March 2024 S.C. Judgements
SATYANAND SINGH V. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
2024 INSC 236
Facts: The appellant was enrolled in the Indian Army as a havaldar and continued discharging his duties until he was removed from service after he was found medically unfit for further service after being found positive for HIV.
​​
Judgment: The Supreme Court found that the respondents had wrongly dismissed the appellant as he was assumed to be suffering from AIDS simply because of being HIV positive and no medical report was made for the same. Further, they had wrongly not provided disability pension to the appellant as they claimed that HIV was a self-inflicted condition. The Court thus observed that there existed a pervasive discriminatory sentiment against people with HIV to be unfit for employment, which subjects individuals to discrimination and social stigma. Thus, the Court found that the Army’s dismissal and treatment of the appellant to be unlawful. On account of the long years of mental agony and suffering caused to the appellant, the Court directed for a compensation of Rs. 50 lakh to be paid to the appellant.
MAHANADI COALFIELDS LTD. V. BRAJRAJNAGAR COAL MINES WORKERS’ UNION
2024 INSC 199
Facts: The respondents were a workers’ union submitting representations on behalf of workers who were not regularized and were treated as contractual workers despite the perennial nature of their work. The petitioners and the respondents came to a settlement to regularize 19 out of the 32 workers employed as it was contended that the other persons were not eligible for regularization due to the casual nature of their jobs. The union representing the claims of the remaining 13 workmen filed a suit against this in the Labour Tribunal, which held in favor of the workmen. The petitioners contended before the validity of this order in the Supreme Court.
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that even in cases where a settlement regarding regularization has been reached between a union and their employers, a Labour Tribunal still has the authority to examine the claim of all the workmen and give independent findings contrary to the settlement. Further, the Court noted that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate the difference between the two sets of employees, and thus held that the remaining workers stand on the same footing as the regularized employees and are entitled to regularization. The Supreme Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and granted backwages to the workmen for the period of their employment.
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LAW & JUSTICE V. JUSTICE (RETD.) RAJ RAHUL GARG (RAJ RANI JAIN) AND OTHERS
2024 INSC 219
Facts: The respondent was employed as a Judicial Magistrate in Haryana and was later appointed as a District Judge. After being recommended to the High Court, she retired as a District Judge and 2 months later, joined the service as a High Court Judge. After her superannuation, she was aggrieved by the calculation of her pensionary benefits as she contended the entire period of her employment as a District Judge and a High Court judge should be considered for pensionary benefits. The State instead contended that the 2 months gap between her postings should be considered a gap in service..
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that pensionary payments to judges constitute a vital element in the independence of the judiciary. As a consequence of long years of judicial office, the pensionary benefits granted to the judges service have an element of public interest. Therefore, the Court held that the entire period of service of the respondent must be considered for the period of pensionary and other retirement benefits. Further, the gap in service was attributable to the time taken in processing the recommendation and not to anything the respondent had done, and thus could not be used to prejudice her. The Court held that the respondent was entitled to the entire period of her service to compute her pension and that her pensionary benefits shall be computed on the basis of her last drawn salary as Judge of the High Court.
M/S. CREATIVE GARMENTS LTD. V. KASHIRAM VERMA
CIVIL APPEAL NO 5758 OF 2012
Facts: The Supreme Court was addressing an order passed by the Labour Court and noted that the respondent had filed the case through a union. Thus, the respondent had furnished the address of the union and not his own address. Thus, the order of notice was given to the Union and not the respondent, and subsequently on his failure to appear before the Court it was assumed that the respondent was not interested in continuing the proceedings.
​
Judgment: The Supreme Court noted that when workers file cases through unions without mentioning their own permanent addresses, and the Union is uninterested in pursuing the matter, the affected worker can go unrepresented. In this backdrop, the Supreme Court issued the following directions - In all pending and future cases, the parties shall be required to furnish their own permanent address. Even if the representative of the workman is appearing, he shall furnish a permanent address of the workman as well. Even in proceedings after the first stage, it shall be mandatory to provide a permanent address of the party. Merely mentioning that the case was filed through a Labour Union or authorized representatives, who are sometimes union leaders or legal practitioners, will not be sufficient. Service of notice of the workman will have to be effected on the permanent address of the workman.
M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD. V. M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION & ANR.
2024 INSC 1761
Facts: The appellant was an employer that had transferred 66 employees from its Karnataka factory to Maharashtra on account of reduction in orders and lack of sufficient work, and passed an order under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 for the same. The transferred employees resisted this order and raised an industrial dispute.
​
Judgment: The Supreme Court upheld the transfer of workmen observing that the terms of appointment of their employment permitted such transfer. It observed that when the terms of appointment and confirmation would permit the transfer of an employee to any department or any other office belonging to the company, then such transfer would be governed by the contract of service and be permissible.
THE TELANGANA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RECRUITMENT BOARD V. SALUVADI SUMALATHA & ANR.
