top of page

October 2024 S.C. Judgements

Sankar Kumar Das v. Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta & Ors. 2024 INSC 824

 2024 INSC 824

Facts: Appeals arose from candidates who had participated in the 2007 West Bengal Judicial Service Examination but were denied entry-level judicial appointments finalized in 2008. They contended that there were procedural lapes and sought retrospective appointments while highlighting delays in their selection process.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court emphasized that after 17 years, no effective relief could be granted to the appellants at that stage, prioritizing public interest and judicial stability. The Court noted that the selection process was completed in the year 2008 and considering the period elapsed after the advertisement, it was held that adjudicating the issue was not in the “public interest” of the State.

Nipun Aneja & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh

 2024 INSC 767

Facts: The case arose from allegations that senior officials had harassed and humiliated a junior employee, leading to his suicide and criminal prosecution.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court clarified the conditions under which official superiors can be liable for abetment of suicide of their employees under Section 306 IPC. Accordingly, the Court quashed the criminal case against the officials, ruling that mere harassment does not constitute abetment without evidence of intent. The judgment differentiated between sentimental ties and official relations, emphasizing that merely workplace disagreements alone do not imply instigation to suicide.

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. v. Kundan Singh & Anr. 

SLP (C) No. 2388 of 2019

Facts: The Uttarakhand High Court in 2018 passed several directions directing the regularisation of Uttarakhand Purva Sainik Kalyan Nigam Limited (UPNL) workers employed for over 10 years. The UPNL, established in 2004, facilitated hiring ex-servicemen and their dependents, who demanded equal pay and regularisation. Against this, an appeal was filed by the State.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court judgment affirming that long-serving UPNL workers are entitled to regularisation and benefits, and rejected the State's argument that these workers were merely contractual hires. The Court emphasized the right to equal pay for equal work, especially the employment process for the employees mirrored that for regular State employees.

The Tamil Nadu Agricultural University & Anr. v. R. Agila & Ors.

 SLP (C) No. 13070-13075 of 2022

Facts:  The Supreme Court was addressing cases where government employees had refused to join their new place of posting while contesting their transfer. The respondent employees had challenged transfer orders before the Madras High Court, which had ruled in their favor. The State appealed against this, raising questions about the continuation of this practice. 

​

Judgment: The Court held that a government employee cannot refuse to join a new posting while challenging the transfer order, since when a person works for the government, the incidence of transfer becomes inherent in the terms of service unless it is specifically barred. It condemned the frequent instances of transferred employees not joining new places of posting while legal or administrative challenges to their transfer are underway. It further noted that if transferred employees do not join then optimal service at full capacity could not be provided and that authorities would have to employ other individuals to fill the vacancies while the challenge to transfer was underway. Thus, it directed partial regularization, denying salary for periods of unauthorized absence unless backed by interim relief.
 

International Union of Food, Agricultural & Ors v. Union of India, 

Contempt Petition (C) No. 16/2012

Facts: The Supreme Court summoned the Assam Chief Secretary over non-payment of long-standing dues to tea garden workers. Despite earlier orders directing compensation, thousands of workers employed at tea estates managed by the Assam Tea Corporation Limited (ATCL) remain unpaid.

 

Judgment: The Court criticized the Assam government for its inaction and ordered a personal appearance of the Chief Secretary to provide an explanation for the lack of sincere effort in settling the long-pending dues of the workmen employed in the state's tea gardens. It emphasized the state's duty to fulfill financial obligations, hinting at possible harsh measures if dues remain unpaid.

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.

 October 2024 H.C. Judgements

MADRAS HIGH COURT

  1. The Management, Anthiyur Consumer Co-operative Store Ltd. v. R. Parthiban & Anr., WA No. 1402 of 2024 -  Disciplinary action must be supported by substantial evidence rather than mere allegations.

  2. MRB Nurses Empowerment Association v. The Principal Secretary & Ors., WP No. 27556 of 2018 - Provisions of the Maternity Benefits Act would prevail over any contractual conditions set up by the employer.

