discrimination and inequality.

Recently, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Banarsi Dass vs. State of Haryana and others [CWP 7299/2023], observed that withholding the gratuity, leave encashment and retiral benefits was not because of the fault of the employee and it was only because of the surcharge proceedings which were initiated against the employee after his retirement which ultimately was dismissed, although on the ground of limitation, therefore, the employee is certainly entitled to the interest on all the delayed payments of retiral benefits. The Court further clarified that an affidavit has no significance in law and such kinds of affidavits have no force of law. They are non-est and cannot be enforced.

Recently, the Orissa High Court in Union of India and others vs. Md. Ahmed Baig [W.P(c) No. 9987/2021], while responding to the question of whether an excess payment made in favour of an employee due to the erroneous calculation can be recovered from his leave encashment benefits after his retirement, observed that in the absence of a statutory mandate, the employer cannot withhold or take away a part of leave encashment. The Court placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment given in Syed Abdul Qadir vs. State of Bihar (2009)3SCC475, wherein it was held that recovery of excess payment is bad in law as it causes undue hardship on employee however if it is proved that the employee had knowledge that the payment received was in excess of what was due or wrongly paid, or in cases where the error is detected or corrected within a short time of wrong payment, court may order for recovery of the amount paid in excess.

Recently, the Delhi High Court in Vallabhbhai Patel Chest Institute vs. Nishikesh Tyagi & Another [W.P.(C) 7161/2003], while adjudicating a dispute of an employee working in a hospital controlled by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, reiterated the Supreme Court ruling given in Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa, (1978) 2 SCC 213, wherein it was held that the hospitals are deemed to be considered as an industry and the services rendered by the employees of the said industry were needed to be looked upon while dealing with the interpretation of the term industry. The Court further observed that even though the hospitals are considered to be non-profit institutions, the very fact that they render services makes them part of an industry as defined under section 2(j) of the IDA.

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in M/S. Armstrong Design and Acmite India Manufacturing Private Limited vs. The Assistant Labour Commissioner [W.P No. 1049/2024], observed that the recognition of the workmen as "protected workmen" under Section 33 (4) of the IDA is not automatic and a certain amount of discretion is conferred on the employer whether to recognize or not, a workman as a "protected workman" and even if the charges are for minor offences, the workman can be denied the special status of being "protected workmen".

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in P V Rudrappa vs. The State of Karnataka W.P No. 9642/2020, while quashing an order of dismissal of an employee charged with an act of bribery observed that, the material lapse on the part of any enquiry officer may result in masking of the truth to the prejudice of the employee. The Court further stated that in cases coming before the court, more often than not, departmental enquiries are conducted by untrained enquiry officers who do not even have minimum expertise in the matters which puts the stakeholders at risk and a crash course of training in matters like this would be of great advantage to all the stakeholders.

Recently, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Executive Engineer Roads and Buildings vs. Nazir Ahmad Teli [CM(M) No. 223/2022], reiterated a settled principle that it is the responsibility of the principal employer of any industrial establishment to make payment of wages required to be made under the Payment of Wages Act in case the contractor fails to make such payment. The Court also stated that in order to file an effective appeal application against the order of the authority under the Payment of Wages Act, it is mandatory to deposit of amount as payable under the orders of the authority and the filing of a certificate to this effect along with the memo of appeal.

Recently, the High Court of Bombay in The Indian Express (P) Ltd. & Ors. vs. Dinesh Rane & Ors. W.P No. 10814 of 2023, observed that on any misconduct committed by employees, the employers have inherent right to take disciplinary actions against them. Similarly, the employer has an inherent right to transfer its employees, as per terms and conditions of employment or as required in the exigency of service. The Court further held that disciplinary actions initiated or punishment imposed, can be tested in the court of law to examine whether the same is actuated by malice or is not for exigency of services.

Recently, the Gauhati High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Md. Safiur Rahman MFA/266/2010, while quashing the order of Commissioner under the Compensation Act, who had allowed compensation to workmen after assessing the loss of earning capacity of the workman at 75 % on the basis of the disability certificate observed that, under Section 4(1)(c)(ii) of the Compensation Act, the Commissioner has been given jurisdiction to provide compensation with respect to injuries resulting in permanent total disablement to be proportionate to the loss of earning capacity. A loss of earning capacity must be assessed by a qualified medical practitioner only and cannot be assessed through a disability certificate.