2024 INSC 1761
Facts: The appellants were a recruitment agency who issued a notification for the recruitment to the post of junior lecturers in the Residential Educational Institutions Societies. The notification allowed for a zonal preference and mandated for reservation in a ratio of 70:30 for the reserved categories. The respondents contended before the High Court in a writ petition that there was no basis for fixing the reservation at 70:30, and accordingly, the High Court allowed for the change in the ratio to 60:40. The petitioners challenged this change before the Supreme Court.
​
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in changing the recruitment rules. It emphasized that Courts have to be cautious before amending recruitment rules set by the government as a lot of thought went into applying the rules and regulations. It noted that merely because a recruitment agency cannot satisfy the Court as to the basis for a recruitment policy, does not mean that the Court can set it aside as that will have a cascading effect on all of those recruited. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned High Court judgment and restored the original recruitment rules.
THE STATE OF HARYANA V. ASHOK KHEMKA & ANR.
2024 INSC 190
Facts: The respondent was an IAS officer holding the rank of Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana. He was appraised by the Reporting Authority, i.e the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana as part of his annual appraisal report. His grade was then upgraded by the Reviewing Authority, i.e. the Health Minister of Haryana, however this was rejected by the Accepting Authority, i.e. the Chief Minister of Haryana, who downgraded his grade again. The respondent was aggrieved by this decision and filed a representation before the High Court seeking restoration of the original marks granted by the Reviewing Authority, which was granted by the HC.
​
Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the HC had erred in entering into a specialized domain which was evaluating the competency of an IAS officer by way of contrasting the comparing the marks awarded by the different authorities. It noted that the overall grading and assessment of an IAS officer requires an in-depth understanding of various facets of the administrative functioning, and therefore ought to have been left up to the executive without judicial interference. The Supreme Court set aside the HC judgment and directed the Accepting Authority to take a final decision within 60 days.
March 2024 H.C. Judgements
MADRAS HIGH COURT
​​1. High Court H.Johnson Devakumar v. The Deputy Inspector General of Police W.P.No.5229 of 2020 - Any order which enhances a punishment to include removal from service is deemed illegal.
​
2. M.Suresh Viswanath v. The State - The cases of judicial offers are considered by a Committee of Judges of the High Court, and thus there is no chance of non-application of mind or mala fides, and therefore no fault can be found of a High Court’s order to compulsorily retire a officer in the public interest.
​
3. Sathiskumar v. The Commissioner of Milk Production and Dairy Development Department W.A.(MD)No.294 of 2024 - When the conduct of a selection process suffers from legal infirmity from the very root of the matter, the exercise of probing into the genuineness of individual candidates need not be undertaken.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
​​1. M/s. Premsons Trading (P) Ltd. v. Shri. Dinesh Chandeshwar Rai C/O. Maharashtra Employees Union 2024 BHC 13463 - To prove voluntary abandonment, the employer must issue a notice to the workmen directing him to resume duties and in absence of such notice, voluntary abandonment of employment cannot be accepted.
2. Bhushan Industries Vs Lohasingh Ramavadh Yadav 2024 BHC 4745 - Occasional work with an employer would not constitute gainful employment even if wages were earned thereby.
3. Shri Indrakumar Jain v. M/s. Dainik Bhaskar and Ors. 2024:BHC-AS:10347-DB - A working journalists’ status is distinct from regular workmen and cannot file complaints of unfair labor practices under the MRTU & PULP Act.
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1.Rajaram Prasad v. The State Of W.B. And Ors. WPO/115/2024 - Long period of silence on the part of petitioner claiming compassionate employment and in filing the writ petition would vitiate the compassionate employment.
​
2. Md. Farid v. Union of India & Ors. WP.CT 154 of 2023 - Gratuity cannot be withheld from the point of superannuation until the date of acquittal if in case the employee is undergoing a criminal trial at the time of retirement.
​
3. Pinaki Dhar v. State of West Bengal & Ors. FMA 763 of 2022 - A High Court may issue prerogative writ against private unaided institute or private body only when it is discharging public functions and duties akin to the sovereign functions, but a writ petition for enforcement of private contract of service is not maintainable.
​
4. Sri Mangal Singh v. Calcutta State Transport Corporation & Ors. MAT No. 360 of 2018 - If the employee was recruited without following due process, then he cannot claim a right of absorption
ORISSA HIGH COURT
1. Ratnakar Giri v. State of Odisha & Ors. FAO No.430 of 2019 - If the employment was based on a fraudulent certificate, it would vitiate the whole employment and no arrears of payment could be claimed.
2. Surekha Samal & Ors. v. State of Orissa & others W.P.(C) No. 18706 of 2015 - Once fraudulent documents were proved to be used for recruitment, they cannot have any force of law notwithstanding the fact that the documents have not been canceled by the concerned authorities.
HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
1. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.) v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. CWP No.7645 of 2022 - A retired judge is entitled to reimbursement by the State for medical and related travel expenses.
