top of page

April 2024 S.C. Judgements

Meher Fatima Hussain v. Jamia Milia Islamia & Ors.

2024 INSC 303

Facts: The appellants were teachers who sought appointment on a permanent basis in the respondent University pursuant to a letter sent by the UGC. However, the University refused to regularize them and instead rolled out a fresh selection procedure contending that the UGC letter would not be binding on the University.

​​

Judgment: The Supreme Court stated that the UGC legislations though made through a subordinate legislature have a binding effect on the Universities to which it applies, and on the failure to apply those laws, the UGC may withhold the rights made to it out of the fund of the Commission.

 

Conclusion: The Court directed for the appellants to be entitled to continuity in service and other benefits.

The General Manager, M/s Barsua Iron Ore Mines v. The Vice President, United Mines Mazdoor Union and Ors

2024 INSC 264

Facts: The employee represented by the respondent union was employed as a mazdoor with the appellants and was offered casual employment. However, he wrongly provided his birth year at the time of appointment to show he was older than he actually was, as he was actually a minor at the time he was employed. After this, he later on requested the employer to change his birth date to his actual birth date. However, the employee was superannuated from service based on his initially given date of birth, thus the employee challenged this superannuation claiming that he had requested the employer to change his date of birth to a later date.

 

Judgment: The Apex Court held that since the employee could not have been legally appointed if he was underage, he could not later on change his date to his actual birthdate. Irrespective of his actual date of birth, he would necessarily have to be content with his service and benefits accounted from the date of birth he had originally provided, as that was the only legal route under which he could be employed.

 

Conclusion: The Court held that the employee’s superannuation had to be calculated from the initial date he had provided.

M/s Bharti Airtel Limited v. A.S. Raghavendra

2024 INSC 265

Facts: The respondent employee was appointed as a regional head with the appellants. In 2011, he made an initial resignation and was paid an amount for full and final settlement of all of his claims. However, afterwards, he filed a petition alleging that his resignation was forceful and was coercive. The respondent contended that in his employment as a manager, he had no decision-making power and nobody reported to him, but that the appellant like other private organizations papa had given impressive designations such as “regional head” without any real power or authority.

 

Judgment: The Supreme Court held firstly that the respondent was not a “workman” under Section. 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act as he was a manager and thus in a high ranking position. Further, the Court observed that the respondent had submitted his resignation with the utmost feeling of humiliation and insult and felt he was unfairly treated by the appellants. However, the Court held that only because the respondent’s grievances were not adequately addressed would not mean that he had been “forced” to resign without any evidence of malicious intent or bias on part of the employers.

 

Conclusion: The Court allowed the appeal and held that the respondent had not been forced to resign from his workplace.

VVF Ltd. Employees Union v. M/s VVF India Ltd. & Anr. 2024 INSC 302

2024 INSC 302

Facts: The appellants were an employees’ union which raised a charter of demands concerning wage scale revisions and allowances. The Tribunal awarded partial relief to the employees, leading the union to challenge this before the HC. The HC upheld certain aspects of the Tribunal’s award and overturned others, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court, contending that the HC had overstepped its bounds by interfering with the Tribunal’s finding on facts.

​

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the High Courts possess the authority to examine tribunal awards, but such review should entail substituting tribunal findings with their own. In cases where the employer has demonstrated a difficult financial position, the proper course of action should be to remit the matter back to Industrial Tribunals and not enter into factual questions independently in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

​

Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and directed the Tribunal to re-examine the cases of the parties.
 

Garima Khare v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Petition(S) For Special Leave To Appeal (C) No(S). 9570/2024

Facts: In 2023, an amendment to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 was made that introduced an additional eligibility qualification for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level). It required that the post required that the applicant should have practiced as an advocate for not less than 3 years and had passed all exams on the first attempt and secured at least 70% marks in the aggregate. This amendment was challenged before the SC.

 

Judgment: The SC declined to interfere with the amendment and stated that the reason for the amendment was to enhance the quality of judgments which affect the litigants at large. The Court noted that one must possess the highest standards to join the judiciary and that accepting the arguments of the appellants would only maintain the existing subpar standards that had persisted for decades.

