top of page

May 2024 S.C. Judgements

Abhimeet Sinha & Ors. v. High Court Of Judicature At Patna & Ors.

 Writ Petition (C) No. 251 Of 2016

Facts: The petition was filed by 46 unsuccessful candidates who participated in the Bihar district judge examination relating to to strike down a clause in the Bihar judicial rules, which had created discrepancies in their examination and selection.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court flagged concerns about the absence of a designated authority by the High Courts that could be approached by candidates of judicial services examinations to seek clarification in case of any doubt. By placing reliance on the report of Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy titled “Discretion & Delay- Challenges of Becoming a District & Civil Judge", the Court sought for the establishment of the designated authority for a given recruitment process with clearly defined roles, functions and responsibilities so that candidates can approach such a designated authority to seek clarification in case of any doubts.

 

Conclusion: The Court in the present case directed for the judicial authorities to clear the discrepancies within a specific time period, and further directed for the judgment to be presented to all High Courts in the country to comply with the recommendations.

Leelawati Devi & Anr. v. District Cooperative Bank Ltd.

 Civil Appeal No.6564/2023

Facts: The customer of a bank raised a consumer dispute about how the bank had wrongly prevented them from withdrawing their money, due to fraud committed by the bank officials.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the recipients of a fixed deposit cannot suffer at the cost of criminal conduct at the hands of bank officials, and in such an event the Bank would be held vicariously liable for the conduct of their employees.

 

Conclusion: The appeal was allowed and directed the Bank to pay damages.

Supreme Court Bar Association v. BD Kaushik

 Diary No. 13992/2023

Facts: The Supreme Court passed an order directing for the implementation of a minimum of 1/3rd women’s reservation in the posts of the Supreme Court Bar Association.

 

Judgment: The Court further clarified that its order was only on an “experimental basis” and would be applied in the upcoming elections. It was also ordered for the constitution of an election committee that would oversee the election. The Court observed that the SCBA is a premier institution and cannot remain static, and underscored the need for timely reforms.

 

Conclusion: The Court also passed directions to the SCBA to call for suggestions from the bar for further reforming the association.

R.K. Munshi v. Union Territory Of Jammu & Kashmir And Ors.

 SLP(Civil) No(S). 43 Of 2022

Facts: The appellant was employed with the J&K police force who was superannuated from his service and subsequently received a communication regarding the recovery of outstanding House Rent Allowance (HRA). The notice was issued because the appellant was availing government accommodation that had been granted to his father, who had retired from government service in 1993. The appellant had been drawing HRA at the same time while residing at the house.

 

Judgment: The Court held that a government employee staying in a rent-free accommodation allotted to his father, a retired government servant, could not claim any HRA. The Court noted in cases where a family member has multiple members working for the government and they live together, only one of them can receive housing allowance and not each member.

 

Conclusion: The Court set aside the appeal and ordered for the recovery of the HRA amount.

Bar of Indian Lawyers Thr. its President Jasbir Singh Malik v. D.K. Gandhi PS National Institute of Communicable Diseases & Anr.

 2024 INSC 410

Facts: The appellant was an advocate who had been hired in connection with a criminal case, however disputes arose regarding the advocate’s fees. In response, the client raised a dispute in the consumer forum, which held against the appellant. The appellant contended that the services of an advocate did not fall under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Judgment: The Court held that a consumer complaint alleging “deficiency in service” against advocates would not be maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. The Court noted that the legal profession was sui generis, i.e. unique in nature and could not be compared with any other profession, since it was not commercial but a noble and service-oriented profession. However, advocates were still fastened with all the traditional duties that agents owe to their principals and could be held liable for the same.

 

Conclusion: The Court held that the consumer forums would have no jurisdiction in the same and set aside the commission’s order.

Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors.

, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 432 of 2023

Facts: The State of West Bengal filed an SLP before the SC challenging the Calcutta HC’s order which invalidated 24,000 teaching and non-teaching jobs that were filled as a result of the 2016 SSC recruitment process. These jobs had come under scrutiny for running a “cash-for-jobs” scam. The West Bengal government argued  that such an order created a huge vacuum in the State schools before a new selection process could be completed. They also contended that all the appointments had been invalidated in a cursory manner despite the fact that a number of appointments were lawful.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court reprimanded the West Bengal School Service Commission for lapses in data preservation of the scanned images of the OMR sheets which were the main source of evidence in the ongoing challenge, and termed it ‘systematic fraud’. The Court further modified its earlier interim order protecting the appointments made in pursuance of the alleged West Bengal SSC recruitment scam, stating that those appointees whose appointments are found to be illegal shall be liable to refund their salaries.

 

Conclusion: THe Court directed the CBI to continue its probe to determine the officials involved but precluded the agency from taking any coercive steps.