On January 30, 2024, the Telangana High Court in Sanyasi Rao vs. High Court of Andhra Pradesh [W.P No. 26262/2012], placing the onus on the employee to provide evidence of the incorrect recording of the date of birth, which, in this case, the employee failed to do so, reiterated the settled legal position that correction of the date of birth could not be claimed as an absolute right. The Court expressed that entertaining claims for the correction of the date of birth would undermine the objectives of the service rules and thus the claim for alteration was deemed unsustainable.

Recently, the Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others vs. Dinesh Singh and Another [SLA No. 21335/2022], interpreted the term 'contemplated' in context of employee facing disciplinary proceedings against whom action is being 'contemplated', making him ineligible for appointment in service. The Court clarified that a disciplinary proceeding is deemed pending when a formal charge-sheet is issued to the employee and the said determination stands, regardless of whether any preliminary enquiry, whether summary or detailed, has been conducted, or if initiated, remains incomplete.

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in M/s. Tata Advanced System Limited vs. Department of Labour Karnataka [W.P No. 7674/2023], reiterated a well settled principle stating that a workman can only approach an industrial tribunal for removal, termination or dismissal and if the workman wants to raise a dispute regarding regularisation, then that can only be done through a union which will represent the workman.

Recently, the Guwahati High Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Prasad Kalita [MFA 29/2011], observed that the employee is required to prove the loss of earning capacity in reference to nature of work which he is capable of doing at the time of the accident, as provided under section 2(l) of the Employee Compensation Act, 1923.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Jayant Srivastava vs. Prescribed Authority, Payment of Wages Act, 1936 [Article 227 No. 12595/2023], held that a claim under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 ("PW Act") can only be brought against the company with whom the contractors have an agreement and not against the managing director of the said company in his/her individual capacity.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Sumant Kumar vs. U.P. Power Corporation Limited and others. [W.P No. 14824/2023], held that a disciplinary inquiry must proceed according to statutory and settled principles of holding a fair inquiry which include proving the charges by evidence by examining witness and leading documentary evidence, and the only exception to this would be when the delinquent employee admits to the charges levied against him on his own.

Recently, the Bombay High Court in M/s. Terna Polytechnic vs. Shri. Ravi Bhadrappa Randale and Ors. W.P No. 7842/2017, observed that once it is held that there is continuity in 2 (two) services for the purpose of computation of gratuity under the Gratuity Act, the amount of gratuity is to be calculated on the basis of last wages drawn in latter institute, it is not at all necessary to direct former institute to pay any gratuity to the employee.

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in Attikaribettu Grama Panchayath vs. The Panchayath Development Officer W.A 543/2023, while reinstating the employee dismissed by the employer from services due to registration of criminal complaint against him, observed that no employee can be punished by way of dismissal from service without giving an opportunity of being heard merely on the basis of registration of criminal complaint against him.

Recently, the Kerala High Court in Sabu Varghese vs. Viju P Varghese WA 1929/2023, observed that there was interruption and break in service on account of the employee remaining absent from service unauthorizedly which was proved following a disciplinary action taken against him and thus making the said employee ineligible for promotion, as he did not meet the required service criteria of uninterrupted service of 2 (two) years.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Rajni Rani vs. State of U.P. and others W.P 11483/2023, while dealing with the pensionary entitlement of a deceased employee who nominated his 2nd wife for receiving benefits observed that, a nominee is just a custodian and the benefit after death of employee has to be conferred or granted in accordance with law to deceased's legal heirs which, in the instant case, is the first legally wedded wife of the deceased employee as she never divorced her husband.

Recently, the Kerala High Court in Central Board of Trustees (CBT), Employees Provident Fund vs. Bake ‘N’ Joy Hot Bakery W.P (c) 35613/2019, reduced the amount of damages to 50% (fifty percent) of the amount levied observing that although the Supreme Court settled that the requirement of mens rea and/or actus reus is no longer a necessary ingredient to be proved to impose damages however, the Supreme Court does not hold that 100% damages must be invariably imposed.

On January 3, 2024, the Bombay High Court in M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union vs. M/s. Hindustan Unilever Limited (W.P.(C) 8562/2015), while responding to the question as to whether a customary practice of requiring the suspended employee to mark his attendance at the factory gate without the support of any statutory enactment is maintainable for claiming subsistence allowance, observed that any condition put by the employer and more specifically a condition directly relating to entitlement of subsistence allowance has to be within the parameters and four corners of Section 10(A) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 only. The Court stated that what is required under the law is for the suspended employee to inform the employer that he is not gainfully employed elsewhere and nothing more and once the statutory provisions does not provide for requiring marking of attendance everyday such introduction of stipulation as per customary practice is illegal in law, no matter what the concerned employer desire from introducing such a condition.

