The Patna High Court dismissed an intra-court appeal seeking compassionate appointment nearly 25 years after the employee went missing, reiterating that such appointments are intended only to provide immediate financial relief to families facing sudden hardship.

The Court observed that compassionate employment is a “tailored exception” to the normal recruitment process and cannot be treated as a vested or perpetual right.

Stressing the principle of delay and laches, it held that claims raised after prolonged periods defeat the very object of the scheme, which is to help families tide over an immediate crisis caused by the loss of the breadwinner.

[Dhananjay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar & Ors.]

The Patna High Court held that the EPFO cannot retain money deposited by an assessee once the underlying assessment order has been set aside, and must compensate the party by paying interest on delayed refunds.

The Court invoked the doctrine of unjust enrichment, observing that retaining and utilising the amount for over a decade without legal basis was contrary to equity and justice.

It noted that although the assessment was set aside in 2011, the deposited amount was refunded only in 2023.

Upholding the Single Judge’s order, the Court directed payment of 6% simple interest on the delayed refund amount.

[The C.B.T./Board of Trustees (Central Board), Employees Provident Fund Organisation & Anr v. M/s The Longia Bidi Company, Barahdari]

The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Dearness Allowance (DA) and Dearness Relief (DR) are enforceable entitlements linked to inflation, rather than discretionary benefits.

Ruling that once the state adopts the "Central government pattern," it is legally bound to implement it fully. The Court rejected the state’s defense of financial constraints, emphasizing that such hardships cannot justify withholding essential components of salary and pension.

Furthermore, the Court struck down an age-based "liquidation plan" for arrears as arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Directing the release of all pending installments to all eligible employees and pensioners by June 30, 2026.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently held that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

Justice Harpreet Singh Brar observed that delays in convening Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) meetings not only cause financial loss but also stifle future career advancement.

The Court directed the State to hold DPC meetings quarterly to ensure timely progression for government employees.

In this case, a Junior Engineer was granted notional promotion after the Court rejected the State's technical objections regarding his diploma, noting that rules protected existing employees.

[Kulwant Singh v. State of Punjab]

The Delhi High Court has held that a recognised private school cannot be treated as legally closed merely because it stops functioning without prior approval from the Directorate of Education (DoE).

The Court observed that such unilateral closure does not end the salary and service rights of teaching and non-teaching staff.

In this case, employees approached the Court over unpaid salaries after the school shut down citing financial issues.

Rejecting the management’s argument, the Court clarified that statutory approval is mandatory, and institutions cannot escape obligations by simply shutting operations.

[Vishwajyoti v. Virender Kumar Sardana & Ors.]

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that employees selected through the same recruitment process cannot be subjected to different pay fixations or increments based solely on their joining dates.

The Court held that granting an additional annual increment to those who joined before a specific date, while denying it to others in the same batch, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Court emphasized that authorities must adopt a uniform date, to ensure parity within the same cadre.

Further striking down a Finance Department circular used to justify this disparity, directing the State to rationalize and correct the pay anomaly within one month.

[Shrutika Chauhan & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.]

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.]