August 2024 | Cllra

July 2024 S.C. Judgements

Rajasthan Agricultural University, Bikaner, Through its Registrar v. Dr. Zafar Singh Solanki & Ors.

2024 INSC 581

Facts: The respondents were employed as lecturers with the petitioner on an ad-hoc basis before being appointed as Assistant Professors. The university made a decision to allow the benefit of the Career Advancement Scheme (‘CAS’) to only those Assistant Professors directly selected after regular selection. The CAS gave a higher pay-scale to those persons who had completed eight years of service after a regular appointment. The respondents prayed that they be considered also for the purpose of CAS benefits.

Judgment: The SC held that services rendered in an ad-hoc appointment as Lecturer before being appointed as Assistant Professor on a regular basis cannot be counted for determining the eligibility for the grant of the senior pay scale under the CAS. It held that such an exercise should be left to the government’s directives unless patently perverse or arbitrary in law

Peoples Rights And Social Research Centre (PRASAR) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

WP (Civil) No. 110 of 2006

Facts: The petition was filed by an NGO to address the rampant spread of the incurable lung disease called “Silicosis” that was caused by prolonged inhalation of silica dust in industries such as mining, construction, stone cutting, and sandblasting. The petitioners contended that such a widespread prevalence of the disease was violative of their right to health under Article 21, and that the State had the mandate to protect workers’ health and security under Articles 39(e) and 42 of the Constitution.

Judgment: The Supreme Court directed the National Green Tribunal to monitor and ensure compliance with minimal standards in industries prone to silicosis disease and to take necessary steps to prevent the spread of the disease. It also directed the NHRC to oversee the compensation process of persons suffering from such disease across various states. The Supreme Court also directed its Registry to forward all relevant reports of State Committees, CPCB, NHRC, and DGMS to the NGT and NHRC and allowed the petitioners to approach these bodies to assist in implementing the Court's directions.

Meenakshi v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Diary No. 39746 Of 2018

Facts: The High Court of Karnataka held that components of house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan, and contribution to provident fund to the basic salary of the deceased should not be included while applying the principle of rise in income by future prospects while computing the compensation to be paid to the dependants of victims of motor accidents. This was appealed before the Supreme Court.

Judgment: Setting aside the High Court order, the Supreme Court observed that the emoluments and benefits such as house rent allowance, flexible benefit plan, contribution to provident fund, etc. accrued to the deceased ought to be included while computing the loss of dependency to determine the compensation. The Court held that the HC had not considered that allowances to a salaried employee do not remain static and are given several benefits outside of the basic salary.

All India Judges Association v. UoI & Ors.

WP(C) No. 643 of 2015

Facts: The petition was filed by the All India Judges Association Case relating to the implementation of the Second National Judicial Pay Commission.

Judgment: The Apex Court flagged concerns relating to the issue of meagre retirement pensions being given to the District Judges. The CJI stressed that judges are elevated to the High Court at the age 56-58 years from lower judiciary and retire with a meagre pension making it difficult for them to live a comfortable post-retirement life. The Court added that the majority of life of such judges is spent in the district courts and as guardians of the judicial system, the Supreme Court had to address such issues.

Union Of India & Ors. v. Lokesh Kumar Arya

SLP (C) No. 21758 of 2023

Facts: In a decision of the Delhi High Court, it was held that paramilitary forces and Central Armed Police Forces personnel are Armed Forces of the Union and the Old Pension Scheme (‘OPS’) is applicable to them. The personnel had contended that despite various court decisions stating that the paramilitary forces are armed forces of the Union, they were not granted the benefit of the OPS.

Judgment: The Supreme Court allowed the Union to appeal against the High Court decision and confirmed an interim stay that was imposed on the HC order, and with an observation that the matter was not urgent, re-listed the matter for hearing.

Maitreyee Chakraborty v. The Tripura University & Ors.

SLP (C) No. 16944 of 2022

Facts: The respondent university advertised 3 posts for the post of Assistant Professor in law. There were two lien vacancies, one in the open category and one in the OBC category. The appellant was selected in the open category and the appointment order issues to her mentioned that in case the lien was vacated, her service may be continued further in the university. The lien was then vacated but the respondent still did not appoint her to the post.

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that a statutory body such as a University cannot act unfairly and arbitrarily in matters of regularization. The decision to regularize cannot be based "on the whims of the decision-making authority", rather, it should have good reasons to justify the exercise of its power. The Court noted that the performance of the appellant had been satisfactory and that the appointment order had already given her legitimate expectations that she would be regularized in case the lien was vacated. Thus, a statutory body must explain such denial of legitimate expectations. Accordingly, the Court directed the respondent to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the judgment.

Rajkaran Singh & Ors. v. Union Of India & Ors.

C.A. No. 009721 of 2024

Facts: The appellants were appointed to manage a special deposits fund of the Special Frontier Force in various positions, and received various special allowances along with their salary as per the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions (‘CPC’). In 2006, the Union of India implemented the 6th CPC whose benefits were not extended to the appellants but instead, only an ad-hoc amount of 3000/- per month was given to each of them.

