#Industrial Court

Bombay High Court reaffirms that daily wagers must strictly prove 240 days of continuous work in a calendar year with documentary evidence like muster rolls to claim permanency benefits under the Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 31.01.1996. The ruling underscores the burden of proof on workers and limits arbitrary permanency claims in public employment.

The Bombay High Court upheld the dismissal of an employee who used derogatory language toward Koli women, the very community his role was meant to serve. This ruling establishes that abuse directed at protected beneficiaries is not merely offensive conduct but a fundamental breach of trust warranting termination, setting a critical precedent for workplace dignity in public-service roles.

Bombay High Court sets aside an Industrial Court order granting pay parity, ruling that equal pay for equal work under the MRTU & PULP Act mandates strict proof of identical posts, qualifications, and appointment status. The judgment reinforces that mere allegations of unfair labour practices are insufficient without substantive evidence of parity.

Bombay HC rules that compassionate appointment cannot be denied merely on the basis of an FIR, especially where allegations are against a third party and no arrest has occurred. The judgment reinforces natural justice principles, mandating that denial must be grounded in substantive evidence of misconduct, not procedural technicalities.

Bombay HC rules that employers cannot withhold service certificates or relieving letters under the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, even if an employee breaches a training bond. However, the employee remains liable for liquidated damages as per the bond agreement, ensuring a balance between contractual obligations and employment rights.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that credited salary amounts matched by corresponding bank withdrawals constitute legally sufficient proof of wage payment, overturning the Industrial Court’s assumption of paper transactions. This sets a critical precedent for employers facing unfair labour practice claims, shifting the burden to employees to prove non-receipt despite verifiable bank activity.

The Bombay High Court ruled that once a corporate insolvency resolution plan is approved under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), workers cannot pursue independent wage claims before industrial or labour courts. Their remedies are limited to the provisions of the approved resolution plan, reinforcing the overriding effect of Section 238 IBC over other labour laws.

Bombay High Court rules that employees under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme are entitled to financial upgradation upon completing the stipulated service tenure, irrespective of educational qualifications. The judgment clarifies that governing resolutions conditioning upgradation on service duration alone must be honored, protecting employees from arbitrary denial of benefits.

Bombay High Court rules that transferring employees without contractual or statutory basis, altering duties, and in the face of prior litigation violates Item 3 of the MRTU & PULP Act. The judgment reinforces protections for workers against arbitrary employer actions affecting service conditions.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the 120-day outer limit for filing appeals under Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act is absolute and non-extendable, even for compelling reasons. This clarifies that statutory limitation periods in labour law are jurisdictional barriers, not mere procedural hurdles - directly impacting employers and employees seeking gratuity redressal after prolonged delays.