 

Conclusion: The Court declined to declare the amendment that introduced a 70% marks requirement as unconstitutional.

Shriram Manohar Bande v. Uktranti Mandal & Ors.

 2024 INSC 3371

Facts: The appellant was a teacher who had been terminated from employment after he had sent a resignation letter to the management. However, the appellant contended that he had withdrawn the letter soon after, and therefore, his employment was wrongfully terminated by the school. He contended that since there was no formal communication of acceptance by the respondents, the resignation was not yet complete. 

​

Judgment: The SC held that non-communication of acceptance of a resignation letter cannot be a ground to challenge the termination of employment. The employment is terminated from the moment when it is accepted by the appropriate authority and there is no requirement for such acceptance to be conveyed to the employee, in the absence of any specific rules as such.

​

Conclusion: The Court held that no communication of acceptance is required to be provided by the employer.
 

The State Of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharyya (Chatterjee)

SLP(C) No. 009586 - / 2024

Facts: The State of West Bengal filed an SLP before the SC challenging the Calcutta HC’s order which invalidated 24,000 teaching and non-teaching jobs that were filled as a result of the 2016 SSC recruitment process. These jobs had come under scrutiny for running a “cash-for-jobs” scam. The West Bengal government argued  that such an order created a huge vacuum in the State schools before a new selection process could be completed. They also contended that all the appointments had been invalidated in a cursory manner despite the fact that a number of appointments were lawful.

 

Judgment: The SC noted that the HC had erred in setting aside all the appointments as irregularities had been found only in 8000 names, and  by passing such a blanket order was violating the principles of natural justice and Art. 311 of the Constitution. The Court, however, refused to stay the High Court decision, and instead asked whether it was possible to segregate the untainted appointments from the lawful ones.

 

Conclusion: The Court asked the West Bengal government to separate the unlawful appointments from the lawful ones and listed the matter for a future date.

Assn. of Engineers v. State of Tamil Nadu

2024 SCC OnLine SC 539

Facts: The appellants were employees in the Tamil Nadu Public Works Department (‘PWD’). In 1994, an advertisement was issued by the Tamil Nadu PSC for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers. This advertisement was challenged by the appellants on the grounds that they should also be considered for the advertisement posts, as the state rules prescribed that those who had rendered service for 5 years would be eligible for the post. The Tribunal allowed the applications filed by some of the engineering officers but not the applications filed by Technical Assistants, claiming that they were not part of the feeder category for the post of Assistant Engineers.

​

Judgment: The Supreme Court held that the Technical Assistants were allowed to be appointed to the category of Assistant Engineers, based on government circulars and that Technical Assistants were working at the same pay scale as other engineering positions in the feeder category. Further, the Court also noted that the appointment of Technical Engineers would not hinder appointments through direct recruitment, as there were clearly different quotas earmarked for the same.

​

Conclusion: The Court held that Technical Assistants should be allowed to join the prescribed posts through horizontal entry as they worked at the same level of pay as others in the feeder category.
 

Abhishek Yadav & Ors. v. Army College of Medical Sciences

WP(C) No. 730/2022


Facts: The SC had passed a direction in September, 2023 asking the National Medical Commission to file a reply explaining i) whether it was true that 70% of the medical colleges in the country did not pay any stipend to interns, and ii) what steps the Commission was taking to ensure compliance with the norm of paying internship stipend.

​

Judgment: The Court noted that the Commission had not given the details of entire medical colleges in all States and hence, the earlier direction had not been complied with. 

​

Conclusion: Thus, the Court directed for the Commission to file its reply as to the relevant data within a period of 4 weeks from the date of the order.
 

Priyanka Tyagi v. Union of India & Ors.

Special Leave to Appeal (C) 3045/2024

Facts: The petitioner was a woman appointed as an Short Service Appointee (‘SSA’) in the Indian Coast Guard. She submitted a request for permanent absorption but was returned without action. This was because it was communicated that there was no provision for absorption of SSA officers in the Coast Guard.