In Re Recruitment Of Visually Impaired In Judicial Services

 SMW(C) No. 2/2024

Facts: The Court was hearing a suo motu matter regarding a rule in the Madhya Pradesh judicial services that excludes visually impaired and no-vision candidates from seeking appointment to judicial services.

 

Judgment: As an interim relief, the Court passed an order that the candidates of various disabilities who appeared for the final examination will be allowed to appear for an interview if they have secured minimum marks as provided for the SC/ST candidates. The Court noted that such discrimination would contradict the principles laid down in the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

 

Conclusion: The Court noted that such interim direction would be subject to the outcome of the proceedings.

Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. 

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 432 of 2023


Facts: The petitioners sought to declare the list issued by the Gujarat HC for promotion of civil judges to the cadre District Judges as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it was in contravention of the principle of ‘Merit-cum-seniority’, as it was biased unduly in favor of seniority of judges.

​

Judgment: The Supreme Court observed that government employees cannot demand promotion as a matter of right and that the Court's intervention in promotion policies should only be limited when there is a violation of the equality principle under Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court noted that it was up to the authorities to decide the criteria on which promotion was to be based, and thus Court could not enter into a discussion on whether the policy adopted for promotion is suited to select the ‘best candidates’, unless it violates the principle of equal opportunity under Article 16.

​

Conclusion: The Court thus set aside the appeal and upheld the rules of the Gujarat HC for promotion of judges.

R.S. Madireddy & Ors v. Union of India & Ors.

 SLP (C) No(s). 23441-23444 of 2022

Facts: The petitioner were former employees of Air India Ltd. and all were superannuated between 2016 and 2018. In 2014, they filed petitions for alleged stagnation in pay and non-promotion of the employees. In 2021, Air India Ltd. was privatized in its entirety.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the writ petitions filed by employees against Air India Ltd. would no longer be maintainable due to AIL's subsequent privatization. The Court held that though they were maintainable on the date they were filed, they could not be so after its privatization as it was no longer part of the “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution.

 

Conclusion: The Court dismissed the appeals and denied relief to the workers.

Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited v. Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Employees Welfare Union & Anr.

2024 INSC 446

Facts: The appellants denied the conferment of permanent status to several workmen despite them fulfilling the requirement of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Workmen) Act, 1981. It was contended by the appellants that S. 7 of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 bars the conferment of permanent status upon those workmen employed in an industrial establishment engaged in the construction of buildings, bridges, roads, canals, dams or other construction work whether structural, mechanical or electrical.

​

Judgment: The Court held that the appellants could not deny permanent status to the workmen if they have worked consecutively for more than 480 days in a period of 24 months in the commercial establishment if it engaged in other activities apart from the construction activities. The Court observed that workmen couldn't be denied the benefit of permanent status on the mere ground that their employers also engaged in construction activities.

​

Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed by the Court and accordingly directed for the regularization for all concerned workmen.

May 2024 H.C. Judgements

MADRAS HIGH COURT

  1. G. Ravichandran v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd. WP Nos. 19396 and 9218 of 2018 - Employees need to fulfill required years of service and practical experience as per the rules for promotion.

  2. Pipmate Integrated Staff Welfare Association v. Chief Secretary, Government of Puducherry WP No. 34295 of 2017 - Deductions made under the General Provident Fund scheme do not automatically entitle employees to pension benefits.

  3. P. Elilarasan v. The Executive Director, Air India Ltd. & Ors. WP No. 10966 of 2018 - As long as there is a manpower requirement by the employer, the services of the employee ought to be utilized and should not be replaced by any other casual workers.

  4. B. Saravanan v. The Commissioner, Adi Dravidar Welfare Commission & Ors. WP (MD). No. 1435 of 2024 - A petitioner's qualifications should not be a barrier to  their compassionate appointment.

  5. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors v. C. Arnold, W.A (MD)No.479 of 2024 - Application for compassionate appointment can be made even by a minor under the Tamil Nadu Compassionate Appointment Rules, 2023

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  1. Airports Authority of India Workers Union and Anr. v. Under Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India and Anr., Writ Petition No. 8744 of 2015 - The HC directed the Airports Authority of India to grant additional maternity benefits to an employee for her third childbirth as her first child was born before she joined service and did not avail the benefits for her second childbirth.

  2. Ramadas KS v. TISS & Ors. - A Dalit doctoral candidate from TISS approached the Bombay High Court challenging his suspension for alleged “anti-national activities”.

  3. Ashok Mallinath Halsangi & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. CWP No. 7650 of 2023 - The court should not interpret conditions of a recruitment advertisement contrary to plain language of the same to benefit the employer.

