top of page

January 2025 S.C. Judgements

Union Of India v. Phani Bhusan Kundu & Ors.  Civil Appeal No. 22850 of 2024

 2024 INSC 824

Facts: The respondent was a state government employee who had worked on deputation in a central government department. After retirement, he claimed pensionary benefits under the Central Civil Services (CCS) Pension Rules, arguing that his deputation service should be considered as central government service for pension purposes. The state government contended that since he was originally employed by the state, his pension entitlement should be governed by state rules rather than CCS Rules.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a state government employee who served on deputation in a central government department is not entitled to pension under the CCS Pension Rules. The Court emphasized that deputation does not alter the fundamental employer-employee relationship, and pensionary benefits must be determined based on the original service conditions. The claim for pension under CCS Rules was accordingly rejected.

Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon'ble High Court Of Jharkhand & 

Ors., 2025 INSC 72


Facts: The case involved judicial officers in the Jharkhand judiciary seeking promotion as District Judges under the merit-cum-seniority quota. Their candidatures were overlooked because they did not secure a place in the merit list, as those with higher marks were promoted first. The petitioners contended that the merit-cum-seniority principle requires that eligible candidates should not be denied promotion solely based on ranking in the merit list if they meet suitability criteria.

​

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that promotions under the merit-cum-seniority quota cannot be denied to suitable candidates merely because they do not appear at the top of the merit list. The Court emphasized that the principle of merit-cum-seniority requires a holistic assessment of candidates' eligibility, and strict adherence to the merit list should not override consideration of suitability. The Court directed reconsideration of the affected candidates for promotion.

Dr. Sharmad v. State Of Kerala And Others

 2025 INSC 70

Facts: The case revolved around the interpretation of experience requirements for employment eligibility. The employer rejected a candidate’s application on the grounds that the required work experience must be post-qualification, whereas the candidate argued that their pre-qualification experience should also be considered.

​

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that while employers generally insist on experience gained after obtaining the requisite qualification, exceptions may exist depending on the nature of the job, the wording of the eligibility criteria, and the candidate’s demonstrated competence. The Court emphasized that rigid interpretation should not lead to an unjust exclusion of otherwise competent individuals and directed reconsideration of the petitioner’s case.
 

Geetha V M & Ors v. Rethnasenan K. & Ors.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3994-3997 Of 2024

Facts: The petitioner, a government employee, was transferred upon their own request. Later, they sought benefits and protections applicable to transfers made in public interest or due to administrative exigencies. The government denied these benefits, arguing that a voluntary transfer does not qualify for the same treatment.

​

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled that a transfer made at an employee’s request cannot be equated with a transfer made in public interest or due to administrative exigencies. The Court emphasized that employees seeking voluntary transfers cannot claim the same benefits and protections applicable to compulsory transfers. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.
 

State of West Bengal v. Dr. Sanat Kumar Ghosh & Ors., Special Leave Petition 

(Civil) No. 17403 of 2023

Facts: The dispute arose over the appointment of Vice-Chancellors in various universities in West Bengal. The state government challenged the Governor's authority to appoint Vice-Chancellors without consultation, arguing that such appointments should align with the University Grants Commission (UGC) norms and state laws. The Governor, on the other hand, contended that his role as Chancellor of state universities empowered him to make such decisions.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court was informed that the Attorney General had confirmed the Governor's approval of 17 Vice-Chancellor appointments. The Court urged both the state and the Governor’s office to work in coordination to avoid administrative deadlock. While the Court did not pass a final ruling on the broader constitutional question of the Governor’s authority, it emphasized the importance of cooperative federalism in university governance.

All India Judges Association v. Union Of India

 W.P.(C) No. 643 of 2015

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.

Fozia Rahman v. Bar Council Of Delhi And Anr.

 SLP(C) No. 24485 of 2024

Facts: A dispute arose regarding the tenure limit for the post of Treasurer, which is reserved for women lawyers in Delhi District Bar Associations. A rule was interpreted to impose a 10-year cap on holding the position, leading to a challenge by affected members. The petitioners argued that such a restriction was arbitrary and contrary to the principles of equal opportunity within bar associations.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court clarified that there is no statutory or regulatory cap of 10 years for the Treasurer post reserved for women lawyers. The Court held that any such restriction must be explicitly provided for in the governing rules and cannot be imposed arbitrarily. It directed the Bar Council of Delhi to ensure that elections and office tenures align with established legal provisions, reinforcing fair representation for women in bar associations.