Judgment: The Supreme Court observed that the employees who were performing the duties indistinguishable from the regular government employees cannot be deprived of the benefits accorded to the government employees. The Court said that once it is established that the employee, who was not primarily appointed on a regular basis, performs the role and responsibilities of a regular employee for a long time and receives the same benefit as that of a regular employee, then such an employee no longer remains a temporary employee and should be considered as a regular employee. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the respondents were directed to extend the benefits of the 6th CPC to the appellants.

Indian Council Of Agricultural Research v. Rajinder Singh & Ors.

2024 INSC 622

Facts: A circular issued by the appellant provided for two advance increments to scientists upon acquiring a Ph.D. degree during their service. The respondents were technical personnel employed with the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) and sought similar benefits arguing that their Ph.D. qualifications equally enhanced their contributions to agricultural research.

Judgment: The Supreme Courtheld that merely having the requisite qualifications does not make applications eligible for grant of advance increments when the same has not been recommended for them. It noted that technical personnel were governed by different sets of rules, had their channel of promotion, and had different qualifications prescribed for recruitment. The duties assigned to them were also different as compared to the scientists, who are engaged in core work of agricultural research and education whereas the technical personnel provided support in different areas. Two different sets of employees working alongside but governed by different set of rules and having different duties does not entitle them to such benefits.

Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors

Civil Appeal No. 1635 of 2013

Facts: The appellant was employed with the Bihar Government and after 8 years of retirement, the government had incorrectly calculated his pay fixation, and thus the government sought to recover the difference from him.

Judgment: The SC observed that any step of reduction in the pay scale and recovery from a Government employee would tantamount to a punitive action because the same has drastic "civil as well as evil consequences." The Court stated that such recovery should not put undue hardship on innocent employees and should be guided by principles of natural justice.

Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 9758 of 2024

Facts: The appellant was appointed by the State on a contractual basis for one academic session, renewable for two years subject to satisfactory performance in the first year. However, five days after taking charge, her responsibility was withdrawn for various allegations including dereliction of duty, negligence, and indiscipline. Her contract was not renewed and aggrieved, she filed a writ petition contending that this was harassment as she had complained about her working environment. The State instead contended that the dismissal was not stigmatic and that it was a simple non-renewal of contract.

Judgment: The SC held that termination based on misconduct or inefficiency amounts to punishment and must follow due process. The mere absence of mentioning the background situation in a termination order does not make it non-stigmatic and the court can look into the context to determine the true nature of the termination order. Looking into the merits, the Court observed that the dismissal had not followed proper protocol and thus directed the appellant to be reinstated.

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Brijesh Kumar & Anr.

2024 INSC 638

Facts: The respondent was the son of a deceased conductor employed under the appellant. The respondent was also appointed as a conductor on compassionate grounds.After being found guilty of misconduct, the appellant terminated his services. He challenged his termination and claimed that he was a permanent employee and could not be dismissed without a disciplinary inquiry.

Judgment: The Supreme Court first considered whether the respondent was employed under the rules of compassionate employment under the Dying in Harness Rules or was employed independent of it on a contractual basis. It observed that the respondent was extended the benefit of a policy decision taken by the appellant which gave preferential treatment to dependents of deceased employees, and thus was not appointed on a compassionate basis. Thus, the employee was not a permanent employee but a contractual one. Regardless, the Court noted that even if he was employed on a contractual basis, his termination was passed without following the principles of natural justice, and thus set aside the termination order.

Aureliano Fernandes v. State Of Goa And Others

Civil Appeal No. 2482 Of 2014

Facts: In 2023, the Supreme Court had directed the Union Government, State Governments and Union Territories to verify if all the Ministries, Departments, and other government bodies had constituted committees where the victims of sexual harassment can lodge their complaints under the ambit of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (POSH Act). In the present matter, the Court was looking into whether the directions had been complied with.

Judgment: The Union of India stated that the government was in the process of developing a dashboard where all the information relating to various Internal Complaint Committees (ICCs) would be collated and displayed, and the Court directed the Union to file an affidavit furnishing the details of the dashboard. The Supreme Court noted that in many cases, the ICCs were not in accordance with the POSH Act, such as being headed by a male member, and further that many of the affidavits filed by the authorities were generalized and contained less information. The Court also noted that none of the PSUs had filed any affidavits. Thus, the Court directed for all the relevant authorities to file their affidavits in a tabulated form and directed the Ministry of Women and Child Development to ensure that the various PSUs collate the information as directed by the Court.

Mhabemo Ovung & Ors. v. M. Moanungba & Ors.

Civil Appeal Nos. 9927 Of 2024

Facts: The Nagaland government published a seniority list that contained two sets of appointees for the position of junior engineer. There were two sets of appointees in the position of junior engineers wherein one set of appointees was directly recruited and another set was promoted to the position. The seniority list kept the engineers who were directly recruited at higher ranks than the junior engineers who were promoted. Aggrieved, the promoted engineers filed a writ petition before the High Court, which had dismissed their petitions.

Judgment: The Supreme Court observed that employees promoted to a particular cadre cannot claim the benefits given to those directly recruited if the date of direct recruitment was prior to the date of promotion. A promoted employee can only claim seniority from the date from when they joined the cadre through promotion and not from when they were working in the previous role. Thus, the Court upheld the original seniority list.

