September 2024

September 2024 S.C. Judgements

Sukanya Shantha v. Union of India, W.P.(C) No. 1404 of 2023

W.P.(C) No. 1404 of 2023

Facts: The petition was filed by a journalist highlighting discriminatory practices taking place in the prisons of certain states and UTs of India, and highlighted caste-based laws in the state prison manuals of major states. They contended that prison labour in terms of manual labour including sweeping, cooking food and latrine-cleaning, segregation of barracks and extant provisions which discriminate against prisoners belonging to denotified (criminal) tribes.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that such provisions were directly discriminatory and were a violation of Article 15 of the Constitution. For example, the UP Prison Manual provided that a convict sentenced to simple imprisonment, shall not be called upon to perform duties of a “degrading or menial character" unless he belongs to a "class or community accustomed to perform such duties.” The West Bengal manual stated that sweepers should be chosen from the Mether, Hari or Chandal caste and other rules stating that higher caste members would be provided a separate cook The Court also highlighted that segregating prisoners on caste basis also reinforced animosity between castes. Thus, the Court directed all States and Union Territories to revise their prison manuals to end caste-based allotment of work. The Court also directed the Union Government to change its Model Prison Rules to address caste-based segregation. The Court also directed that caste columns in prison registers must be deleted.

In Re: Alleged Rape And Murder Incident Of A Trainee Doctor In R.G. Kar Medical College And Hospital, Kolkata And Related Issues

Suo Moto Writ (Criminal) No. 2 of 2024

Facts: The case arises out of the RG Kar Medical College Hospital rape-murder case, due to which junior doctors of West Bengal were abstaining from work as part of protests in solidarity. The doctors, in their application, requested for the formation of a broad-based monitoringy committee in each hospital having administration. academics, nurses, doctors and other healthcare staff, a confidential grievance redressal system at the hospital for the redressal of grievances of the students and doctors, an internal complaint committees in accordance with the PoSH Act, and counselling centres at every hospital with qualified professionals particularly the psychiatric and psychology department to deal with the stress faced by doctors in course of their duties.

Judgment: The Supreme Court directed the State Government to take steps to implement these measures as soon as possible. The Court held that its previous date set for the doctors to report back to duty still stood as the conditions for their safety were being ensured. The Court underscored that a "participatory process" must be followed, allowing the representatives of junior and senior doctors to express their views and build confidence with the state authorities.

S.D. Manohara v. Konkan Railway Corporation Limited & Ors.

C.A. No. 010567 of 2024

Facts: The appellant-employee was working with the respondents for 23 years and subsequently tendered his resignation, stating that it would come into effect on expiry of one month. While the resignation was accepted, there was no communication about the acceptance of this letter to the appellant. Subsequently, the respondent called upon the appellant to report to duty and explain his unauthorized absence, to which the appellant reported. The appellant later argued that since the resignation letter never attained finality, he could not be relieved from his job. The appellant contended that since he was called upon by the employer to report to duty and explain his unauthorized absence, their conduct proved that the resignation had not been accepted.

Judgment: The Court held that any resignation is not final until its acceptance has been communicated to the employee. Further, this had to be directly and officially communicated to the employee. The Court further noted that since the appellant had reported to duty and was consistently in touch with the employer, it cannot be said that the appellant had resigned from his job. Thus, the Court allowed for the reinstatement of the employee.

Union of India v. Lt. Col. Rahul Arora

2024 SCC OnLine SC 2450

Facts: The respondent, an ENT specialist posted with a military hospital, was dismissed from service after being found guilty of malpractice by the General Court Martial (GCM). He challenged this on the ground that a junior ranked officer had acted as Judge Advocate in his trial.

Judgment: The Court held that an officer junior to the accused cannot act as a Judge Advocate in the General Court Martial unless there are specific reasons recorded for the same. Accordingly, the trial was set aside on grounds of illegality, and the appeal by the State was dismissed.

Zahid Showkat Alias Mir v. Joint Secretary, Prime Ministers Office & Ors.

WP(C) No. 493 of 2024

Facts: The petitioner was a Google employee and had filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution stating that he was aggrieved by his termination and subsequent non-action on his written complaints to the Prime Minister's Office. He contended that he had been unfairly dismissed due to the religious discrimination he faced at his workplace.

