Landmark Labour Law Judgments 2025

Supreme Court

 

1. Employees of a contractor who are under the direct control and supervision of the principal employer and are performing regular and perennial work may be entitled to regularisation.
   Chennai Port Trust v. The Chennai Port Trust Industrial Employees Canteen Workers Welfare Association & Ors., 2018 LLR 612 (SC).
2. Contractual employees are not automatically entitled to benefits under a Provident Fund Trust created by the company for its regular employees.
   M/s Pawan Hans Limited & Ors. v. Aviation KarmachariSanghatana& Ors., 2020 LLR 289 (SC).
3. A claim for overtime wages can be sustained where the employer admits that the employee performed work beyond normal working hours.
   Currency Note Press &Anr. v. N.N. Sardesai & Ors., 2019 LLR 1 (SC).

 

Delhi High Court

 

1. Reinstatement with back wages may be justified where the employer fails to prove that the workman was gainfully employed during the period of unemployment.
   Smt. Vinita v. Management of National Highways Authority of India, 2020 LLR 488 (Del. HC).
2. The service conditions of employees cannot be altered during the pendency of an industrial dispute in violation of the applicable legal provisions.
   Hindustan Engineering and General Majdoor Union v. M/s Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., 2021 LLR 1055 (Del. HC).
3. Continuity of service granted by an Industrial Tribunal will also be relevant while determining an employee’s entitlement to gratuity.
   Delhi Transport Corporation v. Sh. Ashok Kumar, 2023 LLR 970 (Del. HC).
4. A woman cannot be deprived of her statutory right to maternity leave merely because of the terms of an agreement or contract.
   National Highways Authority of India v. National Commission of Women &Anr., 2020 LLR 475 (Del. HC).
5. Merely shouting at a female employee by a male officer does not, by itself, amount to sexual harassment unless the conduct falls within the legal ingredients of sexual harassment.
   Abhilasha Dwivedi v. Department of Women and Child Development, NCT of Delhi, 2020 LLR 169 (Del. HC).

 

Bombay High Court

 

1. An order passed in violation of the principles of natural justice can be challenged before the High Court through a writ petition.
2. Joseph Henry Martin v. The Employees' State Insurance Corporation &Anr., 2021 LLR 842 (Bom. HC).
3. Damages for delay in depositing Provident Fund contributions cannot be imposed mechanically in every case of default; the relevant circumstances must also be considered.
   Central Board of Trustees, EPF v. The Managing Director, RajgadSahakari Sakhar Karkhana, 2018 LLR 1022 (Bom. HC).
4. Two establishments may be clubbed together for ESI coverage where there is substantial commonality, such as common partners and operation from the same place.
   New Power Supply v. Deputy Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation &Anr., 2020 LLR 659 (Bom. HC).
5. Before forfeiting an employee’s gratuity, the employee must be given a proper opportunity to explain his or her case.
   Catholic Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. v. Bawatis Salu Madatis, 2021 LLR 14 (Bom. HC).

 

Madras High Court

 

1. A person having ultimate control over the affairs of an establishment can be treated as an “employer” for the purposes of Provident Fund law.
   M/s Kanyakumari Medical Mission v. The Employees Provident Fund Organization & Ors., 2023 LLR 90 (Mad. HC).
2. A delinquent employee does not have an absolute right to insist upon representation by an advocate during a domestic enquiry.
   Packiyalakshmi v. Joint Registrar/Managing Director, The Central Co-operative Bank Limited &Anr., 2021 LLR 196 (Mad. HC).
3. A domestic enquiry may be held defective where the Enquiry Officer fails to properly consider the evidence produced by the workman’s witnesses.
   M. Ganesan v. Management of Hyundai Motor India Ltd., 2021 LLR 403 (Mad. HC).
4. The past service record of a delinquent employee can be considered while deciding the appropriate punishment for misconduct.
   Management, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Villupuram) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Additional Labour Court, Vellore &Anr., 2020 LLR 93 (Mad. HC).
5. Termination of an employee merely for absence may not be justified where the employee had applied for leave and the surrounding circumstances were not properly considered.
   The Director, Hindustan Institute of Engineering & Technology, Chennai v. The Presiding Officer, III Additional Labour Court &Anr., 2022 LLR 279 (Mad. HC).

