December 2024

December 2024 S.C. Judgements

State Of U.P. & Ors. v. Sandeep Agarwal

2024 INSC 1015

Facts: The appellant was an employee of the State of Madhya Pradesh who had applied for a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS). Pending the acceptance of his VRS application, the appellant stopped attending work. The State treated his absence as unauthorized and initiated disciplinary proceedings, eventually dismissing him from service. The appellant challenged the dismissal, arguing that he was under the bona fide belief that he was no longer required to attend work after applying for VRS.

Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal, stating that merely applying for VRS does not entitle an employee to remain absent from work unless the application is formally accepted by the employer. The Court emphasized that employees are bound to perform their duties until they are formally relieved, and unauthorized absence amounts to misconduct.

Jaggo v. Union of India

2024 INSC 1034

Facts: Three appellants were appointed by the Central Works Commission (CWC) as Safaiwalas on a temporary basis, but discharged full-time duties. After serving for several years, they approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking regularisation. However, the application was rejected. Soon after the rejection, they were terminated from services without any prior notice. The appellants relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006), which limited regularization rights for workers engaged irregularly or in violation of recruitment rules.

Judgment: The Supreme Court observed that despite being labelled as “part-time workers,” the appellants performed these essential tasks on a daily and continuous basis over extensive periods, ranging from over a decade to nearly two decades. The Court also noted that the Uma Devi judgment was being misapplied and misunderstood against long-serving workers who were otherwise entitled to regularization as it was not being used to distinguish between illegal and merely “irregular” appointments, which were not per se illegal but only lacked adherence to procedural formalities. Such irregular employees were entitled to regularization. The Court directed the appellants to consider regularization of the respondents based on their length of service and qualifications while ensuring compliance with existing rules and policies.

Mohd. Kamran v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr.

SLP(Crl.) No. 9615 of 2024

Facts: The respondent, an advocate, was engaged in full-time journalism while also practicing law. The Bar Council of India (BCI) challenged this dual role, arguing that full-time journalism constitutes a conflict of interest with the legal profession. The BCI relied on provisions of the Advocates Act of 1961, which prohibit advocates from engaging in any other full-time profession while enrolled as practicing advocates. The respondent contended that journalism and advocacy are not mutually exclusive and that such a restriction infringes upon freedom of occupation.

Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the BCI's stance, ruling that an advocate cannot engage in full-time journalism while practicing law. It clarified that while an advocate may engage in part-time or occasional writing, such as opinion pieces or academic contributions, full-time journalism is incompatible with the role of a practicing advocate under the Advocates Act.

Dr. Balram Singh v. Union of India and Ors.

W.P.(C) No. 324 of 2020

Facts: The appellant, a transwoman, challenged her rejection for a government position on the grounds of gender identity. Despite meeting all the qualifications for the role, she alleged that the rejection was solely based on her identification as a transwoman. She argued that this amounted to discrimination in violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.

Judgment: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment after hearing extensive arguments. The appellant contended that she was denied equal opportunity despite constitutional guarantees. The respondents argued that the rejection was due to procedural reasons unrelated to gender identity. The Court acknowledged the significance of the issues raised, particularly concerning the rights of transgender individuals in the workplace and the implementation of the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014). It indicated that the ruling would address the larger questions of equal employment opportunities, affirmative action for transgender persons, and the enforcement of statutory rights under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

Nutan Bharti Gram Vidyapith v. Government Of Gujarat And Anr.

2024 INSC 935

Facts: The respondent, an employee of a government-aided educational institution, was dismissed from the service. The dismissal was subsequently set aside by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and the employee's reinstatement was directed. However, the State of Madhya Pradesh argued that it was not liable to pay the respondent's retiral benefits, asserting that the employee worked for an aided institution and not directly under the State's employment.

Judgment: The Supreme Court rejected the State's argument, holding that once the dismissal was set aside and reinstatement ordered, the employee was entitled to retiral benefits under the law. It ruled that the State cannot shirk its responsibility to pay retiral benefits by citing the autonomous status of the aided institution. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the State was directed to process and release the retiral benefits due to the respondent.

The Management, M/s. Express Publications (Madurai) Ltd v. Lenin Kumar Ray,

SLP (C) No. 12876 of 2024

Facts: The Supreme Court considered in this case whether an employee terminated in 2003, holding a supervisory role and earning over ₹10,000 per month, fell under the definition of “workman” as per Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The employee had challenged his dismissal, arguing it constituted unfair labor practice.

Judgment: The Court held that the employee was not a “workman” because he engaged in supervisory functions and earned beyond the statutory wage threshold. It observed that whether or not an employee is a “workman” under section 2(s) of the I.D. Act needs to be determined with reference to his principal nature of duties and functions; and the designation of an employee is not of much importance.

