The Bombay High Court held that a board under the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers Act, 1969, had no authority to review or reopen its orders under Section 13 of the Act.

A Division bench observed that review powers are not inherent and exist only when expressly provided by law.

The ruling came on a plea for a fresh enquiry and recovery of ₹14,53,052 as wages, levy, and interest for twelve Mathadi workers.

The Court allowed the petition and quashed the order.

[Valsad District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. v Nagpur & Wardha District Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board & Ors.]

The Chhattisgarh High Court held that non-payment of overtime allowance constituted a continuing wrong and could not be barred by delay or laches.

Nineteen railway employees of the South East Central Railway, Bilaspur Zone, performed overtime between 2007 and 2010 and claimed unpaid allowances after their retirement.

The Tribunal directed the Railways to pay ₹40,22,837/-, but the Railways challenged the order, citing delay.

The Court ruled that each denial created a fresh cause of action, and withholding overtime regularly amounted to a recurring breach of duty, and subsequently dismissed the Union of India’s writ petitions, upholding the Tribunal’s order

[Union of India & Ors vs Raghunath]

The Delhi High Court ruled that primary hypertension could qualify for disability pension even if it developed while personnel were posted at a “peace station.”

A Division Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur held that the Release Medical Board (RMB) could not deny pension solely because the disability arose during non-combat or peace duty. 

The Court stressed that long-serving personnel cannot be penalised based on their posting location.

The Court directed Medical Boards to carefully evaluate evidence, apply consistent reasoning, and provide clear findings before rejecting pension claims.

[Dropadi Tripathi v Union of India & Ors]

The Chhattisgarh High Court has dismissed a challenge by educational institutions and ruled that schools and colleges fall under the purview of the Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) Act, requiring them to provide health insurance and social security benefits to their employees.

The court emphasised that the Act applies to all establishments employing 10 or more people, including the education sector, ensuring worker welfare.

The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Christian Medical College Hospital Employees' Union vs Christian Medical College Vellore Association, which held that labour laws are enforceable against minority institutions.

The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) has rolled out a one-time dispute resolution scheme to help employers settle pending litigations. The initiative is aimed at cutting down case backlogs and promoting ease of compliance.

Under the scheme, industries can close disputes by paying due contributions, with partial waiver of penalties and interest. This is expected to encourage quicker settlements and reduce legal burdens.

Progressive Federation of Trade and Industry (PFTI) chairman Deepak Maini welcomed the move but urged ESIC to upgrade healthcare facilities, noting that norms require a 100-bed hospital for every one lakh registered workers.

The Supreme Court ruled that an employee’s past misconduct may be considered to support a disciplinary dismissal, even if not specified in the show cause notice.

The Court overturned the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s order reinstating ex-constable Satpal Singh, who was dismissed for repeated unauthorised absences totalling over 300 days during his service.

The Supreme Court held that reliance on past indiscipline added weight to the dismissal decision without violating natural justice. 

The appeal filed by the State of Punjab was allowed, and the reinstatement order was set aside.

[State of Punjab and Others v. Ex. C. Satpal Singh]

The Allahabad High Court has issued a contempt notice to the Director, Horticulture and Food Processing Department, Uttar Pradesh, for once again rejecting a woman employee's maternity leave request on the grounds of a two-year gap between pregnancies.

Justice Ajit Kumar noted that the Court had already struck down this requirement in Guddi v. State of U.P (2022) and reiterated the same in earlier orders quashing similar rejections.

Calling the Director's conduct "unfortunate" and in clear contempt of binding directions, the Court ordered him to appear in person on September 1 to explain why contempt proceedings should not follow.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has initiated a suo motu PIL over the death of a railway contract worker who was electrocuted on duty and allegedly denied timely medical assistance by authorities.

Notices were issued to the railway administration and state government, seeking details on safety protocols, emergency medical response, and accountability.

The Court further sought clarification as to who was responsible for such an act of negligence where a person comes into contact with a live wire, causing severe injuries, and if the fault was on the part of the contractor, then what action has been taken by the Railways against the same.

The Supreme Court has held that a recruitment process conducted under statutory rules cannot be abruptly cancelled by government order unless justified by fraud or maladministration.

The court emphasised that cancelling notifications after candidates have legitimately participated violates their right to equality and fair opportunity under Article 14 of the Constitution.

The court directs authorities to ensure transparency and avoid abrupt terminations of hiring processes, protecting the interests of aspirants. 

Further, it directed the recruitments to be completed under the original rules in force when the advertisements were issued.

[Partha Das & Ors. v  State of Tripura & Ors.]

The Bombay High Court has ruled that delay in filing proceedings cannot be condoned unless the proceedings themselves are legally maintainable.

The case involved a Labour Court order that condoned a delay of 333 days in filing a review application.

The High Court noted that the Industrial Disputes Act does not grant the Labour Court any power of review, and therefore, the application itself was not maintainable.

Holding that the Labour Court acted without jurisdiction, the High Court quashed the condonation order.

[JSW Steel Coated Products Ltd. & Anr. v Amarlal Parashramji Sharma]

The Karnataka High Court directed the North West Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (NWKRTC) to appoint a widow as a Group-D employee on compassionate grounds despite her crossing the upper age limit of 45 years. 

Justice Suraj Govindaraj held that the rigid application of the age bar would cause injustice and defeat the purpose of compassionate appointment, which is to secure the livelihood of dependents of deceased employees.

The petitioner’s husband, a depot controller, died in service in June 2021, leaving her without children or support.

The Court quashed the rejection order and urged the Managing Director to frame a humane policy for such cases.

[Lakshmavva Goshellanavar v State of Karnataka]

The Kerala High Court ruled that “employment” under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act includes self-employment if the person earns sufficient income.

Justice S Manu dismissed a plea by Smitha Francis, who sought ₹4.14 lakh in wages claiming unemployment since 2011. Her employer, Shwas Homes, proved she was involved in profit-making businesses. The Court held that hiding such facts weakened her claim.

Citing Supreme Court precedent, it clarified that lack of formal employment doesn’t justify relief if a person earns adequately through independent ventures.

[Smitha Francis Alias Smitha Ajay v Shwas Homes Pvt Ltd and Anr]

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.