 

Punjab & Haryana High Court

 

1. A charge sheet must clearly inform the delinquent employee about the allegations made against him so that he can effectively defend himself.
   M/s Groz Beckert Asia Pvt. Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal & Labour Court, Chandigarh &Anr., 2019 LLR 36 (P&H HC).
2. Interest on retrenchment compensation may not be payable where the workman himself refused to accept the compensation when it was offered.
   Darshan Singh Chawla & Ors. v. The State of Punjab &Anr., 2019 LLR 970 (P&H HC).

 

Allahabad High Court

 

1. Dismissal may be justified where an employee concealed or misrepresented an essential and mandatory qualification required for employment.
   Prakhar Shukla v. Union Bank of India & Ors., 2021 LLR 143 (All. HC).
2. An Industrial Adjudicator must confine the award to the issues specifically referred for adjudication and cannot travel beyond the terms of reference.
   U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Agra & Ors. v. Rajendra Prasad Sharma &Anr., 2018 LLR 1081 (All. HC).

 

Karnataka High Court

 

1. Prosecution of the Director and Manager of a company may not be maintainable where the company itself has not been made an accused in proceedings where such impleadment is legally necessary.
   Sri Ramesh Mehra & Ors. v. Sri Umesh &Anr., 2022 LLR 618 (Karn. HC).
2. Reinstatement may be justified where the employer fails to obtain the required permission or approval during the pendency of an industrial dispute.
   Sri Mallikarjun v. The Management of NWKRTC, 2018 LLR 540 (Karn. HC).
3. A customary bonus paid by the employer in the past purely at its discretion does not automatically become an enforceable right of employees.
   Pharmaceutical Chemical & Allied Employees Union v. The Management of M/s J.L. Morrison (India) Limited, 2018 LLR 1194 (Karn. HC).

 

Gujarat High Court

 

1. Courts may decline to interfere merely on sympathetic grounds where an employee has been dismissed due to a genuine loss of confidence by the management.
   Lupin Ltd. v. MelsinghBhagvansinh Parmar, 2022 LLR 609 (Guj. HC).
2. Termination of a probationer after completion of the extended probation period does not necessarily amount to retrenchment.
   Barad VajesingRambhai v. Gujarat Heavy Chemicals Ltd., 2023 LLR 144 (Guj. HC).

 

Himachal Pradesh High Court

 

1. Striking workmen may be restrained from holding demonstrations, dharnas or similar activities within a specified distance from the employer’s premises where necessary to maintain order and prevent obstruction.
   Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes & Ors., 2018 LLR 535 (HP HC).
2. A claim of being a “protected workman” cannot succeed unless the union establishes that the employee satisfies the legal requirements, including his status as an office bearer where required.
   Rama Kant Mishra v. H.P. Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal &Anr., 2018 LLR 1212 (HP HC).

 

Kerala High Court

 

1. Liability for default in remittance of Provident Fund dues may attach to the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment.
   Shafeer Badharudeen, Director, M/s Attinad Software Private Ltd. & Ors. v. Employees' Provident Fund Organisation & Ors., 2022 LLR 822 (Ker. HC).

 

Rajasthan High Court

 

1. Transfer of a low-paid employee to a very distant place may be held unjustified where the transfer causes unreasonable hardship and is not supported by proper circumstances.
   Tarachand Saini v. Hotel Clarks Amer through Executive Director, 2020 LLR 399 (Raj. HC).

 

Andhra Pradesh High Court

 

1. A resignation cannot be invalidated merely on an allegation that it was obtained by threat or coercion unless such allegation is properly established.
   Sube Singh v. M/s Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd., 2023 LLR 718 (AP HC).
2. Levy of construction cess on the installation of air-conditioning systems at an airport was held not sustainable in the circumstances of the case.
   Voltas Ltd. v. Union of India through the Director General (Inspection) & Chief Labour Commissioner, New Delhi &Anr., 2022 LLR 972 (AP HC).

 

Orissa/Odisha High Court

 

1. Failure of a workman to report for duty at the transferred place may justify an inference of abandonment of service, depending upon the circumstances.
   Management of the Samaja, Gopabandhu Bhawan, Buxibazar, Cuttack v. State of Odisha & Ors., 2021 LLR 1081 (Ori. HC).