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.

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.