The Madras High Court held that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied across employees working under different service structures.

The case involved a lineman employed by Arasu Rubber Corporation Ltd., a state-owned PSU, who sought salary parity with linemen working in government departments.

The Court observed that employees of public sector undertakings and government departments are governed by distinct service rules, recruitment processes, and financial structures. Since their service conditions are fundamentally different, pay parity cannot be claimed.

The Division Bench therefore set aside the earlier order that had directed the State to grant equal pay.

The Supreme Court ruled that an employer must personally pay the penalty for delaying compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, even if the compensation amount is covered by insurance.

The Court clarified that the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) arises from the employer’s own default and cannot be shifted to the insurance company.

The case arose after an employee died in a work-related accident and compensation was not paid within the statutory period.

While the insurer may pay compensation and interest, the Court held that the penalty must be borne by the employer to ensure timely payment and maintain the deterrent purpose of the law.

The Jharkhand HC recently held that under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, a Labour Court can modify a punishment even if the initial enquiry was fair. 

The Court ruled that penalties must not be shockingly disproportionate.

The case involved a workman discharged in 1984 for allegedly abusing a doctor. The Court found the workman was in severe pain due to an unremoved stitch and was unfairly dismissed.

Noting the family's 40-year struggle, the Court awarded full back wages and benefits to the deceased workman’s legal heirs.

[The Management of Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Sumitra Devi w/o late C.K. Singh & Ors.]

The Kerala High Court recently held that restrictions on strikes under the Industrial Disputes Act apply to all bank employees, including those in managerial roles.

A Division Bench clarified that since banking is a "public utility service," Section 22 of the Act prohibits any person employed there from striking during conciliation proceedings.

The Court observed that a strike by bank officers could paralyze the economy and most adversely affect ordinary citizens.

Further emphasizing that while employees have a right to form associations, the right to strike is not a fundamental right and cannot trump the nation's larger interest.

[The Federal Bank Ltd. v. Federal Bank Officers Association & Anr.]

The Kerala High Court has held that an employer cannot reject an employee’s resignation merely citing financial crisis, observing that such refusal may amount to “bonded labour” under Article 23 of the Constitution.

Justice N. Nagaresh ruled that once a resignation complies with contractual terms, it must be accepted unless there are valid grounds like pending disciplinary proceedings or notice requirements.

The Court directed Traco Cable Company Limited to accept the resignation of its Company Secretary, clear salary arrears, and relieve him within two months.

[Greevas Job Panakkal v. Traco Cable Company Ltd. & Ors]

The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has held that both the Goa government and the nightclub owners are liable to compensate victims of the December 2025 Arpora fire tragedy.

The Bench observed that the incident amounted to a clear violation of workers’ fundamental rights. The Court stressed that while compensation may arise under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, the State also bears independent liability.

The Bench directed panchayats to disclose licensing details over the past five years and warned that property attachment may follow to secure compensation.

The matter will be heard next on February 24, 2026.

[High Court on its own motion v. State of Goa & Ors.]

The Supreme Court will set up a 9-judge Constitution Bench to finally settle the meaning of “industry” under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, and the earlier Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant has fixed March 17–18 for hearing, and will re-examine the 1975 Bangalore Water Supply (BWSSB) judgment, which laid down the famous “triple test” for determining an industry.

The Court will decide if activities like social welfare schemes and certain State functions are covered, and which government activities fall outside Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Parties have been allowed to update written submissions by February 28, 2026.

The Supreme Court held that regularisation cannot be denied to casual workers when other daily-wage workers in similar circumstances were regularised.

The Court observed that treating similarly situated employees differently amounts to discrimination and undermines the principle of equality.

It emphasised that the regularisation policy must be applied uniformly, and workers who have been performing duties for a long period cannot be denied regular status without a valid justification.

The Court’s order reinforces that administrative action must be fair, reasonable and consistent with established practice of regularising long-term casual labourers.

[Pawan Kumar & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.]

The Kerala High Court set aside the transfer of a KSRTC employee who was shifted from Thiruvananthapuram to Kasaragod after publishing an article in a union journal on the Corporation’s financial condition.

The employer claimed the article spread misleading information and initiated disciplinary proceedings.

The Court held that while an employee can be transferred pending inquiry, such transfer must serve a legitimate purpose like preventing influence over witnesses or tampering with records.

Since the issue related only to authorship and content of the article, the Court found no such risk. It ruled that the transfer was punitive and arbitrary.

[Sivakumar S v. State of Kerala]

The Union government tabled the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Bill, 2026, in the Lok Sabha to prevent any future confusion regarding the repeal of earlier labour enactments.

The proposed amendment pertains to the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, which subsumes the Trade Unions Act, 1926, the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

According to the statement of objects and reasons, Section 104 of the 2020 Code includes savings provisions to maintain continuity and legal certainty after repeal of the earlier laws.

It clarifies that the repeal has already taken effect by operation of Section 104 and a February 2026 notification. 

The Delhi High Court held that a workman cannot claim wages under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, after attaining the age of superannuation.

The Court said Section 17B operates only while the employer–employee relationship subsists and cannot extend beyond the period a workman is legally entitled to remain in service.

It rejected the plea to continue payment on grounds of hardship, observing that statutory benefits must be confined to their legal limits.

The ruling came in a petition filed by LIC challenging payment of wages after the respondent’s retirement.

[Life Insurance Corporation of India v. G.K. Nijhawan]

The Delhi High Court dismissed a plea filed by laboratory technicians employed with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi seeking pay parity with laboratory technicians working under the Central Government.

The Court held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not automatic and cannot be claimed solely based on similar duties or job titles.

It observed that MCD recruitment rules prescribe matriculation as the minimum qualification, while Central Government posts require a Bachelor of Science degree, which constitutes a valid classification.

The Court further held that pay commission recommendations are policy matters and not binding on MCD.

[Delhi Medical Technical Employees Association v. UOI]

The Central Government informed the Delhi High Court that rules to implement the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, will be finalised by the end of February 2026.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that public objections and suggestions have already been invited, and the rule-making process is underway.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ plea to continue the old rules till new ones are framed, observing that it would revive repealed laws.

Noting that earlier concerns regarding procedural gaps and tribunal constitution had been addressed through fresh notifications, the Court disposed of the petition.

The Delhi High Court has ruled that probationary employees fall within the definition of “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and are entitled to statutory protections available under industrial law.

While upholding the validity of a probationer’s termination as termination simpliciter, the Court clarified that industrial law does not distinguish between permanent and temporary employees for determining workman status.

The Bench further held that wages paid under Section 17-B during the pendency of proceedings before the High Court are non-recoverable, even if the termination is ultimately upheld.

The judgment reinforces settled principles distinguishing motive from foundation in termination orders.

[Sarita Tiwari v. M/s Deccan Charters Pvt Ltd.]