​

Judgment: The SC observed that it was unfortunate that the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force had rendered judgments on the induction of women into the Armed Forces on a permanent basis but the Indian Coast Guard continued to be an outlier. Therefore, under the ambit of Art. 15 of the Constitution, the petitioner should be entitled to relief until she was considered for permanent absorption.

​

Conclusion: As an interim relief, the Court directed that the petitioner’s service be reinstated and be assigned a suitable posting commensurate with her cadre and qualifications.
 

Shalini Dharmani v. The State Of Himachal Pradesh

SLP(C) No. 016864 - / 2021

Facts: The petitioner was an assistant professor in a government college of Himachal Pradesh. She had a child suffering from a rare genetic disorder. And due to this medical condition, she had to tend to his treatment and continuous surgical requirements. Since the petitioner had exhausted all her sanctioned leaves, she applied for Child Care Leaves (CCL). This was rejected on the ground that the HP government had not adopted the provision of CCL as provided by Rule 43-C of the Central Civil Services (CCS) (Leave) Rules, 1972. As per this rule, female employees with children can get up to 2 additional years of CCL.

 

Judgment: The Court noted the lack of any policy in the state of HP to provide CCL to mothers of differently abled children, and directed the State to review its policy on child leave. The Court also differentiated between maternity leave and CCL as the former was only for delivering the child and might be insufficient for childcare. The Court observed that women’s equal right to work without obstruction was embedded in Art. 15 of the Constitution, and thus, it was necessary that their unique needs were considered.

 

Conclusion: The Court allowed the appeal and also directed that a committee chaired by the Chief Secretary of the State be constituted to look into all aspects of the matter. The Committee would include the State Commissioner, the Secretary of Women and Child Development, and the Secretary of the Social Welfare Department.

Wg Cdr AU Tayyaba (Retd) and Others v. Union of India

Civil Appeal Nos 79-82 of 2012

Facts: The appellants were women officers who had joined the IAF as Short Service Commission Officers (SSCOs), whose service had been periodically extended until they had all retired between 2006 and 2009. However, they were not considered for Permanent Commission (PC). In 2022, a judgment was passed by the Supreme Court allowing PC for all women SSCOs regardless of the date of their release as all of them would have been considered to have completed 20 years of service. However, the appellants had retired after their 14th year of service, and the salary for the purpose of computing pension was taken as the last drawn salary as of the date of release and not from when they had been deemed to have completed 20 years of service.

 

Judgment: The Court noted that no increments were granted between the period of release and the period at which they were deemed to have completed 20 years of service, and thus, clarified the directions passed in 2022 that the computation of pension would take into account the increments between the period of release and the date of their deemed completion of twenty years.

 

Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed for the payment to the officers, and the pension would be computed on the date of their deemed completion of twenty years.

Devesh Sharma v. Union of India

Diary No. 4303-2024 XV

Facts: In 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed a set of appeals which pertained to the eligibility of B.Ed. candidates to be appointed as teaching staff in cases where they did not have a D.El.Ed, which is a diploma course for training in primary education. These appeals had challenged a High Court order that had quashed a government notification according to which a B.Ed. was included as a qualification for teachers at the primary level. An application for clarification was passed by the State of Madhya Pradesh of whether this was a retrospective direction.

 

Judgment: The Court clarified that the judgment of 2023 would have prospective application, and the appointment of no teacher shall be disturbed if he was appointed on the basis of a B.Ed. if it had been an appropriate qualification at the time of their appointment. Further, the Court depreciated the practice of States filing applications for clarification which would in practice, be in the nature of a review petition. 

 

Conclusion: The Supreme Court clarified that no appointment would be disturbed if it had been a lawful appointment at that time and further did not have a clause that the appointment was subject to any order of the court.

April 2024 H.C. Judgements

MADRAS HIGH COURT

  1. M. Anantha Babu v. The District Collector & Ors., WP No. 27139 of 2021 - Compassionate appointment cannot be denied solely on the ground that the petitioner was an illegitimate child born to his second wife

  2. Pandiammal v. Commissioner, Social Welfare and Women Empowerment Department & Ors, WP No. 32200 of 2023 - The contract appointment of Protection Officer cannot be said to be appointed under Rule 3(3) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 merely because she was allowed to continue her service after completion of tenure of contract, and could be terminated on unsatisfactory experience.