  3. M. Palanisamy v. The Director of Town Panchayats & Ors., 2024:MHC:3620 - The court cannot direct promotions outside established rules and frameworks for seniority.

  4. P Ellan v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., WP 28894 of 2024 - The High Court directed for the Deputy Commissioner of Labour to take a call on registering the Samsung India Thozhilalar Sangam, a trade union of employees in Samsung India.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  1. M/s J.W. Marriot Juhu v. Nilesh Kanojia T Anr., 2024:BHC-AS:41689 - An employee’s stealing products from an organization constitutes serious misconduct regardless of value of stolen items, considering it was a position of trust.

  2. The State of Maharashtra, through Directorate of Medical Education and Research & Anr. v. Smt. Sunita Shankarrao Vhatkar & Ors., 2024:BHC-AS:40776 - Permanency of a post is not to be granted on completion of certain days of service, but to be considered if there is a scheme present for the same.

  3. M/s Tata Steel v. Maharashtra Shramjii General Kamgar Union & Anr., 2024:BHC-AS:42004 - An industrial court does not have jurisdiction when the nature of employer-employee relationship was itself disputed.

  4. Shri Sharad s/o Madhavrao Mahitkar v. Chief General Manager, Telecom (R.E.) Project, 2024:BHC-NAG:11900 - While termination without following Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal, reinstatement is not an automatic remedy, especially when the employee has found similar employment elsewhere.

  5. Air India Charters Ltd. v. Tanja Glusica & Ors., 2024:BHC-AS:42319 - Employer is liable under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 even when they are engaged by a contractor.

  6. Maruti Krishana Naik & Ors. v. M/s Advani Oerlikon Ltd. & Anr., 2024:BHC-AS:41999 - Illegal strikes and violent protests justify termination even without a proper enquiry.

  7. The Executive Engineer v. Suchita Vijay Survey, 2024:BHC-AS:39963 - In the absence of control and supervision by an employer, an independent contractor cannot claim to be an employee.

  8. Shishuvihar Shaishanik Sanstha & Anr v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.  2024:BHC-AUG:25849-DB - While the right to receive proper salary is a continuing right, the right to claim arrears can be subject to limitation and should typically be restricted to three years preceding the petition filing date.

KERALA HIGH COURT

  1. Palakkad District Co-operative Bank Managing Committee v. Raghavan, WP(C) No.40330 of 2017 - Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically invalidate findings of a domestic disciplinary enquiry conducted under different standards of proof. 

  2. Abhirami Girish v. State of Kerala & Anr., Crl.M.C. 8310 of 2024 -  Rather than rejecting an application for police clearance certificate, the police can issue a certificate detailing the crime in which a potential employee is involved.

  3. S. Mohammed Nowfal v. State of Kerala, 2024:KER:78491 - An employer can be prosecuted both under the Indian Penal Code and under the Employees’ Provident Fund Act for Provident Fund defaults.

  4. Kumar S v. Union of India, 2024:KER:73359 - A daily-wage employee working on an intermittent basis is not entitled to regularization. 

  5. M/s R. K. Ventures v. The District Superintendent of Police and Others, WP(C) No. 4739 of 2024 - If registered head load workers working in an area covered by the Kerala Headload Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Scheme, have the required skills and experience in handling delicate/sophisticated articles, then they are to be engaged for loading and unloading work.

  6. P.K. Jayan v. State Of Kerala, 2024:KER:74640 - The decision to treat employees who  quit service from those on superannuation is a permitted policy matter which the court should not interfere in.

  7. C R Sudhan v. State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 8414 of 2023 -  Due to the scarcity of experienced toddy tappers in the State, Clause 33A in the Kerala Toddy Workers Welfare Fund Scheme allows them to re-enter the Scheme after retirement.