August 2024 H.C. Judgements

MADRAS HIGH COURT

R Rakkiyappan v. The State of Tamil Nadu, WP No.10045 of 2023 - As per the Tamil Nadu Leave Rules 1933, a period of absence from work for employment abroad should not be treated as a break in service and must be counted for pension and other purposes.

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

Fact United Employees Liberation v. The Fertilisers And Chemicals Travancore Limited, WP (C) No. 1071 of 2024 - When there are multiple registered trade unions, it is essential to determine which union must negotiate with the establishment to represent the interests of workmen and competing claims cannot be allowed.
Sajimon Parayil v. State of Kerala and Ors., WP(C) No. 24697 of 2024 - The HC called for public debate and discussion to alleviate grievances regarding harassment and discrimination raised by women working in the Malayalam film industry.
The Managing Director, Quatro Investments v. Joy Mathew, OP(LC) No. 2019 of 2013 - an employee is entitled to arrears of salary because the employer could not produce enough evidence to prove that employee was engaged in dual employment.
C. K. Sridharan v. The Welfare Fund Inspector & Anr., WP(C) No. 22691 of 2013 - An employee who is merely associated with the conduct of business and not in a position to employ others on his own behalf, cannot be said to be an employer.

DELHI HIGH COURT

Vishav Bandhu Gupta v. Union of India, WP (C) 1522 of 2018 - Dismissal is the only commensurate punishment for an employee continuously castigating his employer with false and scandalous allegations.

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.

J&K HIGH COURT

Bashir Ahmad Sheikh v. Mehran Ibn Bashir & Ors., CRM(M) No.443/2024 - A father is obligated to maintain his children, even if the mother is employed.
Bashir Ahmad Wani v. J&K Forest Development Corporation & Ors., WP(C) No. 2183/2020 - While setting aside an order treating the absence of an employee as unauthorised and directing for its regularization, the competent authority has the option to secure a second medical opinion before concluding on the genuineness of medical leave.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

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.
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.
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

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

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.

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

ORISSA 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

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, as it results in the forfeiture of their past service.

August 2024 International Cases

Ryan LLC v. Fed. Trade Comm'n

No. 3:24-CV-00986 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024) (USA)

Court: Northern District of Texas District Court

Facts: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) of the US introduced a non-compete clause banning most non-compete agreements in employer-employee contracts.

Judgment: The Northern District of Texas ruled that such a FTC is unlawful and directed for a stay on the ban. The Court held that the ban failed on two bases: i) the FTC exceeded its statutory authority in issuing the ban, and ii) the ban was arbitrary and capricious. The Court noted that such an ban imposes a one-size-fits-all approach with no end state, and such a sweeping prohibition prohibits all non-compete agreements instead of targeting specific, harmful non-compete clauses. The Court noted that the ban also failed to consider the positive benefits of non-compete agreements.

Restaurant Law Center v. U.S. Dept. of Labor

No. 23-50562 (5th Cir. Aug. 23, 2024) (USA)

Court: Fifth Circuit of the USA

Facts: The Department of Labor (DOL) of the US initiatedintiated a new tip credit rule that restricted when employers may claim a tip credit for tippedtipper employees. Under the rule, known as the 80/20 rule, an employer can only take a tip credit (which allows an employer to pay less than minimum wage to a tipped employee) if the employee spends at least 80% of their time performing the tipped job (such as waiting tables) and 20% or less of their time performing related non-tipped work, such as setting tables in the restaurant. Two restaurant associations challenged this rule before the Fifth Circuit.

Judgment: The Court ruled that the top credit rule was not enforceable. The Court found that it was inconsistent with the text of the Fair Labour Standards Act (FSLA) and capricious and unlawful. The Court noted that the FSLA did not mandate to look at the amount of tips received or whether the given occupation was individually tip-producing. Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit vacated the 80/20 rule nationwide. The ruling makes it easier for employers to pay less than minimum wage to tipped employees like servers.

British Airways v. Rollett

[2024] EAT 131 (UK)

Court: Employment Appellate Tribunal (EAT)

Facts: The claimantsclaimaints were employed with the British Airways (the respondent) and contended that the respondent had made certain changes to their schedules which disproportionately disadvantaged non-British nationals, who were more likely to commute from mainland Europe. They submitted that this amounted to indirect racial discrimination.

Judgment: The Tribunal held that thoughthought the Equality Act, 2010 of the UK did not allow for claims of indirect discrimination, the provisions had to be interpreted in accordance with EU law principles as far as possible. The tribunal therefore relied on rulingsrelied rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) that a person could claim indirect discrimination even if they did not have the relevant protected characteristic, provided they suffered the same disadvantage as the group with that characteristic. The Tribunal therefore upheld the claimants’ argument, and this was directly incorporated into the Equality Act later on from 1st January 2024. The respondents, in appeal, contended that the tribunal had overstepped its bounds to align national law with EU law. However, the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) dismissed the appeal, concluding that the tribunal had not committed any legal error.