Topic
Labor and employment matters
It quashed the rejection order against the petitioner and directed Coal India Limited to appoint him as an Accountant within four weeks. The decision clarifies that medical standards must tie directly to job functions to avoid arbitrary disqualification.
The Calcutta High Court held the 7th Industrial Tribunal had proper territorial jurisdiction and that a contractual clause cannot deprive it of statutory authority, so domestic-enquiry findings and back-wage awards remain governed by the Industrial Disputes Act. The ruling protects employees from employer-imposed contractual limits.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside a bank’s termination of a probationary employee, ruling that FIRs lodged during probation cannot be used as a ground for dismissal without a proper inquiry, as it breaches natural justice and Article 311. The decision safeguards probationers from stigmatic discharge pending criminal investigations.
Demotion after maternity leave violates Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act, the Delhi High Court found. It reinstated the employee as senior manager, awarded Rs 10 lakh for mental harassment, and directed the Union to issue guidelines for private employers. The ruling expands maternity protection to post-leave career progression for women workers.
Delhi High Court ruled that a college cannot offset alleged excess provident-fund credits against retirees’ gratuity, reinforcing statutory protection under the Payment of Gratuity Act. The decision bars any post-retirement PF recovery by adjusting gratuity, safeguarding former employees’ entitlement.
The Delhi High Court ruled that the POSH Act does not replace an employer’s service rules and that a Voluntary Cessation of Service order cannot be invoked to retaliate against an employee who files a harassment complaint. This safeguards complainants’ job security and entitles them to back-wages and compensation.
An ICC email declaring a complaint lacks a sexual element is deemed a ‘recommendation’ under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act, permitting a Section 18 appeal. The Bombay HC set aside the Industrial Court’s order, remanding the case for fresh consideration and confirming the right to appeal.
Employers cannot dismiss an employee for alleged false statements on verification forms unless they prove the employee knowingly concealed a pending criminal case. The Supreme Court reinstated the technician with back wages and interest, reinforcing that mere existence of a case does not justify termination. This safeguards workers who are unaware of or have not suppressed criminal proceedings.
The Orissa High Court ruled that Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act prevents an injunction restraining termination of a personal service contract, so the bank could not be barred from dismissing the senior employee. It also clarified that Article 227 cannot replace the statutory appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, limiting interim relief in employment termination disputes.
A resignation accepted without statutory authority becomes effective only after the Board of Management ratifies it, after which the employee cannot retract the resignation or claim back wages. This limits resignation withdrawals to cases where a competent authority has validated the acceptance, affecting staff of public universities.
Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench rules that temporary disability certificates do not disqualify candidates for reserved posts under the RPWD Act, 2016. The judgment clarifies that Section 34(2) protects disabled persons regardless of certificate validity, ensuring equal employment opportunities.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that public sector employees are entitled to two maternity leaves under service rules, regardless of whether their first child was born before joining service. This clarifies a critical ambiguity in public employment benefits and affirms gender equity in administrative leave policies for female teachers and government staff.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that once a judicial precedent grants service benefits to a group of employees based on their initial appointment date, those benefits must be extended to all similarly situated employees, regardless of when they were formally appointed. This reinforces the principle that administrative delays or procedural gaps cannot justify unequal treatment under service law, impacting thousands of ad-hoc appointees across Uttar Pradesh.
Karnataka High Court reaffirms that Section 4 of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, strictly requires a minimum of 5 years of continuous service for gratuity eligibility, leaving no room for administrative discretion. The ruling sets aside gratuity orders favoring an employee with only 4 years and 9 months of service, reinforcing statutory compliance over equitable considerations for employers and employees alike.
The Allahabad High Court has ruled that public employers cannot delay payment of gratuity, leave encashment, or pending salary to retired employees due to financial constraints. The order mandates full payment within three months, with interest at bank rate if no specific provision exists, reinforcing that statutory benefits are non-negotiable rights, not discretionary payouts.