The Kerala High Court held that a newspaper report cannot substitute official communication of a dismissal order. The case involved journalist K.S. Hariharan, who was dismissed in 2008 but formally informed only in 2015 during conciliation proceedings.

The Labour Court had earlier dismissed his challenge as time-barred under Section 2A(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, relying on the date of the newspaper report.

However, the High Court ruled that the limitation begins only after formal service of the order. It restored the case and directed the Labour Court to reconsider it.

[K S Hariharan v The Labour Court Kollam and Anr]

The Delhi government’s proposed labour law changes have drawn strong criticism from trade unions and labour experts.

The trade union and labour experts have warned that the reforms could weaken crucial worker protections.

One proposal limits the Shops and Establishments Act to only those workplaces with 10 or more employees, excluding smaller units. While another raises the threshold under the Industrial Disputes Act from 100 to 300 workers, making it easier for companies to retrench staff.

The Labour Experts opined that these changes, made to promote ease of doing business, follow similar steps taken by other states and could be a way of avoiding the backlash against the pending Labour Codes.

The Karnataka High Court clarified that orders passed by the Bengaluru court in Lathika Pai’s suit against Microsoft over her alleged forced resignation can be published by third parties.

Justice M Nagaprasanna ruled on July 14 that the non-publication directive applies only to Pai, who has sued Microsoft alleging reputational harm due to a prolonged internal probe. Microsoft denies the claims.

After the Delhi High Court declined jurisdiction, Pai filed the case in Bengaluru, where the trial court restrained her from sharing Microsoft’s document preservation undertaking or orders. The High Court partially lifted that restriction following her challenge.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that actual acceptance of retrenchment compensation is not essential for compliance with Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 

Justice Maninder Bhatti dismissed petitions by two daily wage gardeners challenging their 2008 termination, ruling that the employer complied with legal requirements by sending termination orders and compensation cheques via registered post after the workers refused them in person. 

The Court also found that permission under Section 33 had been duly obtained and upheld the termination.

This ruling reinforces Pramod Jha v. State of Bihar, affirming that a valid offer suffices for compliance, not acceptance.

The Delhi government instructed the Labour Department to allow women to work in night shifts with their consent and increase safeguards through amendments to the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act and notifications under the Factories Act.

Also, directed to amend the Delhi Shops and Establishment Act to increase the threshold of minimum number of employees from one to 10 for the applicability of the Act and to allow shops and establishments to work 24/7.

Further, the threshold for requiring layoff and closure permission under the Industrial Dispute Act was increased from 100 to 200 workers.

While labour unions have demanded protection for affected workers, the reforms aim to improve the ease of doing business in the capital.

The Calcutta High Court held that guest faculty members who are paid per session do not qualify as “workmen” Under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The petitioner, Hansraj Koley, had been engaged for specific training sessions and was paid an honorarium, not regular wages.

The Court observed that there was no continuous service or employer–employee relationship. It also noted that Koley had accepted a final payment in 2014 and agreed to apply for future roles through the proper process.

Upholding the Industrial Tribunal’s decision, the Court dismissed the writ petition. 

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) ruled that Zilla Parishad employees are subject to the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, unless a particular exemption under Section 5 is granted, which was not applicable here.

The Court rejected the Zilla Parishad’s reliance on its own service rules, noting that the Act overrides them. The court further stated that under Section 4(6), gratuity can be forfeited if the employee is found guilty of moral turpitude.

The court partially allowed the writ petition by remanding the case to reconsider possible forfeiture under Section 4(6) as the employee faced a pending corruption trial.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that fraudulently securing government employment by impersonating another is not eligible for probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

Justice Rakesh Kainthla found that the accused, Babu Ram, used Mohan Singh’s matriculation certificate to obtain a teacher’s job, depriving the rightful candidate and violating Sections 419, 420, and 468 of the IPC. 

The Court emphasised that such deception infringes upon Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equal opportunity in public employment. 

Referring to Supreme Court precedent in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder (2003), the Court stated that secondary evidence becomes admissible if not objected to during the trial, affirming that probation benefits are inapplicable in such serious offences.

The Bombay High Court held that gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 must be paid unless an employer has been specifically exempted under Section 5.

The court rejected a Zilla Parishad’s argument that the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 allowed withholding gratuity due to past disciplinary proceedings.

The Court noted that the minor misconduct cited did not meet the threshold of Section 4(6), which permits forfeiture only in cases of serious offences like termination due to violence or fraud.

Citing Section 14, the court reaffirmed that gratuity laws override conflicting service rules. 

The Bombay High Court ruled that when employees voluntarily abandon their service by remaining absent without a valid reason or response despite repeated reminders, it does not amount to retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act.

The Court held that such absence leads to automatic cessation of service, and no enquiry or notice is required. Removing names from the muster roll due to prolonged absence is not termination but a consequence of abandonment.

Consequently, the retrenchment procedure, like notice or enquiry under the Act, is not applicable in these cases, and reinstatement or back wages cannot be claimed.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court dismissed a compensation claim under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, by the family of a deceased MNREGA worker.

The Court held that MNREGA workers do not fall under the definition of "employee" under Section 2(dd) of the Act, and are thus not eligible for compensation under it.

The worked, who died in a 2009 worksite accident, was also not registered on the e-Shram portal, making the family ineligible for benefits under that scheme.

The Court noted that MNREGA offers voluntary, household-based, temporary employment, not structured service. The family had already received ₹25,000 from the Government of India and was not entitled to any additional compensation.

The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO), through a circular dated 27th March 2025, has barred employers from viewing an employee’s past employment details via the EPF employer portal.

This move aims to prevent the misuse of employees' work history while ensuring data privacy.

Employers can now access only current employment details. However, past Employee Pension Scheme (EPS) membership details will remain visible during onboarding to verify EPS contributions.

The change reinforces privacy protections while maintaining compliance with EPS eligibility under Form 11.

The Bombay High Court has permitted 'The New Shop,' a convenience retail store in Pune, to operate 24x7, emphasizing that such stores provide flexibility to consumers and boost the economy and employment.

The store’s owner, Accelerate Productx Ventures Pvt. Ltd., challenged a police directive to shut down at night, arguing that the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act, 2017, does not restrict store hours. 

The court ruled in favor of the store, noting that state regulations do not impose any time limits on such businesses.

The court also acknowledged a misinterpretation by the Pune Police, who mistakenly applied rules meant for restaurants.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that part-time teachers in Night Junior Colleges are ineligible for pension benefits under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Services) Regulation Act, 1977 (MEPS Act) and the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.

The petitioner, Rajani Rajan Dixit, sought pension after retiring from 29 years of part-time service.

The court referenced its 2006 decision, which determined that night school teachers are not full-time employees and thus do not qualify for pension. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.