Recently, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Abdul Rahim Ganai vs. State of JK and others (SRTC) (SWP No. 1155/2009), while deciding the plea of employee whose leaves declared dies non for remaining absented on medical grounds by employer without conducting disciplinary enquiry or providing him opportunity of hearing, observed that the order adverse to the employee for wilfully remaining absent after expiry of leave cannot be passed without initiating any disciplinary proceedings. The employer is competent to direct the period of wilful absence to be treated as Dies Non, but it would be as a measure of penalty and such order cannot be passed without holding enquiry and providing opportunity of being heard to the employee.

Recently, the Bombay High Court in Hitachi Astemo Fie Pvt. Ltd. vs. Nirajkumar Prabhakarrao Kadu (W.P No. 14192/2013), while holding that posting violent and insightful comment on social media account (Facebook) by an employee amounts to misconduct and covered under the Model Standing Orders observed that based on the Facebook posts posted by workman, hatred and passion was clearly incited amongst those who have given the likes and comments. The Court further stated that though it has been argued vehemently no untoward incident had occurred and no violent incident took place resulting in a riotous or disorderly behaviour, however when such posts were posted, the entire situation in the company was extremely tense as settlement for wage negotiations were under progress between the company and the recognized Union therefore, through the effect of such posts it can be clearly deduced that it could have led to any disorderly act.

On December 04, 2023, the Supreme Court in the case Ram Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors [Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023], held that the court will be entitled to apply its discretion and quash the disciplinary proceedings against an employee, if he has been acquitted in a criminal case having identical or similar charges and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same.

Recently, the Delhi High Court in Shri Chintan Bindra vs. DCIT [W.P. (C) 2164/2022 & CM Appl. 6192/2022] observed that an employee cannot be held to be liable for the actions of the employer with regards to non-deposition of Tax Deducted at Source ("TDS") to the Central Government, considering that the employee has no further control over it, and it is the sole duty of the employer who is acting as a collecting agent to pay such amount to the Central Government.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Smt. Sonali Sharma vs. State of U.P [Writ-A No. 9110 of 2023] while considering a petition challenging a rejection of application for second maternity leave held that the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, does not contain any stipulation with regards to the gap between 2 (two) applications for maternity benefit therefore, there is no bar for an employee seeking second maternity benefit within a period of 2 (two) years from the grant of first maternity benefit.

Recently, the Karnataka High Court in the case Karnataka State Road Transport vs. N Boraiah [WP No. 20314 of 2021], held that under the Rule 10 of Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972, and Rule 10 of Karnataka Payment of Gratuity Rules, 1973 prescribe a 90 (ninety) days' timeframe for filing gratuity-related claims and the delay in filing the same before the controlling authority is liable to be rejected on grounds of undue delay and laches.

On November 20, 2023, the Kerala High Court in the case Lath vs. TV Sahadevan [MFA (ECC) No. 90 of 2016], re-iterated a settled position of law that an independent contractor cannot be entitled to compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 ("EC Act") for any injuries caused to him as the said individual does not come under the ambit of the term 'employee' as defined under section 2 (1) (dd) of the EC Act as he is not controlled and supervised by an employer in respect of the details of the work allotted to him.

Recently, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Sunita Walo vs. Union of India and Ors., [SWP No. 1597 of 2017], ruled that even if an employer's establishment is discharging public functions or duties, the writ jurisdiction may not apply if the acts of the employer being complained of have no direct nexus with the discharge of public functions and it is indisputably a public law action which confers a right upon the aggrieved to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for a prerogative writ.

On November 17, 2023, the Punjab and Haryana High Court in IMT Industrial Association and another vs. State of Haryana and another [CWP Nos. 26573 of 2021] while setting aside the Haryana State Employment of Local Candidates Act, 2020 providing reservation in the private sector jobs to the residents of the Haryana state held that the state cannot discriminate against individuals on the account of the fact that they do not belong to a certain state and have a negative discrimination of citizens of the country.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Thankamma Baby vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kerala [Civil Appeal No. 4620 of 2010], took a purposive interpretation of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("EPF Act") while addressing the question whether the factories that are not specified in Schedule I of the EPF Act can still be covered within the ambit of the EPF Act observed that clause (a) of sub-section (3) is applicable only to those factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and clause (b) of sub-section (3) is applicable to all other establishments which are not covered by clause (a) of sub-section (3) provided such establishments are notified by a notification issued by the Central Government which is published in the official Gazette.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Binu Tamta & Anr. vs. High Court of Delhi [W.P. (C) No. 162/2013], while rejecting a plea, passed an order stating that the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Regulations, 2013 ("PoSH Regulations") that were framed following the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, cannot be gender neutral since they solely protect an 'aggrieved woman' in the workplace and the definition of 'aggrieved woman' will not cover any LGBTQIA+ person.