December 2024 H.C. Judgements

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Dulal Chandra Barman v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 25602 of 2024 - A retired government employee is entitled to receive retiral benefits (including pension) in a timely manner, even when there is a pending dispute regarding alleged excess salary drawn during the service period.
Saumen Kumar Bhattacharjya v. Shri Dushyant Narial Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal & Anr., CPAN 1039 of 2024 - The state is not entitled to recover an excess amount paid to a retired officer if that amount was paid to the employee due to mistake on the state's part.
Smt. Lachhmina Devi & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., WPA 24082 of 2013 - In cases for providing compassionate employment, it is 'reprehensible' to consider the source of inception of a child's birth and discriminate against those who may have been born from a void marriage.
Ambujaksha Mahanti v. Indian Institute of Management, Calcutta, RVW 173 of 2021 - An employee can be governed by the old pension rules if the rules provide for default pension rules to be used in case the employee does not opt for any particular rule.
Sri Kartick Chandra Barik v. State of West Bengal & Others., MAT No. 552 of 2022 - Casual workers who were not appointed against a valid sanctioned post cannot be appointed on a regular post.
M.Tamilselvan v. The District Collector & Ors., W.P. No. 33854 of 2024 - The service register of a public servant could not be completely exempted under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act.
The State of West Bengal & Anr. v. Sri Kali Sadhan Bhattacharjee @ Bhattacharyya & Ors., MAT 1002 of 2022 - Recovery of excess payments made to retired employees, without fraud or misrepresentation on their part, is impermissible.

KERALA HIGH COURT

Sadhoo Beedi Enterprises v. The Controlling Authority & Anr., WP(C) 36274 of 2024 - Gratuity could not be paid in installments as the purpose of gratuity is to serve as a retirement or terminal benefit ensuring immediate financial support to the employees or their dependents.
Mrs. Suma Sunilkumar v. State Medical Officer, WP(C) No. 21799 of 2024 - The Employees State Insurance Corporation cannot deny medical reimbursement because an insured underwent treatment in a hospital not approved by the insurer.
Abraham Mathai v. State of Kerala, W.P.(C) No. 39915 of 2018 - An oral complaints given by an employee alleging sexual harassment to various authorities cannot be a substitute for a written complaint.
M Shibu v. State of Kerala & Connected Case, OP(KAT) No. 431 of 2024 - A high court has ample power under Article 226 to issue directions not specifically sought before an administrative tribunal.
State of Kerala v. Haridasan, OP(KAT) No. 326 of 2018 - An officer would be entitled to full pay and allowances if there were no reasons for keeping him under suspension till the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings.
Suo Moto v. State of Kerala, SSCR No. 87 of 2024 - Dolly workers cannot be permitted to stage protest or strike as it would adversely affect rights of pilgrims.

DELHI HIGH COURT

Shri. Sunil Kalgounda Patil & Ors v. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Department Of Revenue, Ministry Of Finance & Ors., W.P.(C) 7444/2024 - A revised promotion ratio cannot be applied retroactively but prospectively as reversal of benefits received by already promoted officers would cause administrative disruptions.
Sunil Kumar Tewatia v. Jain Cooperative Bank, 2024:DHC:7204 - Labour court and Registrar of Cooperative Societies have concurrent jurisdiction for disputes relating to disciplinary action.
Ryan International School v. Central Infomation Commissioner & Ors., W.P.(C) 8984 of 2019 - Personal information of employees such as service records, copies of promotion or financial benefits cannot be disclosed under the Right to Information Act.
Smt. Usha Devi v. Union Of India & Anr., WP(C) No. 5687 of 2024 - The Court granted compassionate allowance to the widow of a dismissed employee.

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Kasturi Lal s/o Kundan Lal v. Municipal Corporation, Amritsar & Ors., 2024:PHHC:080737 - Government employees cannot assume that they are only required to work for five days in a week and cannot claim compensation as a matter of right for working on Saturdays.
Vaibhav Vats v. State of Punjab & Ors., CWP-PIL-158-2024 (O&M) - The Court has asked the Punjab government to file a response on a plea filed seeking action against an alleged Panchayat resolution passed by a village in Kharar, Punjab, asking migrant labourers from UP, Bihar and Rajasthan to leave the village and directing others to socially boycott them.
Bahadur Singh v. P.R.T.C. & Ors., 2024:PHHC:095493 - An employee cannot be deprived from his service benefits by backdating the termination of his employment.

