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.

The Jammu and Kashmir High Court ruled that the Indian Army is not an ‘Industry’ under labor laws, overturning the Labor Court's decision and ordering the reinstatement of porters with full back wages.

The court held that national security is a sovereign function, and even non-combat personnel supporting military operations cannot be classified separately. Porters carrying rations and ammunition play a vital role in Army duties.

Citing Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa (1978), the court stated that such disputes fall under the Central Government’s jurisdiction, not J&K’s.

It urged the Army to treat porters fairly with a compassionate approach.

The Maharashtra government passed a new law to clearly define manual labor as an essential job for Mathadi workers, ensuring better protection and fair employment rules.

The bill defines manual work as tasks performed solely by human effort without machines, raises the minimum working age from 14 to 18 years, updates the definition of unprotected workers to eliminate fake ones, and allows the government to make decisions even if the advisory committee is inactive.

The new law improves worker protection, stops illegal activities, and makes job rules clearer, ensuring fair treatment for Mathadi workers.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court set aside the termination of a daily wage worker, ruling that dismissal for alleged misconduct without a proper departmental inquiry is illegal.

The Court emphasized that punitive termination cannot be disguised as retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The court noted that Ramesh Chand was not given an opportunity to defend himself and was acquitted in a criminal trial.

Citing Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India, it upheld the Labour Court’s ruling and dismissed the PWD’s petition.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the tribunal's ruling that an accountant, Mr. Chatterjee, qualified as a 'workman' under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Court noted that the main factor under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which determines workman status, is not an employee's designation but the nature of his duties.

The tribunal ruled that Chatterjee's tasks were clerical and that he did not exercise managerial or supervisory powers.

The court upheld the tribunal’s classification of him as a 'workman' and further directed the tribunal to adjudicate the dispute.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a petition by Anjuman Himayat Chaprasian Sangh UP, which alleged that class IV employees in Uttar Pradesh's district courts were being forced to work as domestic servants for judicial officers.

The Court found the Petition not maintainable, as the association's bylaws did not authorize legal proceedings on behalf of its members. 

The Court also noted that the employees assist judicial officers by transporting files and materials, which cannot be considered forced labour. 

The petitioners were advised to raise individual grievances, as the association lacked the authority to file the writ petition.

The Supreme Court ruled that part-time sweepers appointed temporarily to regular sanctioned posts are entitled to regular pay, rejecting the State’s argument that their temporary status disqualifies them.

The Court held that designation as 'part-time' does not affect the validity of their appointment, as they were recruited against sanctioned posts.

Since the Appellant sweeper completed three years of service per the requirement of Clause 6 circular of 1984, the lack of a screening committee by the state does not bar him from claiming regular pay. 

The Division Bench's ruling which disqualified them was overturned, restoring the Single Bench's decision in favor of the Appellant sweeper.