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

  1. Bhausaheb Bhujangrao Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, 1-PIL-30-2024 - Jobs and admissions already secured are subject to outcome of the pleas which challenge the Maharashtra Reservation Act.

  2. Shramik Janta Sangh v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Writ Petition No. 1570 of 2023 - The Bombay HC called for information from municipal authorities on what steps were being taken to ensure effective implementation of law against manual scavenging.

  3. M/s. Premsons Trading (P) Ltd v. Dinesh Chandeshwar, Writ Petition No. 4616 of 2019 - Voluntary abandonment of employment cannot be accepted if notice for resuming duties is not issued.

  4. Kishore Jetha Somai v. Union of India Writ Petition, No. 7325 of 2022 - If an employee’s certificate has been invalidated, he cannot claim any benefits from his employment.

  5. High Court in its own Motion v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., Suo Motu Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 11654 Of 2024  - The Bombay HC initiates suo motu PIL to hold municipal corporations accountable for accidents and deaths caused due their negligence. 

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

  1. Ram Asheesh Yadav v. Union of India & Ors., WPA 4419/2019 - Furnishing wrong information for securing a job amounts to fraud upon the employer.

  2. Sankar Mandal v. Union of India, WPA 3225/2016 - Non-disclosure of information cannot form the sole ground for an employer to discharge an employee.

  3. SK. Jaynal Abddin v. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Kolkata, ITA/8/2012 - Payments by supervisors to individual labourers, each not exceeding Rs. 20,000, cannot be disallowed under Section. 40A(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ORISSA HIGH COURT

State of Odisha & Ors. v. Banamali Samal & Ors., WA No. 1179 of 2023  - Service of a government servant does not qualify for pension unless their appointment, duties, and pay are lawfully regulated by the orders of the government.

HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

  1. Roop Lal & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., CWPOA No.6687 of 2020 - Employees imparting education to special needs students are discharging a State duty and are entitled to regularization.

  2. Rakesh Sharma v. Indian Oil Corporation & Anr., LPA No.18 of 2021 - Burden of proving an employer-employee relationship primarily rests upon the party who asserts its existence.

  3. Suneet Singh Jaryal v. State of HP & Anr., CWP No. 5170 of 2023 - Pensionary benefits cannot be withheld for an indeterminate period on ground of lack of resources.

  4. Usha Rani v. State of HP & Ors., CWP No.1275 of 2024 - Family annual income and not individual income needs to be considered for determining eligibility of Anganwadi workers.

  5. UCO Bank & Ors. v. Chaman Singh, LPA No. 96/2021 - Service provided for a period of three months and above shall be treated as one half year for the purpose of calculating total service period.

  6. State of H.P. & Anr. v. Jai Ram Kaundal, LPA. No. 126 of 2015 - A person appointed under SC/ST quota cannot later claim reservation under ex-serviceman quota.

  7. UCO Bank & Ors v. Chaman Singh, 2024:HHC:1348 - Any right or benefit vested in an employee under the substantive provision of a regulation cannot be taken away by its proviso.

KERALA HIGH COURT

  1. Binnesh Babu@ Bineesh Babu v. State of Kerala, OP(KAT) NO. 315 OF 2023 - Past character is not decisive for public employment, and the State should foster development of less fortunate individuals by not condemning them for past crimes.

  2. B Anandan v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 2392 OF 2018 - Family members of deceased government employees cannot make repeated claims for compassionate appointments.

  3. K M Habeeb Muhammed v. The Managing Director, OP NO. 38705 OF 2001 - Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to question sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion in disciplinary proceedings.

  4. N. Swaminathan and ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., WP(C) No. 10866 of 2024 - The transfer of pension funds into the State treasury is permitted and this by itself would not amount to a misuse or investment of pension funds.

  5. Cherplassery Co-operative Hospital Ltd v. State of Kerala & Ors., 2024:KER:31367 - Co-operative society employees are entitled to benefits under labour laws like minimum wage and maternity benefits.

