July 2024 S.C. Judgements
UP Roadways Retired Officials And Officers Association v. State Of U.P. & Anr,
Civil Appeal No. 894 of 2020
Facts: The appellants were created under the State government as a temporary department providing transport facilities, and the employees thereunder were appointed temporarily. A notification was later issued that provided for pension to permanent employees in the department. Afterwards, some of the employees were regularized. The appellant-employees, immediately after retirement claimed their post-retiral benefits and contended that they held a pensionable post after their absorption.
Judgment: The Court held that pension can only be claimed under a relevant rule or scheme, and if an employee is not holding a pensionable post, he cannot claim it as a matter of right. The Court observed that those employees that were temporary and holding non-pensionable posts were not entitled to pensionary benefits, however held that those employees who were later regularized and absorbed into the service would be granted pension.
Conclusion: The Court set aside the orders of the lower court and held that pension of a non-pensioned post could not be claimed as right by way of a writ of mandamus.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. v. Shyam Kumar Yadav & Anr.
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 25609 of 2018
Facts: The respondent was engaged as a daily-wage employee at a public college. His services were terminated but after a gap of several years, he was later reinstated. During the interim period, the government released a circular directing for absorption of the temporary employees. The respondent contended that he was entitled to be absorbed as a regular employee keeping in view the circular and the long period rendered by him as a daily wager.
Judgment: The Apex Court observed that while daily wage employees do not have a legally vested right to seek regularization, benefits of any policy or circular released for regularization must be extended to all eligible individuals. The Court noted that several juniors of the respondent had already been regularized and in spite of this, the State government had chosen not to regularize the respondent due to which the respondent had to approach the court. The Court held that authorities are not permitted to pick and choose in such circumstances. The Supreme Court directed for the absorption of the worker alongside all benefits of regular employment including arrears of pay and seniority.
Mahesh Chand Bareth & Anr. v. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 7906 of 2010
Facts: In 1987, the Rajasthan government launched the Siksha Karmi Project with the aim to provide education in remote rural areas. In 2008, rules were framed stipulating the qualifications, age limits, and recruitment processes for Prabodhaks (teachers) and Senior Prabodhaks, including provisions for age relaxation. The appellants were teachers from recognized educational institutions and challenged this age relaxation, arguing it was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Judgment: The Apex Court upheld the age relaxation, highlighting that age relaxation are within the domain of executive decisions and should not be interfered with unless discriminatory or arbitrary. The Court observed that if the government felt that experience gained as a teacher should not be lost and in that regard granted them age relaxation, then no fault could be found with the same. The Court dismissed the batch of appeals and the recruitment process as conducted was upheld.
Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das
Civil Appeal No. 6977 of 2015
Facts: The respondent was a physically challenged employee belonging to the SC category who was engaged with the appellants. Later on, the appellants passed a resolution specifying the time period for promotion for one grade to another grade. Under this, the respondent was granted accelerated promotion to the post of Joint Secretary after completing the prescribed time period, however later on the appellants passed another resolution to reduce the number of posts of Joint Secretary due to the bifurcation of Bihar, due to which the respondent lost out on the promotion.
Judgment: The Court held that a promotion is effective from the date on which it is actually granted and not from the date on which a vacancy is created. It observed that though the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, it would not automatically create a right in the employee to claim a promotion except when it was finally granted, and not merely on fulfillment of the prescribed time period. The Court further observed that the denial was not due to any malafide intention on part of the employers but due to administrative exigencies. The Court allowed the appeal and held in favor of the appellants.
MC Mehta v. Union of India and Ors., In Re: Number of Vacant Posts in Statutory Pollution Control Boards of Various States
WP (C) No. 13029 of 1985
Facts: The case comes from the original 1985 judgment that led to the formation of pollution boards in various states. A report was submitted to the bench by the Amicus Curae showing that a large amount of vacancies existed in the pollution boards of several states, and thus in April the Supreme Court directed for four state with the highest vacancies - Haryana, Rajasthan, Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, to take immediate steps at filling them.
Judgment: The Supreme Court observed that even despite the Court order, about half the posts still remained vacant in each state. Moreover, the Court observed that the Delhi government had adopted a new practice of engaging contractual employees instead of making regular appointments to the state pollution control board. They depreciated this practice and asked all 4 states to comply with the Court orders.
Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Himal Kumari & Anr.
2024 INSC 531
Facts: The respondent was a candidate for a post in a State department participated in the selection examination and achieved the minimum qualifying marks in the written test. However, the appellant declared the candidate as unsuccessful because she did not obtain the minimum qualifying marks because she had no prior work experience and got no marks in that category. Therefore, in totality her marks were lower than the required amount. The respondent contended that the advertisement for the post had only mentioned the minimum requirement and by simple interpretation must mean only the written examination.