J&K HIGH COURT

Tarlok Chand v. UT Of J&K, WP(C) No. 608 of 2023 - Emoluments drawn by an employee during the final 24 months of service cannot be questioned when calculating retiral benefits.
Mohammad Altaf Bhat v. Principal Chief of Commissioner and Ors., WP(C) No. 441/2021 - The Authority under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment Act (POSH) lacks the jurisdiction to act upon and decide complaints filed beyond the condonable limitation period of three months.
Shafayatulla v. UT Of J&K, WP(C) No. 577/2024 - The suitability of an individual for a particular post and administrative exigencies cannot be scrutinized by courts

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Mahendra Singh Kanwal v. State of U.P., 2024:AHC-LKO:80359 - Before filing a writ petition, all alternative remedies under the Payment of Gratuity Act must be fully utilized before approaching the Controlling Authority.
Satish Chandra v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ - A No. 16406 of 2024 - An application for compassionate employment cannot be decided by the management of the institution where the deceased government employee worked. Such decisions fall under the authority of the District Inspector of Schools.
Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Sec. Edu. Lko. & Ors., Writ - A No. 11061 of 2024 - Non-passing of a formal order of reinstatement after quashing of suspension does not disentitle the employer from placing the employee under suspension again.
Rafat Naaz and Anr. v. State of U.P. and 3 Ors., Writ - A No. 6031 of 2024 - A succession certificate is not required for death-cum-retirement benefits in case of an existing nomination.
Saurabh Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ - A No. 18692 of 2022 - A government employee cannot be removed from service for not disclosing that an F.I.R. was filed against them if they themselves were not aware of the fact.
State of U.P. through Prin.Secy.Sugar Lucknow & Ors. v. Vashistha Muni Mishra, 2024:AHC-LKO:76409-DB - Employees appointed under a special fund cannot be regarded as government employees if their appointment was not made in accordance with broader provisions governing employment.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Karnataka Employers Association & Others v. All India Trade Union Congress & Ors., Writ Appeal No. 23 of 2024 - While fixing or revising the minimum wages for employees, employers, as key stakeholders who will be directly affected by the process, should be given an opportunity to present their views and positions before the Government issues the notification.

December 2024 International Cases

Supreme Court en banc Decision

Decided December 19, 2024

Court: Supreme Court of South Korea

Facts: The South Korean Supreme Court revisited and overruled a prior ruling concerning the interpretation of "ordinary wage." The earlier judgment held that there needed to be a “fixed” element in the calculation of an ordinary wage, implying that it must be a salary paid regularly and at a fixed amount. The dispute centred on whether bonuses and certain allowances should be classified as an ordinary wage for the purposes of calculating overtime, severance pay, and other statutory benefits. Employers argued that specific components of remuneration, such as bonuses, fell outside the definition of ordinary wage unless agreed upon explicitly in employment contracts.

Judgment: The Supreme Court clarified that the definition of "ordinary wage," holding that bonuses and allowances paid regularly, uniformly, and consistently should be included within its ambit, irrespective of explicit contractual terms. It removed the “fixed” element and held that the ordinary wage should just be “compensation for prescribed labour that is paid on a regular and uniform basis”. Ordinary wage should thus reflect the actual labour value provided in full.

London United Busways Ltd v. De Marchi and Anor

[2024] EAT 191

Court: Employment Appellate Tribunal, United Kingdom

Facts: The claimants were employed by the London United Busways Ltd. and assigned to operate a particular bus route. However, the operation of that bus route was transferred to another operator, and the claimants were shifted to the new operator, which brought material changes to the employment contract. The claimant sought redundancy, arguing that this transfer would entail a material change of the conditions that he had applied to, which would cause difficulties in their commute to work.

Judgment: The Tribunal held that under UK law, when an employee objected to his transfer involving a substantial change in his working conditions to the detriment of an employee, an employee was free to treat the contract as having been terminated. If an employee exercises such a right, the employee will be considered as having been dismissed by the employer.

Supreme Court Case

2023Da276823

Court: Supreme Court of South Korea

Facts: The team leader of an airline company instructed the plaintiff, a coworker, to come to his house for a work-related briefing. Subsequently, the team leader attempts to commit an act of rape against the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested the company to conduct a thorough investigation and take appropriate measures while strongly demanding confidentiality to ensure the incident remained undisclosed. However, the company allowed the team leader to resign without imposing any disciplinary measures. The plaintiff then sued the company, claiming the damages on two grounds: (i) for the unlawful act of attempted rape and (ii) for failing to follow the proper disciplinary procedures.

Judgment: The Court recognized the company’s liability, even in criminal matters, for violating its obligations to consider the victim’s rights by allowing the accused to resign without disciplinary measures. It ruled that the company failed in its duty to consult the victim and implement protective measures, thus recognizing corporate liability in such cases.

Chapman v. Brentlinger Enterprises

No. 23-3582 (6th Cir. 2024)

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Facts: The appellant was a finance manager at the respondent, and requested medical leave to care for her terminally ill sister. Her employer denied the request, claiming that the law does not cover such leave to care for an adult sibling. The appellant was later terminated, in response to which she filed a lawsuit alleging violations of medical leave and disability protection laws.

Judgment: The Court of Appeals found that an in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) relationship could come about even between adult siblings, especially if the one being taken care of was disabled, thus entitling the caregiver to medical leave to care for such an individual. Thus, the Court remanded the matter back for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s decision.