  4. Sohail Salim Ansair v. State of Maharashtra 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1400 - The Bombay HC permitted bail to a life convict to appear for a law entrance examination.

  5. Danfoss Systems Ltd. v. Johnson Gomes - Dismissal is a disproportionate punishment for an employee guilty of overwriting reasons of absence on his gate-pass.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

  1. State of West Bengal v. Kalipada Mondal, MAT 248 of 2016 - Political sufferers are not entitled to the pension scheme for freedom fighters.

  2. Badal Kumar Mandal v. Chairman Indian Museum Board Of Trust And Ors. WPO No. 1586/2023 - Recovery of excess payment to an employee due to an erroneous calculation of pay scale cannot be made at the end of service or thereafter.

  3. Dr. Tapas Kumar Mandal v. UOI & Ors., WPA No. 24009 of 2019 - An employee has no right to be promoted but has a fundamental right to be considered for promotion.

  4. Harendra Nath Bishayi v. State of West Bengal & Ors. WPA. No. 4704 of 2024 - Employees who have not received their withheld pension amounts have the legal right to seek recourse in court, regardless of any delay in doing so.

  5. Saurav Krishna Basu v. State of West Bengal, WPST 71 of 2024 - An employer is under legal obligation to ensure no prejudice is caused to an employee in disciplinary proceedings.

  6. Paresh Nath Mukherjee v. West Bengal State Warehousing Corporation W.P.O 684 of 2012 - The right to pension cannot be taken away by administrative instruction.

  7. M/s. Dalhousie Jute Company v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 8705 of 2024 - Interruption in service due to an accident would not amount to a break in service for the purpose of S. 2A of the Gratuity Act.

  8. Animesh Singha Mahapatra and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors., WPA 20897 of 2013 - Once the process of recruitment starts, no change can be made to the essential qualifications during the recruitment process in the absence of other provisions.

TRIPURA HIGH COURT

Bina Rani Paul v. State of Tripura, W.P.(C) No.624 of 2023 - The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 is applicable to anganwadi workers and helpers working in the State.

GUJARAT HIGH COURT

  1. Jetpur Navagadh Municipality v. Pathan Yunuskhan Jamyalkhan, C/LPA/1091/2023 - Reinstatement with back wages is not automatic for illegally terminated workers, and lump sum may be provided instead.

  2. Rajkot Municipal Corporation v. Rajeshbhai Ramjibhai Purabiya, C/LPA/414/2024 - A labour court must give the employer an opportunity to be heard before concluding the enquiry

KERALA HIGH COURT

  1. Area Manager, Food Corporation of India v. P.T. Rajeevan, MFA (ECC) No. 52 of 2018 - An employee's right to seek treatment from a hospital of choice cannot be curtailed by circulars issued by the employer.

  2. The KMML Retired Officers Association v. The State of Kerala, WP(C) No. 10071 of 2016 - Extension of the benefits of better terms of gratuity are to be decided by employer and employee cannot claim it as a right.

  3. Sujatha Devi v. The Assistant Labour Officer Paravoor, OP(LC) No. 3837 OF 2012 - An employer who got sufficient opportunity to defend a claim before a labour officer cannot approach high court claiming prejudice

DELHI HIGH COURT

  1. Kishor Kumar Makwana v. Union of India & Anr., 2024:DHC:3961-DB - A government employee would be entitled to terminal benefits despite reversion of his pay scale.

  2. Kanchanjunga Building Employees Union v. Kanchanjunga Flat Owner's Society & Anr., W.P.(C) 6193/2008 - The burden of proof in establishing an employee-employer relationship rests with the party claiming it.

  3. Dr. Shashi Bhushan v. University of Delhi - A candidate in the final selection list does not have an indefeasible right to appointment.

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Gopal Krishan v. State of Punjab and Ors., CWP-17945-1997 (O&M) - Time spent in proceedings before the civil court would not count towards the period of limitation since  a workman should not be punished for devoting his time before the wrong forum as usually it is based on some misconception or ill-advice.

J&K HIGH COURT

  1. Mohammad Shafi v. Union Of India, WP(C) No. 2502 of 2022 - Pension is considered as a property under Art. 31(1), and any interference with pension violates the Constitution.

  2. Mst. Raja v. State Of J&K, SWP No. 2237 of 2014 - Excess salary paid by the employer due to wrong interpretation of rules cannot be taken back from a retired employee.

  3. Mysar Jan v. J&K Handicrafts & Ors., SWP 373/2013 IA(1/2013[600/2013]) - When an employee faces the penalty of withholding increments, it continually affects their salary structure and impacts pension benefits even after retirement.