  6. Cherian Varkey Construction Company (Pvt.) Ltd. & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors., WA No. 44 of 2021 - Preference given to labour contract societies are lawful as they serve a community interest consistent with the aims of a welfare state.

DELHI HIGH COURT

  1. Parveen Kumar v. Export Inspection Council & Ors., 2024:DHC:1824 - A retired officer cannot be termed as “public servant” under Export Inspection Employees Rules, 1978.

  2. Dr. Shashi Bhushan v. University of Delhi & Anr., 2024:DHC:2847 - A waitlisted candidate would not gain a right to be offered appointment despite resignation of previous incumbent.

  3. Punjab National Bank v. Poonam Chugh, 2024:DHC:2804-DB - The employer’s negligence in remitting amounts to a pension fund cannot disentitle the employee from the pension scheme.

  4. Prof. Dr. Mohan Rao & Ors. v. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors., 2024:DHC:2619 - Doctors working as professors and assistant professors are entitled to Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA).

  5. North Delhi Power Ltd. v. Dr. U.K. Priyadarshi, 2024:DHC:2724-DB - An employee would not be entitled to regularization if his employment had only continued due to an order staying his termination.

  6. Delhi State Legal Services Authority v. Annwesha Deb, 2024:DHC:3246-DB - An advocate empanelled with a legal services authority is not an ‘employee’ and is not entitled to maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961.

  7. Kush Kalra v. Union of India &  Ors., WP (C)-3397/2017 - The Delhi HC ordered the Ministry of Defence to decide whether women should be allowed to join the Indian Army, Navy and Air Force through the Combined Defence Services (CDS) exams within 8 weeks.

  8. Sanghmitra v. State, 2024:DHC:2524 - Delhi HC called for including 'gender equality' training in the judicial academy curriculum as it may help prevent unseen biases.

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Dinesh Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India, 2024:PHHC:045189-DB - Same standard of selection should be maintained in all states for vocational and technical teachers.

J&K HIGH COURT

Ghar Singh v. University of Jammu & Ors., SWP No.1611/2016  - Casual laborers have intermittent and sporadic employment whereas daily wagers render continuous service.

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

  1. Mahesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Anr. 2024:AHC:44464 - Termination of a contractual employee is governed by contract, and cannot be adjudicated under Article 226.

  2. Prem Kumar Tripathi v. The State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr. WRIT - A No. - 19256 of 2023 - No show cause notice or departmental proceeding can be initiated against a retired employee, in the absence of any rules or regulations.

  3. The Indian Express Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, Writ - C No. - 292 of 2024 - The Working Journalists and Other Newspaper Employees (Conditions of Service) and Misc. Provisions Act, 1955 governing the conditions for newspaper employees will have an overriding effect on the Industrial Disputes Act.

  4. Rajendra Singh v. The State Of U.P. & Ors. Writ - A No. - 6145 of 2021 - A teacher's service after regularization cannot be terminated merely due to lack of qualification at time of initial appointment.

  5. Poornima Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors. 2024:AHC:40783 - Resignation tendered by a government employee can be withdrawn at any time before its acceptance.

  6. Shiv Pratap Maurya & Ors. v. State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Medical Health & Ors., 2024:AHC-LKO:24472 - If persons have worked pursuant to interim orders of a Court, they would be entitled to salary for that period and not doing so would amount to begar labour.

  7. Executive Engineer Electricity Transmission Division vs. Mahesh Chandra & Anr., Writ(C) No. - 61111 of 2012 -A labour court cannot award interest in proceedings for recovery of money from employer u/s 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which provides that where any money is due to an employee from his employer, the employee can make an application to the appropriate Government for the recovery of the money due to him.

  8. Adarsh Kumar v. State of UP & 5 Ors., Writ(A) No. - 2259 of 2024 - The Court disparaged the trend of government servants speaking freely to the media, and enquired from the government about what steps were being taken to train the younger generation of government servants not to be tempted to speak to the media impromptu.

  9. International Service Fellowship USA v. Harendra Kumar Masih, Contempt Appeal No. - 2 of 2024 - An intra-court appeal is not maintainable against order issuing notices in a contempt jurisdiction.