Judgment: The Court noted that the matter was related to proceedings before the labour court where the petitioner had challenged his termination, and executive functionaries like the Prime Minister's Office cannot take action over a termination arising out of a private contract as in the present case. Since the Court could not take jurisdiction in this matter, the petition was dismissed.

Union of India & Anr. v. M. Siddaraj

SLP(C) No. 4722 of 2021

Facts: Due to a large number of fresh writ petitions that were filed in view of Director (Admn. and HR) KPTCL and Others v. C.P. Mundinamani, over which a review petition is pending in an appeal filed by the State, the Supreme Court decided to pass interim orders in order to avoid further litigation and confusion. The judgment held that government employees are entitled to the increment in their pension which they earned on the previous day just before their date of retirement.

Judgment: The Court held that the original judgment shall only be prospective in nature and enhancements in pension will only be allowed that accrued after the date of the judgment. For persons who have already filed writ petitions and have succeeded, these would operate as res judicata and an enhanced pension would be paid, except where the judgment has not reached finality.

Anantdeep Singh v. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh

2024 INSC 673

Facts: The appellant was a judicial officer in the Punjab Civil Services, and was terminated during his probation on allegations of an illicit relationship with another judicial officer, which resulted in termination of both officers. The appellant challenged this termination, and the Supreme Court set aside the termination order. However, the Full Bench of the High Court passed an order reaffirming its earlier decision to terminate his services.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that once the termination order has been set aside, then the employee is deemed to be in service and has to be reinstated. The natural consequence of this is that the employee be taken back into the service and be entitled to full salary and benefits of the period of his termination. The Court found no justification for the inaction of the HIgh Court in not taking the appellant back into service, and directed that the appellant to be reinstated and would be entitled to 50 percent of his back wages.

In Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers

MA 94/2022 In SMW(C) No. 6 of 2020

Facts: The Court had taken suo motu cognizance of the problems and miseries of the migrant labourers during the lockdown imposed due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The Court had earlier passed directions to provide ration cards to the migrants without insisting on their identity cards.The Union was arraigned for being in contempt of these orders passed by the Court.

Judgment: After hearing arguments on the same, the Supreme Court directed the Union to file an affidavit in respect of the steps taken so far to comply with the directions passed earlier as to providing ration cards to the migrant workers.

The Secretary, Public Works Department & Ors. v. Tukaram Pandurang Saraf & Ors.

Civil Appeal No(S). 1689 Of 2016

Facts: The respondents were employees of Maharashtra’s Public Works Department (PWD) as temporary workmen under the Kalelkar Award. The Kalelkar Award determines the service conditions of the workers working in the Public Works Department at various places or districts under different projects in the State of Maharashtra. Under the Kalelkar award, the Public Works Department workers or the staff are entitled to get the benefits of public holidays as well as holidays on the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of each month. Despite this, the respondents-employees were not extended the benefit of the Kalelkar Award and were asked to work on 2nd and 4th Saturdays, and no compensation was paid to them for overtime work.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that temporary workers engaged with the PWD were entitled to get the benefits of public holidays as well as the 2nd and 4th Saturdays of each month. It held that all employees except daily-wage employees were entitled to such public holidays, and treating such employees differently would be unlawful.

Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors v. V.V. Bramha Reddy & Anr.

Civil Appeal No. 5267 of 2024

Facts: The respondents were employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transportation Corporation (APSRTC), who were working as conductors, drivers and shramiks. After the State of Andhra Pradesh was bifurcated, the zones they worked in became part of the new State of Telangana, and were directed to join the new Telangana State Road Transportation Corporation (APSRTC). The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that such employees would be permanently allotted to the APSRTC. This was challenged by the respondents and the TSRTC.

Judgment: The Supreme Court, interpreting the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, held that the employees of the APSRTC, who were appointed in areas which formed part of the State of Telangana, would continue as employees of the TSRTC, as it was the successor corporation following the bifurcation of the State of Andhra Pradesh.

Faizabad Bar Association v. Bar Council Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.

SLP(C) No. 19804-19805 of 2024

Facts: The Faizabad District Bar Association, Uttar Pradesh, had allegedly called for a strike to abstain from judicial work which was in protest of an Allahabad High Court judgment whereby an Elders Committee was constituted to take over its affairs.