Judgment: The Court observed that the only qualifying criteria for minimum qualifying marks mentioned in the advertisements were for the written test according to a reasonable person’s interpretation. Thus, the appellants had erred in denying the respondent a place in the merit list.
Shailendra Mani Tripathi v. Union Of India
W.P.(C) No. 327 of 2024
Facts: Jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution was invoked for directing the Union government and states to implement policies for the grant of menstrual leave to women under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.
Judgment: The Supreme Court asked the Union to consult all stakeholders on the question of having a menstrual leave policy for working women. The Court also expressed apprehension that such a policy may not be welcomed by the employers and create troubles for women seeking jobs, since employers would not agree to hire women at the cost of compromising their workplace productivity. Thus, the Court was of the view that it was best left to the policy decisions of the Union and the States. The Court directed the Secretary in the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development to look into the matter after due consultation with all stakeholders and governments.
2024 H.C. Judgements
MADRAS HIGH COURT
-
Amita Singh and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2024:RJ-JP:18874 - Continuous work of contractual employees does not create any vested right for permanent employment.
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
-
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Ganesh Gopinath Rane, WP No. 8387 of 2024 - Merely a transfer of an employee being exceptional and there being previous litigation between employer and employee is not a ground for the Industrial Court to stay the transfer.
-
Vidya Sunil Ahire and Ors. v. Commissioner of Police, Thane, WP No. 9685 of 2023 - Family of employee having more than two children ineligible for compassionate appointment.
KERALA HIGH COURT
-
Jomon Sebastian & Ors. v. Assistant Labour Officer & Ors. WP(C) No. 13067 & 13978 of 2023 - Regulatory bodies cannot misinterpret judgments to wrongfully deny registration to the permanent employees.
DELHI HIGH COURT
-
IRCON International Ltd. v. Bhavneet Singh, 2024:DHC:5269-DB - The provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 take precedence over any employment and contractual arrangements in cases relating to transfer of a disabled employee.
-
Lily Packers Private Limited v. Vaishnavi Vijay Umak and Connected Matters, ARB.P. 1210/2023 - Disputes relating to lock-in periods that apply during the subsistence of employment contracts are arbitrable.
-
Isha v. Union Of India And Ors., W.P.(C) 3732/2019 - A pregnant woman cannot be denied an employment opportunity because of inability to appear in a physical efficiency test.
-
Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. v. Shashank Singh Tomar & Ors., W.P.(C) No. 9244 of 2024 - The regularization of contractual employees must be seen from the essence of the employment and not merely determined by the initial terms of appointment.
-
Vinod Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2024:DHC::5546-DB - Contractual workers that rendered medical services during Covid should be considered for regularization.
-
Aditya Suresh Rao Kaware & Ors. v. Western Railway Recruitment Cell & Ors., 2023:DHC::5538-DB - Change in recruitment criteria should have prospective application when it can be beneficial to an applicant who applied before the change.
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
-
Anuradha v. Union Of India & Ors., 2024:PHHC:059731 - There is no violation of the fundamental right of an employee if a competent authority abolishes a promotional post.
-
Maya Devi v. State of Haryana & Ors., 2024:PHHC:072898 - An employer cannot demote an employee post-retirement if he fails to pass a mandatory test.
J&K HIGH COURT
-
National Insurance Company v. Zahoor Ahmad Sofi, FAO(WC) 6/2021 - The scope of an appeal against an award passed under the Employees Compensation Act is permissible only if a substantial question of law is involved.
-
Shameem Ahmad Shah v. UT of J&K, SWP 667/2017 C/W - Employees appointed in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution can be disengaged without affording them an opportunity to be heard.
-
State through Executive Engineer PHE Division, Doda v. Sakina Begum, FAO (WC) No. 23/2022 - The principal employer is liable to compensate for the accidental death of a worker engaged by a contractor.
-
Bashir Ahmad Wani v. J&K Forest Development Corporation & Ors., WP(C) No. 2183 of 2020 - The competent authority has the option to secure a second medical opinion before concluding on the genuineness of medical leave
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
-
AS v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical And Health Services, U.P. Lucknow & 2 Ors., Writ - A No. 9427 of 2023 - Severe depression and anxiety that are life threatening should be grounds for voluntary retirement as forcing an employee to continue working would be violative of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
-
State By Karnataka Lokayuktha Police v.T. Manjunath & Anr., Criminal Revision Petition No. 422 of 2018 - Exoneration of employee in departmental enquiry will not halt criminal trial under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
-
Suraj Kumar Mahato & Anr v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited through its Chairman cum Managing Director, WP(S) No.811 of 2018 - The wife of a deceased employee is entitled for compensation from the date of employee's death, regardless of whether an application for compensation was submitted or not.