KERALA HIGH COURT
1. Vimalakumari M K v. State of Kerala OP(KAT) NO. 77 OF 2024 - Pension can be deprived only in accordance with the procedure established by law or when it is shown that the employment itself has been obtained by playing fraud.
DELHI HIGH COURT
1. Dr. Huma Baqa & Ors v. University Of Delhi & Ors 2024:DHC:2081 - Even if employees are serving as ad hoc professors in a university, the fact by itself does not create a right of regularization.
​
2. Jasvinder Kaur & Anr v. Union of India & Ors. 2024:DHC:2083 - The Court can only enter public policy decisions if the policy is absolutely arbitrary, and not when merely the State has prescribed age limits in its recruitment rules.
3. Om Prakash & Ors. v. Guru Nanak Institute of Technology and Management & Ors. 2024:DHC:2145 - A writ petition is not maintainable in the cases of contractual employment in an educational institution because no public interest is involved.
​
4. Rishabh Duggal vs Registrar General Delhi High Court W.P.(e.) No.2342/2024 - In case an answer key is amended afterwards and the examinees are revaluated, the recruitment of who had qualified in the pre-existing examination would not be disturbed.
​
5. Govt. Nct Of Delhi Through State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission And Ors v. Rehmat Fatima, 2024:DHC:2001-DB - Women working on a contractual basis are entitled to the benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act even if these benefits exceed the duration of their contractual engagement.
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
1. Sanjeev Singh v. Rohit Hurria and others 2024:PHHC:032266-DB - A person who has been able to obtain employment by a back door method has no protection of his appointment even if he has worked there for several years.
2. Shakuntla Devi v. State of Punjab and others 2024:PHHC:021003 - A retired employee can only lead a dignified life if he is allowed retiral benefits on time.
3, Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2024:PHHC:042304 - Employees vulnerable to temptation or corruption should not be given government jobs and any sympathy with such employees would erode democracy’s success.
J&K HIGH COURT
1. Ghar Singh v. University Of Jammu SWP No.1611/2016 - Daily-wage labour for seven years cannot be classified as "casual labor" to deny regularization.
2. University of Kashmir v. Saif-Ud-Din Mir LPA No. 46/2024 - An employee cannot be denied promotion benefits solely because they did not approach the court while in active service.
3. Tasleem Arif v. UT of J&K WP(C) No.1324/2022 - If employment is made through backdoor appointment, then the employee cannot ask for regularization.
​
4. Director, Rural Development, Kashmir, Srinagar v. Abdul Qayoom OWP no.66/2007 - When a worker's dismissal is deemed totally unjustified, the Labour Tribunal may by its award set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman.
March 2024 International Cases
OMOOBA V. (1) MICHAEL GARRETT ASSOCIATES LTD (TA GLOBAL ARTISTS) (2) LEICESTER THEATRE LTD.
[2024] EAT 30
Employment Appellate Tribunal (UK)
​
Facts: The claimant was an actor who was cast to play an iconic lesbian role in a play. However, when her casting was announced, a social media agitation developed relating to a past Facebook post in which the claimant had expressed her belief that homosexuality was a sin. The consequences of the agitation led to the termination of the claimant’s contract with the theater and her agency. Arising out of these events, she brought claims that she was discriminated against based on her religion and beliefs.
​
Judgment: The EAT held that the claimant's right to religion in this case was not one of the rights guaranteed to be protected under the ECHR rights and does not amount to a ‘violation of dignity’. Moreover, since the claimant herself knew that she would not play the character due to her beliefs, she could not claim any compensation either. Thus, the EAT dismissed the appeal.
MURRAY V. UBS SECURITIES, LLC, ET AL.
601 US 22-660 (2024) (USA)
Supreme Court of the USA
​
Facts: The petitioner was a former research strategist of the respondent, who alleged that his termination was retaliation for reporting unethical and illegal conduct by the respondents. Thus, he contended he was dismissed for whistleblowing.
​
Judgment: The Supreme Court of the USA laid down the following guidelines for whistleblower protections :- Need for Retaliatory Intent Proof: The Court held that whistleblowers are not required to prove that their employer acted with retaliatory intent. Contributing factor: Whistleblowers must demonstrate that their whistleblowing was only a contributing factor to the unfavorable action against them. Protection without proof of intention - The Court held that an employer’s malintention or animosity need not be proven towards the whistleblower.
DECISION OF THE FEDERAL LABOUR COURT
(2 AZR 55/23) (GERMANY)
Germany​
​
Facts: An employee was required to show proof of vaccination against Covid-19 to his employer, in response to which he falsely claimed a medical examination had found that he could not be vaccinated against the disease.
​
Judgment: The Court found the employee’s action to be a material breach of his implied obligations under his contract of employment such that a dismissal was justified. Thus, it held that violating the vaccination policy of an organization can be grounds for lawful dismissal.