Judgment: The Supreme Court expressed serious displeasure at the District Bar and called on all its office bearers to file an affidavit undertaking that they shall never pass any such resolution in the future in lieu of contempt proceedings to be initiated against all its members. The Court denigrated such actions of the District Bar Associations and stated that if there was an grievance of the members, they should approach the District or High Court Judge

September 2024 H.C. Judgements

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., A Government Of India Undertaking & Ors. v. Hindustan Aeronautics Contract Workers Association, WA No. 1122 of 2021 (L-RES) - Before finalizing a contract, contractual labourers must be given an opportunity to be heard as per principles of natural justice.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Divvela Ramaiah & Anr. v. Union of India & Anr., W.P. No.13205 of 2022 - The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Regulation 10 of the 'Institute of Actuaries of India (Admission as Member and Issuance of Certificate of Practice) Regulations 2017, which denied a Certificate of Practice (CoP) to Associate Members by not classifying them as actuaries.
Registrar General High Court of Chhattisgarh v. Fanendra Kumar Bisen & Ors., 2024:CGHC:29471-DB - Employees cannot claim the continuance of advance increments granted for family planning purposes after their promotion or revision of pay scale.
Shramik Janata Sangh v. State of Maharashtra, WP No. 1570 of 2023 - The HC ordered the government to create a social media handle for citizens to report manual scavenging.

KERALA HIGH COURT

Navas A @ Paichira Navas v. State of Kerala & Other Matters, WP(C) No. 29846 of 2024 - The Court noted that the PoSH Act, 2013, does not take into account sexual harassment faced by women seeking employment, since this was prior to the establishment of an employer-employee relationship.
Jannath & Another v State of Kerala - A PIL was moved before the HC seeking to formulate a special law to protect women in the film industry.

DELHI HIGH COURT

Vishav Bandhu Gupta v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5946 - Dismissal from service would be a commensurate punishment for an employee castigating their employer through false and scandalous allegations.
Punjab National Bank v. Niraj Gupta & Anr., 2024:DHC:7214-DB - A criminal conviction of an employee is necessary for the forfeiture of gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.
Ex Chaa Mohammed Zulkarnain, 550032-Z v. Union Of India & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 12837 of 2024 - If an employee fails to withdraw his voluntary unwillingness to service, then they can be legally discharged from military service.
Dr Ankit Sharma & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors., 2024:DHC:6942-DB - A service bond is not a contract of employment, and the ESIC was within its power to change its period of tenure.
Sunil Kalgounda Patil & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. W.P.(C) 7444 of 2024 - Revised promotion ratios cannot be applied retroactively but only prospectively as reversal of benefits received by already promoted officers would cause administrative disruptions

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.

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Minakshi Chaudhary v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr., S.B. Civil WP No. 15769 of 2016 - All female employees are entitled to the benefit of 180 days of maternity leave under the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Rinki Kumari v. State Of U.P. & Ors., 2024:AHC-LKO:64080-DB - Compassionate employment can be given to the brother of a deceased government employee, instead of his estranged wife.
Smt. Poonam Shukla & Others v. State of U.P. & Others, Writ - A No. 32670 of 2007 - Part-time teachers who possess requisite qualifications cannot be denied benefits of services because of procedural lapses on part of the Municipal Corporation in following in appointment of such-teachers.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Guddappa Ningappa Kolaji v. The Management Of Grasim Industries, 2024:KHC-D:10369 - The HC dismissed a petition to change the date of birth in service records where the opportunity to change the same was not availed by the employee in the first instance.
Shanthalakshmi v. State of Karnataka & Ors., WP No. 40204 of 2012 - Employees who have been working as daily wage workers for over 10 years without a sanctioned post are entitled to regularisation of service.
Uppinangady Co-operative Agricultural Society Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 SCC OnLine Kar 70 - S. 128-A of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act was declared unconstitutional by being violative of Art. 43-B as it empowered the Registrar to completely take away the right of a co-operative society to recruit, transfer or hold disciplinary enquiry against its employees.
Dr, Suvetha P. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., WP No. 19783 of 2024 - The Court stayed a notification requiring students who have completed their PG Medical courses before August 2023, to register for rendering compulsory rural service.

JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

Shipra Tewary v. M/s Coal India Limited, WP (C) No. 1320 of 2023 - Considering a female for employment only in the absence of any male nominee amounts to gender discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

Md. Abu Raihan v. State of West Bengal & Ors., WPA 20165 of 2024 - Child care benefits must be extended to both male and female employees and family responsibilities must be shared by both the mother and the father.
Subal Makhal v. Indian Red Cross Society & Ors., WPCT 225 of 2023 - Findings in criminal trials should have bearing on disciplinary proceedings, especially when the charges are identical or closely related.
Rajib Brahma and Ors. v. State of West Bengal & Ors., MAT 638 of 2021 - The HC directed the West Bengal School Service Commission to complete the appointment process of more than 14,000 candidates as Assistant Teachers in Government aided or sponsored schools, in order to ensure educational development in the State

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Krushna Chandra Mahapatra v. State of Odisha & Ors., WPC (OAC) No.1490 of 2014 - Irregular appointment may be regularised if the employee has worked for more than ten years without the protection of a court order

GAUHATI HIGH COURT

Union of India v. General Secretary, Rail Mazdoor Union, WP(C) No. 8 of 2015 - The seniority of casual labourers who are later absorbed in permanent cadre must be reckoned from the date of regular appointment and not from the date of screening or temporary status.
Rangan Kr. Nath v. Union of India & Ors., WP(C) No. 196 of 2016 - An employee is not entitled to pensionary benefits if they submit a voluntary resignation, which results in the forfeiture of their past service.

August 2024 International Cases

Mr S Thomas v. Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust

[2024] EAT 141 (UK)

Court: Employment Appellate Tribunal, UK

Facts: The claimant was employed with the respondent and was dismissed as he had failed to declare an unspent conviction for being affiliated with an English nationalist and anti-Islamic party. The claimant therefore brought a claim for discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, contending that his belief in English nationalism should be protected because he had invested time, money and his personal image and name in promoting the ideology.

Judgment: The Employment Appellate Tribunal held that though nationalism could be protected under British law under the Equality Act, 2010, this protection had limits. Particularly, the belief must be ‘worthy of respect in a democratic society’ and must not infringe upon the fundamental rights of others. The Tribunal found that the claimant’s anti-Islamic beliefs violated these principles and could not be protected under the guise of a philosophical belief. Further, the Employment Appeal Tribunal referred to Article 17 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which prohibits the abuse of human rights protections to undermine the rights of others. Thus, the claimant could not claim this protection and his dismissal was justified.

Turner-Robson and Ors. v. Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police

3314825/2022 (UK)

Court: Employment Tribunal, UK

Facts: When a job vacancy arose for a detective inspector role, it was filled by a minority ethnic officer before it was advertised to other potential candidates. The minority ethnic officer was part of the respondent's "Positive Action Progression Scheme” – a program that aimed to fast-track officers from ethnic minority backgrounds. The claimants brought claims of direct discrimination on the grounds of their race.

Judgment: The Employment Tribunal upheld the claims, finding that the respondent had failed to carry out a balancing exercise to determine whether positive action was proportionate. It held that the ethnic minority candidate was automatically given the role without any real thought or consideration to other candidates, which went beyond positive action and became positive discrimination and disadvantaged other candidates. Thus, it held that the appointment was illegal.

Peter Ridings v. Fedex Express Australia Pty Ltd T/A Fedex

C2024/1129 (Australia)

Court: Fair Work Commission (FWC), Australia

Facts: The applicant was an employee of the respondent and made a series of flexible working arrangement requests between 2019 and 2024, to enable him to better care for the medical needs of his wife, who had autism and signs of Ehlers Danlos Syndrome, and two children, who had an intellectual disability and Level 3 autism. The applicant was allowed to work from home all four of his working days each week during the pandemic, but was forced later to return to the office at least three days a week. The applicant challenged this before the Commission.

Judgment: The FWC ordered the employee to work in the office one day per week and allowed the employer to also direct him to work in the office in specific circumstances. The FWC criticised FedEx for failing to sufficiently articulate its reasonable business grounds in rejecting the employee's request. Though it noted that employees are not entitled to a flexible working arrangement without an approved request, courts such as the FWC could make orders directing for flexible working arrangements, which is the first time such an order was passed by the FWC. The case highlights a trend towards further judicial interference in time-working arrangements to be more employee-centric.