On November 1, 2023, the Bombay High Court in Kiran P. Pawar vs. Bata India Ltd. [Writ Petition No. 5862 of 2018], while quashing the termination orders of the employees reiterated the settled legal position that termination of services of employees on the ground of misconduct without holding any enquiry and without offering any opportunity of defence is not justified and hence not sustainable.

On October 28, 2023, the Kerala High Court in Leela and Anr. vs. M.K. Sukumaran and Anr. [MFA (ECC) No. 136 of 2018], placing reliance on the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Param Pal Singh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another [2013 ACJ 526], held that the employer would be liable for compensation under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 ("EC Act") if the death of the employee has been caused due to heart attack while he was driving car. The Court emphasised that employee being a driver driving vehicle for and was subjected to stress and strain which led to his led due to heart attack during the course of employment. This very well established a causal relationship between the accident and the employment and the accident can be said to be one arose out of and in the course of the employment.

Recently, the Jharkhand High Court in Beldih Club Jamshedpur vs. The State of Jharkhand and Others [L.P.A. No. 187 of 2023], reiterated the settled legal position that if an organization is covered under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ("ESI Act"), it would continue to be governed by the ESI Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below the limit specified by or under the ESI Act.

October 19, 2023, the Supreme Court in the case Initiatives for Inclusion Foundation & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1224 of 2017] issued directions to each state/Union Territory Government for taking steps for implementing the provisions of the Sexual Harassment at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act") specially the appointment of a district officer who would be responsible for constituting a local committee in each district amongst other things.

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case UCO Bank and Ors. vs. M.B Motwani (Dead) and Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 8516 of 2011] reiterated the settled principle of law that disciplinary proceedings are initiated only when a chargesheet is issued and not on the issuance of a show cause notice. The Court further stated that order of removal or dismissal from service can be passed only when an employee is in service. If a person is not in employment, the question of terminating his service ordinarily would not arise unless there exists a specific rule in this behalf.

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College of Visual Arts vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner [Civil Appeal No. 4188 of 2013] while examining the issue as to when the two establishments can or cannot be treated as one establishment for the purpose of clubbing for coverage under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("EPF Act") placed reliance on the material placed on record and held that there is financial integrity of the employer with the society which is running both the Institutes as substantial funds have been advanced to the establishments by the society. The Court further noted that both the institutes are functioning from the same premises and therefore they should rightly be clubbed as one establishment for the purpose of the coverage under the EPF Act.

Recently, the Kerala High Court in the case Venugoalan vs. Cheeni Packaging and Anr. [MFA (ECC) No. 72 of 2021], reiterated the settled position that the reimbursement of actual medical expenses under Section 4A of the Employees Compensation Act, 1923 cannot obtain interest from the date of the accident but only from the date on which it became actually paid by the claimant. It was further stated that the employer will become liable to pay interest only on the date on which the bills of such expenses were brought to the notice of the employer.

Recently, the Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. P. Zadenga [Civil Appeal No. 2518 of 2012] re-iterated a settled principle of law that an acquittal of a delinquent employee in a criminal case would not automatically mean the closure of disciplinary proceedings in favour of the delinquent employee. The Court further held that departmental proceedings should not be kept on stand-by if there is a criminal trial pending against a delinquent employee unless the criminal trial involves a complicated question of law.

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in Surendra Prasad vs. Union of India & Ors. [W.P.A. 16064 of 2021] while placing reliance on the various judgements of the Supreme Court held that alleged misconduct of the employee as per the report of the domestic inquiry is not enough to constitute an "offence involving moral turpitude", rather termination of services on account of the alleged misconduct, which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude is essential for forfeiture of payment of gratuity.

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in Union of India vs. The Union of India and 3 Ors vs. Yashpal [Writ-A No. 15295 of 2023] observed that before awarding major punishments such as dismissal, an employer should take into consideration various factors including gravity of misconduct, past conduct, nature of duties, position in organisation, previous penalty, if any and requirement of discipline to be enforced.