DELHI HIGH COURT

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  1. Suraj Parkash v. State of J&K & Ors., SWP No. 28 of 2016 - Employees of the State Road Transport Corporation are entitled to pay revision and benefits of the 5th and 6th pay commissions.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

  1. Baba Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ – A No. 12055 of 2024 - Employment prospects cannot be denied to candidates simply because S. 498A has been lodged against them, as it can be lodged against the entire family to pressurize them.

  2. Ram Niwas Singh & 5 Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Basic Edu. Lko And 5 Ors., Writ - A No. 341 of 2023 - The doctrine of relation back applies in service disputes where subsequent orders have been passed in favour of the employee relates to initial disputes.

  3. Ravi Prakash Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj, Lko. & 7 Ors., Writ - A No. 5951 of 2024 - An employee involved in elections cannot be transferred without prior permission of the State Election Commission.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  1. State of Karnataka & Ors. v. H S Kanthi, WP No.1647 of 2020 - Unless the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on a government employee is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges levelled, an administrative tribunal does not get power to substitute the judgment.

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

  1. Mithun Nonia @ Mithun Mahto v. The State of Jharkhand, Cr. Revision No. 362 of 2022 - Awarding unrealistically high maintenance in cases involving individuals employed in the unorganised sector can lead to difficulties in realising the maintenance amount.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

  1. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jethmal Singh & Ors., S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2811/2019 - A labourer hired for loading in an owner’s authorized representative, and awarded compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

ORISSA HIGH COURT

  1. Dr. Kanishka Das v. Union of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 14616 of 2021 - There is no need to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee at every stage as a fact-finding committee is an administrative mechanism only to ascertain facts on the basis of which a disciplinary inquiry is contemplated.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

  1. Dr. Rajesh Kothari v. Urban Administration & Housing Department & Ors., WP No. 11771 of 2020 - A government employee cannot be deprived of the right to a pension or retiral benefits merely on the basis of a complaint or report against the government servant before the date of retirement.

October 2024 International Cases

Tesco Stores Ltd v. USDAW & Ors.

 [2024] EWCA Civ 889

Facts: In this case, employees at Tesco were subject to a long-standing employment practice known as “permanent retention pay” (PRP), which provided salary protection to staff who had moved to different roles within the company. When Tesco announced its intention to phase out this pay, the respondent union challenged the decision, arguing that Tesco had created a binding contractual right to PRP for the affected employees. The case turned on whether Tesco’s promise of permanent retention pay was a legally enforceable term of the employment contract and whether that could be unilaterally revoked by the employer.


Judgment: The Court of Appeal held in the favor of the respondents, ruling that Tesco's attempt to remove PRP violated the contractual rights of the employees. The court emphasized that the use of the term “permanent” in communications about PRP signified a clear and lasting commitment by Tesco, which created legitimate expectations among employees that their pay would be safeguarded indefinitely. Consequently, the unilateral withdrawal of PRP was deemed unlawful. 

Yang v. Nomura International (Hong Kong) Limited 

[2024] HKCA 237

Court: Court of First Instance, Hong Kong


Facts: In this case, the appellant was an employee of an international business in Hong Kong. He had a bonus payment agreement that stipulated discretionary bonuses, which were determined annually based on his work performance. When his bonus was significantly reduced, he claimed that the decision violated implied terms of fairness and reasonableness in his employment contract. The appellant argued that the employer acted in bad faith by drastically cutting his bonus despite his strong performance.


Judgment: The Court of Appeal of Hong Kong ruled in favor of the employer, holding that the employment contract explicitly allowed the employer to exercise broad discretion in determining bonuses. The court found that there was no implied term of fairness that would limit the appellant’s discretion unless the employer's actions were arbitrary, capricious, or irrational according to the Braganza principle of good faith as laid down by the English Supreme Court. The ruling clarified that while employers must exercise contractual discretion in good faith, they retain significant leeway unless an abuse of discretion can be clearly demonstrated.

© 2025 by Centre for Labour Law Research and Advocacy (CLLRA)

bottom of page