Dr. Balram Singh v. Union Of India And Ors.

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

Facts: A petition was filed seeking the enforcement of existing laws prohibiting manual scavenging and the hazardous practice of manual sewer cleaning. The petitioners argued that despite legal prohibitions, manual scavenging persisted due to lack of enforcement, particularly in major metropolitan cities. They highlighted frequent deaths of sanitation workers due to exposure to toxic gases while manually cleaning sewers.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court imposed an absolute ban on manual scavenging and manual sewer cleaning in six metropolitan cities—Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bengaluru, and Hyderabad. It directed the authorities to ensure full compliance with mechanized cleaning methods and strict enforcement of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. The Court further ordered state governments and municipal bodies to take immediate steps to provide protective gear, compensation for affected workers, and stringent action against violations.

Ajay Mallik v. State of Uttarakhand

SLP (Crl) No. 8777 of 2022

Facts: A petition was filed before the Supreme Court seeking legal protection and welfare measures for domestic workers across India. The petitioners argued that domestic workers, who form a significant part of the informal labor sector, face widespread exploitation, lack of social security, and absence of legislative safeguards. They argued that India has no comprehensive national law governing their wages, working conditions, or protection from abuse and unfair termination.

​

Judgment: The Supreme Court acknowledged the lack of a dedicated legal framework for domestic workers and directed the Union government to consider enacting a comprehensive law to protect their rights. It observed the need for formal recognition, social security benefits, fair wages, and mechanisms to address grievances. The Court asked the government to submit a response outlining any policy measures or legislative steps under consideration.
 

Rakesh Kumar Charmakar & Ors. v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors

 2025 INSC 136

Facts: The petitioners, who were appointed as part-time sweepers in government institutions on regular sanctioned posts, approached the Supreme Court seeking regular pay and benefits. They contended that despite working for years in sanctioned positions, they were denied the benefits of full-time employment, including regular salaries and service conditions.

​

Judgment: The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the petitioners, holding that individuals appointed on regular sanctioned posts cannot be denied regular pay and benefits merely because their initial appointment was on a part-time basis. The Court emphasized that denying such employees regular wages violated the principles of equal pay for equal work. It directed the concerned authorities to ensure that the petitioners receive regular salaries and all corresponding service benefits.

 January 2025 H.C. Judgements

MADRAS HIGH COURT

  1. M. Nagappan v. The Management, C.R.P. No. 5230 of 2024 - A civil court can pass an injunctive relief in industrial disputes.

  2. C Kannaiyan and Others v. Deputy Commissioner of Labour – I, W.P. No.2339 of 2010 - The Madras High Court offered compensation to the family of a man who died while doing manual scavenging

KERALA HIGH COURT

  1. Union of India and Others v. S. Sathikumari Amma, OP (CAT) 191 of 2017 - An employee cannot make a representation that his legally wedded wife or other dependents are not entitled to claim the family pension.

  2. P N Saji v. Kerala Public Service Commission, OP(KAT) No. 439 of 2020 - Undue leniency towards a government employee in disciplinary proceedings could undermine the essential discipline required in public service.

  3. Balakrishna Pillai N. & Others v. Union of India & Others, WP(C) No. 2311 of 2025 - Kerala HC restrains the Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) from reducing higher pension of petitioners who contributed based on their actual salary.

  4. Sakkir Husain v. Binu Madhu, MFA (ECC) No. 18 of 2024 - The High Court can interfere with the order of the Compensation Commissioner when there is a lack of evidence to prove the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

  5. Kabeer C. v. State Of Kerala, WP(C) No. 29247 of 2019 - The Kerala High Court directed the State Government to provide reservations to transgender persons within six months in educational institutions and for public employment.

  6. S. Safeer v. Cochin Port Trust, 2024:KER:96619 - Regularisation requires strict adherence to judicial guidelines, and longetivity of service alone cannot be the sole reason for claiming regularization.