PATNA HIGH COURT
-
Smt. Pratima Kumari v. State of Bihar, Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21937 of 2014 - A departmental proceedings for an order of dismissal from service can only be initiated with the approval of the state government.
July 2024 International Cases
Mr W Augustine v. Data Cars Ltd.
[2024] EAT 117 (UK)
Court: Employment Appellate Tribunal of the UK
Facts: The claimant was a part-time taxi driver and was required to pay a flat weekly fee to the respondent-employer, which was the same amount paid by all drivers regardless of hours worked. The claimant alleged discrimination against part-time workers, arguing that paying the full fee each week was unfair to part-time workers like himself. The lower tribunal dismissed the claim, ruling that the claimant had not demonstrated less favorable treatment compared to full-time workers, as both were subject to the same fee.
Judgment: The appellate tribunal upheld the claim but disagreed with the reasoning. The EAT noted that by charging a flat fee to all drivers, the respondent was not treating part-time and full-time employees equally. The claimant, being part-time, was effectively earning less than his full-time counterparts. However, the correct test of discrimination in the UK was the “sole reason” test, which stated that any less favorable treatment must be solely on the grounds of being a part-time worker for a claim to succeed.
Masiero & Others v Barchester Healthcare PLC
[2024] EAT 112 (UK)
Court: Employment Appellate Tribunal of the UK
Facts: In early 2021, the respondent employers introduced a policy mandating staff vaccination against Covid-19, before it became a legal requirement. The claimants were dismissed for refusing vaccination and contended that this went against their legal rights under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which was the right to private and family life.
Judgment: The tribunal noted that the respondent’s policy did not enforce mandatory vaccination (i.e., forced medical treatment). Instead, the policy aimed to protect residents’ right to life under Article 2 of the ECHR. The tribunal noted that when there was a clash of rights between Article 2 and Article 8, even a small reduction in the risk to life from the vaccination policy could outweigh the claimants’ Article 8 rights, meaning the dismissals did not breach Article 8. Thus, the tribunal held that the employers acted reasonably in the present case and upheld the dismissals.
Parsons v Serco Citizen Services Pty Limited [2024]
FCA 754 (Australia)
Court: Federal Court of Australia
Facts: The appellant-employee was terminated by the respondent following a series of complaints made against him by another employee and by him against his managers. He contended that adverse action had been taken against him for exercising his “workplace” rights by making complaints.
Judgment: The Court held that the employer bore the onus of proving that the adverse action did not occur due to exercise of workplace rights. The employee had proven that adverse action had been taken against him and that he had exercised his workplace rights by making a complaint, and now the employer was presumed to have acted wrongfully unless it could show otherwise and objective reasons for his dismissal. Since the employer was not able to discharge this burden of proof, the Court directed for compensation to be paid to the employee for loss of earnings as well as non-economic losses.
Castellanos v. State of California
S279622 (United States)
Court: Supreme Court of California
Facts: The suit was filed by a labor union and four drivers contending that the law which preserved the contractor status of drivers on delivery and ridesharing apps as being unconstitutional. The law, which was passed in the way of a popular referendum (called a proposition in California) regarded drivers as independent contractors while providing them some benefits and protections.
Judgment: The Supreme Court of California dismissed the suit, observing that such a measure was not unconstitutional under the Constitution of California. It observed that a move to recognize thousands of gig-workers as employees of ridesharing apps was a decision that must be made by the legislature, and holding the proposition that was decided by popular vote to be unconstitutional would imply restricting the power of majorities to make appropriate laws on workers’ compensation.
Conclusion; Thus, the Court held that gig-workers would remain as contractual labor rather than employees, which would have entitled them to greater benefits.
INI v. Amir Handel, Labor Appeal (LA)
74074-05-23 (Israel)
Court: National Labor Court of Israel
Facts: Under the national and health insurance laws of Israel, a “housewife” is a married woman whose spouse is insured and who herself does not work and is not employed. A “married woman” is defined as including a person “who is known to the public as his wife and who cohabits with him.” The respondent and his same-sex spouse filed a request from exemption of payment of insurance premiums based on the “housewife” exemption.
Judgment: The Court held that the gender-based distinction derived from the definition of housewife was the product of an outdated worldview that assumed a division of functions between a man and a woman in which the man was responsible for financially supporting the family while the woman was responsible for housework. It observed that this gender-based distinction is inapplicable to the division of roles in a same-sex family. The court determined that the law established two requirements to qualify as a housewife: a. a marriage or being known to the public as married, and b .an insured spouse. These requirements reflect the legislature’s intention to exempt a family from insurance premiums if one spouse is insured and the second does not work. Further, it was not the legislature’s intention to exempt family units consisting of homosexual unions from the Act.
Conclusion: The Court concluded that a man in a same-sex family unit can be included under the term “housewife” subject to all rights and duties.