On September 21, 2023, the Delhi High Court in Zarina Naqvi vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi [W.P. (C) 12473/2023] while examining the issue as to whether the employee's claimant is entitled to interest immediately after the employee has expired or from the date as noted by the Tribunal, held that there cannot be any dispute that, on the death of the employee, the terminal benefits are required to be released to the employee's claimant.

On September 21, 2023, the Delhi High Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. Varinder Jeet Singh [W.P (C) 12451/2023], reiterated the settled principle of law that a contractual employee cannot be replaced by another contractual employee and that a contractual employee can only be replaced till a regular employee is available or the work for which he/she has been engaged exists.

Recently, the Supreme Court in Ganesh Digamber Jambhrunkar & Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra [Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2543 of 2023] held that even if contractual workers/employees worked for a long period of time on contractual basis, they do not acquire any vested legal right to be appointed in posts meant for regular employees.

On September 13, 2023, the Madras High Court in Maiva Pharma Employees Union vs. Join Director and Ors [W.P. NO.2247 of 2023] while examining the issue as to whether the employer is entitled to declare the festival holidays [which the employees are entitled to under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 1958] on Sunday, which is already a holiday for most of the employees, held that a weekly holiday cannot once again be declared as a holiday under any name, be it a festival holiday or special holiday. Exception to the same can be drawn only in respect of the 4 (four) national holidays, which are declared under section 3 of the aforesaid Act. The Court further held that (a) a consultative process preceding such declaration is a mandatory condition, when there is objection raised and, therefore, without following the same, the weekly holidays cannot be redeclared as festival holidays; (b) if the 5 (five) holidays, which are to be given for festivals, for the sake of argument, falls on Sunday, which is a weekly holiday, then necessarily upon consultation with the employees, the employer has to find a via-media for declaring other festivals as holidays based on the collective workforce in the establishment and only such a system would result in a conducive environment both for production for the employer and contentment for the employee.

On September 13, 2023, the Delhi High Court in Sanju Singh and Ors. vs. Union of India [W.P. (C) 9198 of 2019], reiterated the settle principle of law that merely because a temporary employee or a casual wage worker continues to be in the employment for a time beyond the term of his/her appointment, he/she would not be entitled to be absorbed in regular service or made permanent, merely on the strength of such continuance, if the original appointment was not made by following a due process of selection as envisaged by the relevant rules.

Recently, the Calcutta High Court in Sukalyan Haldar vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. [W.P.A. NO. 18829 Of 2023] held that the expression "faltu meye" used for a colleague will not attract the provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act") as it can be used in various contexts and therefore it is necessary for the adjudicatory authority to explore the antecedents and backdrop of such usage which may lend colour and texture to the comment so made.

On September 5, 2023, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab vs. Jaswant Singh [Civil Appeal No. 11871 of 2014] observed that the employer action of terminating the employment of probationer as 'discharge simpliciter' stands justified since the foundation of discharge is not on any serious allegation or act of misconduct, but the discharge order was passed on the recommendation of the supervisory authority who found that the probationer constable has no interest in training, and no sense of responsibility, hence, he cannot prove himself a good, efficient police officer. The Supreme Court dismissed the contentions of the opposite counsel (representing the probationer constable) holding that the discharge order cannot be said to be punitive or stigmatic.

On September 4, 2023, the Supreme Court in Fulmati Dhramdev Yadav vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd [Civil Appeal No. 4713 of 2023] observed that in keeping with the principles of the legislation being intended for social welfare and protection of employees; the Commissioner being the last authority on facts; the scope of an appeal under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 ("ECA") being limited only to substantial questions of law and therefore, the court in First Appeal has transgressed the confines of Section 30 of the ECA.

Recently, the Telangana High Court in Amrutamma vs. Managing Director and Anr. [Writ Petition No. 26966 of 2011] while adjudicating upon a matter involving the termination of a workman who was absent from work for an extended period without authorization, and subsequently passed away, ordered that although the absence due to ill health was unauthorized, it will not be considered as willful or negligent behavior considering that the workman suffered severe health setback and he confined to bed till his death.

Recently, the Kerala High Court in Kerala State Horticultural Products Development Corporation Limited vs. Sunil Kumar S & Ors. [WP(C) No. 27421 of 2023] while interpreting the definition of the term 'employee' as provided under Section 2(a) of the Kerala Payment of Subsistence Allowance Act, 1972 held that the term 'employee', does not exclude a daily wage employee for the purpose of payment of subsistence allowance during suspension.