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

  1. Dr Guddadev Yadrami v. The Director & Ors., NC: 2024:KHC-K:2735  - If a fraud has been committed by a person on the basis of a false caste certificate, then no benefits can be taken on grounds of delay and mercy.

  2. P. Anandan v. The Divisional Controller, Writ Petition No 22673 OF 2015 - Industrial tribunals are bound to give proper and cogent reasons for their orders.

  3. State Bank of India v. Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes & Anr., Writ Petition No. 10347 of 2023 - SC/ST Commission has no jurisdiction to recommend SBI to appoint any person on compassionate grounds.

  4. Prof Dr Kaushik Majumdar v. Indian Statistical Institute & Ors., Writ Petition No. 264 of 2024 - It is a legal obligation of institutes to provide for better working conditions for specially abled persons.

  5. Dr Vidyavanthi U. Patil v. State of Karnataka Writ Petition No.100881 OF 2024 - A dentist with BDS degree cannot be appointed as a Taluk Health Officer, a doctoral role must require a MBBS degree.

  6. Smt. N. Bhuvaneshwari v. The Management of M/s Ambuthirtha Power Pvt. Ltd. - A person in a managerial or supervisory role is not a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act.

April 2024 International Cases

Secretary of State for Business and Trade v. Mercer

[2024] UKSC 12 (United Kingdom)

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom​

​

Judgment: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom noted that Section. 146 of the Trade Union’s and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act, 1992 (TULRCA) protects employees from taking part in strike actions when done “at an appropriate time”, which excludes working time from its ambit. Thus, the Section limits the protection only to strike activities outside working time or otherwise have to be with the consent of the employer. The Court held that this Section was incompatible with Art. 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which protects the right to free assembly. The Court noted that industrial strikes must be carried out during working hours if it was to have the desired effect, since for workers to withhold labour outside working time would have no little consequence for the employer.

​

Conclusion: Thus, the Court held that imposing penalties for members to participate in lawful strikes during working hours would be violative of Art. 11 of the ECHR.

MURRAY V. UBS SECURITIES, LLC, ET AL.

 601 US 22-660 (2024) (USA)

Supreme Court of the USA

 

Facts: An employee with the FBI was transferred to another district, which led to a different work schedule, responsibilities, and loss of special privileges including potential overtime. She filed a Title VII violation, which protects the right against discriminatory transfers.

 

Judgment: The Court held that in order for the transfer to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 1964, it must only be shown that there was some harm caused to the employee. This overturned previous precedent as the harm need not be significant. Rather, as long as the transfer left the employee worse off in some way with respect to their employment terms or conditions, and was made because of a protected characteristic like sex or race, it violates Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination.

 

Conclusion: The Court held remanded the case back to the lower courts to decide the matter fresh on merits in view of this ruling.

Enever v.   Barloworld Equipment South Africa

(JA86/22) [2024] ZALAC (23 April 2024) (South Africa)

 Labour Appellate Court (LAC) of South Africa


Facts: The appellant was employed with the respondent as a category analyst. The respondent had an Employee Policy Handbook which incorporates a zero- tolerance approach to possession and consumption of alcohol and drugs in the workplace. By accepting and signing the Handbook, the Appellant agreed to random, voluntary and scheduled drug testing. However, the appellant’s results came back positive for cannabis, and was dismissed from her service. The appellant alleged that she had been unfairly discriminated against.

 

Judgment: The Court held that though employers had justifiable occupational health and safety reasons to prevent the use of drugs, the Court held the employer could not make her choose between her employment and her right to consume cannabis in her own home, which is legal in South Africa. It could also not be proven that the respondent had not shown that the appellant’s work had been adversely affected or that she had created an unsafe working environment. The Court observed that though the respondent did operate in an environment with heavy machinery, the employer’s policy was overbroad as the same standards were being applied to her at home as well. The Court did not accept that the zero-tolerance rule was justifiable because the respondent had a generally dangerous working environment or that it was an inherent requirement of the job not to consume cannabis.

 

Conclusion: The Court upheld the appeal, and her dismissal was found to be automatically unfair on the basis of unfair discrimination, and she was awarded 24 months’ compensation.

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

bottom of page