DELHI HIGH COURT

  1. Sandeep Gupta v. Union of India & Ors., 2025:DHC:488-DB - An employer cannot indefinitely withhold voluntary retirement without valid grounds.

  2. Seema Jamwal v. Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) No. 9319 of 2022 - A deceased employee entitled to extraordinary pension and ex-gratia compensation if death was attributable to government service conditions, such as exposure to hostile work environments or extreme weather conditions.

J&K HIGH COURT

  1. Mohammad Yousuf Mir & Ors. v. UT of J&K & Ors., WP(C) No.642 of 2022 - Workers paid based on daily output cannot claim parity with regular government employees for pension benefits.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

  1. Saurabh Saxena v. Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Skill Development Entreneurship, 2025:AHC-LKO:2355-DB - The question of equivalence of qualification for eligibility and employment is to be decided by the employer and the same cannot be interpreted by the Courts.

  2. Prof. Syed Shafeeque Ahmad Ashrafi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Higher Education, 2025:AHC-LKO:2879 - A Goverment Order cannot deny gratuity to teachers who opted to continue beyond their age of retirement under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972.

  3. Vijay Kumar Yadav vs. State Of U.P., 2024:AHC:192710 -  Power of transfer exercised as substitute for infliction of a lawful punishment is malice in law.

  4. Pramod Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors., 2024:AHC:194544 - Unless there are compelling reasons or serious charges, an employee should not be retired with disciplinary proceedings pending against him.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  1. Shripati Mariyappa Doddalingannavar v. The Chief Personnel Manager & Anr.,  Writ Petition No.105244 Of 2024 - Administrative exigency can be a reason for a Corporation to exercise its right of transfer of an employee from one place to another, but it cannot be done in violation of the statute or operative guidelines of service.

PATNA HIGH COURT

  1. Kamlesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1161 of 2024 - The recovery of excess amount paid by mistake is not permissible in cases where the recovery is made in case of employees belonging to Class-III and Class-IV service and also in cases where the Recovery is sought for the excess amount received by Employees for a period more than five years before the order of recovery is issued.

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

  1. Ram Dayal Yadav v. State of M.P. And Others, Writ Petition No.17607 of 2022 - Experience gained by discharging duties for a long period of time is sufficient to hold that an employee has the requisite qualifications.

  2. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others v. Smt. Hemlata Tala, 2025:MPHC-IND:485 - Termination of an employee based on a singular clerical mistake in entire service career was deemed as being 'excessive'.

  3. Vikram Singh v. Union of India and Others, Writ Petition No. 935 of 2025 - Violation of service rules would not come within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions, and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Art. 226.

 January 2025 International Cases

State of Tennessee et al. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission et al., 

case number 3:24-cv-00224 (USA)

Court: US District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee

 

Facts: A lawsuit was filed by a coalition of Republican state attorneys general to pause the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) guidance on workplace harassment, which required employers to accede to workers’ preferred gender identities in pronoun use, bathroom access, and dress codes. This guidance rests on the US Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, which held that the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. 

 

Judgment: The Court rejected the motion for such a preliminary injunction, citing that US President Donald Trump’s had already rescinded the guidance as part of its policy to roll back LGBTQ protections. The Court emphasized that the legal landscape had changed, necessitating a new filing for the same, and allowed the states to refile their motion within 21 days.

Amazon.com Services LLC v. Anthony Mundroff

Case 12-CA-308502 (USA)

 

Court: National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

​

Facts: Amazon Inc. utilized an internal communication platform for its workers called “MyVoice”, but whose rules included provisions that prevented employees from sharing personal details or passing information to unions.

 

Judgment: The Court ruled that such restrictions on workers’ communications were unlawful, overly broad and ambiguous. The Court noted that prohibiting employees from sharing their own medical information could stifle discussions about workplace safety, which counted as protected speech. As part of the ruling, Amazon must rescind the unlawful MyVoice rules and post notices nationwide informing employees of their rights. The decision reinforces workers’ rights to engage in protected workplace advocacy without fear of retaliation, setting a significant precedent for labour relations in the tech and e-commerce industry. 
 

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

bottom of page