  4. Jasvinder Singh Dua v. UT of J&K, WP (C) 81/2023 - Departmental enquiry cannot be sustained against an employee once an FIR on the same set of allegations has been quashed.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

  1. Sehrun Nisha v. State Of UP And Ors., Writ - A No. - 6402 of 2024 - Gratuity would be payable to a government employee based on his years of service and not on the age at which he retires.

  2. Mohd. Asgar Ali v. Union Of India Through Home Secy. and Ors., Writ - A No. - 4562 of 1998 - Allegations of irregularities in disciplinary proceedings must be substantiated with evidence.

  3. Ram Pratap Singh v. Union of India & Ors., Special Appeal No. - 345 of 2024 - Qualification conditions of an employee are within the exclusive jurisdiction of employers.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Stone Hill Education Foundation v. Union Of India & Ors., WP No.18486 of 2012 (L-PF) - A provision in the Employees Provident Fund Scheme which prescribes an unlimited ceiling for international workers, was declared unconstitutional.

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Naveen Ram v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors., Writ Petition (S/S) No. 662 of 2024 - A labour court’s orders cannot be executed via writ before the High Court.

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Devendra Pandey v. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. W.P.(C) No. 3209 of 2022 - The Jharkhand High Court Advocates' Association (JHCAA) concluded its strike following this order staying the debarment of a lawyer.

MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT

Gurdeep Singh & Ors v. Union of India WP(C). No. 141 of 2022 - Estoppel applies against challenging the nature of employment once it is duly accepted by the employee.

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Binoy Kumar Sinha v. The Asstt. General Manager Admin. State Bank Of India And Ors., WP(C) No. 1331 of 2014 - A daily wager employed by the state without a proper selection process is not entitled to claim protection from retrenchmen

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

  1. Rajbhan Dwivedi and Ors. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr. its Principal Secretary School Education Department and Ors. WP No. 3137 of 2024  - Guest Faculty members of a school may continue their services, but they cannot demand regularization as an inherent right.

  2. Managing Director M.P. State Forest Development Corporation v. M.P. State Forest Development Corporation Employees Union, WP No. 3830 of 2015 - Disputes related to promotion and seniority fall within the scope of industrial disputes as defined under Section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and thus fall under the jurisdiction of a labour court.

  3. Maharishi Panini Sanskrit Evam Vedic University v. Kumari Rajani Verma Misc. Petition No. 570 of 2021 - Educational institutions are not obligated to conduct formal disciplinary proceedings before terminating temporary workmen.

  4. The Factory Manager Rccpl And Anr v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others. WP No. 16946 Of 2021 - An Assistant Labour Commissioner is not competent to decide  a complaint filed by an inspector under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

May 2024 International Cases

Ms N Bodis v Lindfield Christian Care Home Ltd.
 

[2024] EAT 65 (United Kingdom)

 Employment Appellate Tribunal, UK

 

Facts: The claimant suffered from anxiety and depression, and was accused by her employer for various incidents at the care home where she worked. She was subjected to an investigation and disciplinary hearing, where she provided evasive and blunt responses, and thus was summarily dismissed. She brought forward a claim contending that her responses during the investigation were due to her mental issues and thus, using it against her was discrimination arising from a disability. The lower tribunal found that the claimant's response had influenced the employer’s decision but held that this was not the effective cause of the decisions, which were based on other factors.

 

Judgment: The Tribunal held that to establish liability for discrimination arising from a disability, the unfavorable treatment does not need to be primarily or solely because of the “something arising” from the disability. Instead, it can be a minor component as long as it holds sufficient causal significance. Thus, the Court held that even if a minor contributing factor in an employer’s decision is based on a disability, it can still be a discrimination arising out of disability.

 

Conclusion: The Court however still observed that the actual dismissal was a legitimate exercise of authority, and upheld the termination.

VwGH 

Ro 2021/04/0010-11 (Austria)

Supreme Administrative Court of Austria

 

Facts: The public employment service in Austria implemented an algorithm with the specific purpose of assisting counselors by categorizing job seekers based on various factors such as age, education, and employment history, among others.  The algorithm's role was not to directly place job seekers into employment but to provide job counseling based on market opportunities. Concerns were raised that the algorithm constituted “automated individual decision-making” under Article 22 of the General Data Protection Regulation of the EU, which restricts decisions made solely on automated processing, including profiling, that produces legal effects on individuals.

 

Judgment; The Court held that the algorithm plays a decisive role in the counseling process and thus could limit job seekers’ opportunities based on this categorization. Further, the Court noted the lack of meaningful human involvement and how it could violate Article 22 of the GDPR. It emphasized that any such algorithms must have a clear legal basis under national and EU law, and needed to be coupled with the need for training to use such technologies and to maintain transparency in such processes.

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

bottom of page