Supreme Court of India Judgements

47060 Judgements hosted as on 01/02/2026 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Labour Cases

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 87 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S PREMIUM TRANSMISSION PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.…

Constitution Labour Cases

Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 — Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 — Applicability — Cess could not be levied or collected before the constitution of Welfare Boards, as their constitution is a condition precedent for the implementation of these Acts.

Jan 21, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 76 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAKASH ATLANTA (JV) Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA ( Before : Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Labour Cases

Factories Act, 1948 — Section 59(2) — Overtime wages calculation — “Ordinary rate of wages” — Includes basic wages plus all allowances worker is entitled to, excluding only bonus and overtime wages — Compensatory allowances like House Rent Allowance (HRA), Transport Allowance (TA), Clothing and Washing Allowance (CWA), and Small Family Allowance (SFA) are includible.

Jan 21, 2026 sclaw

2026 INSC 74 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs. HEAVY VEHICLES FACTORY EMPLOYEES’ UNION AND ANOTHER ( Before : Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan, JJ.…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 12(3) — Memorandum of Settlement — Binding nature — Clause 14 of 1979 settlement providing alternate employment for colour blind drivers held valid and enforceable despite subsequent 1986 settlement and policy circulars — 1986 settlement did not expressly supersede 1979 settlement and was general in nature, while 1979 settlement was specific to colour blindness and did not contain a termination clause, thus operating harmoniously.

Aug 5, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 920 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH CH. JOSEPH Vs. THE TELANGANA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHER ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar, JJ. )…

Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 25-O — Procedure for closing down an undertaking — Right to close down business is integral to right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) but subject to reasonable restrictions — Section 25-O provides a detailed procedure for obtaining prior permission for closure — Appropriate Government must conduct an enquiry and grant a hearing before passing a reasoned order — If no order is communicated within 60 days, permission is deemed to be granted.

Jun 8, 2025 sclaw

2025 INSC 801 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARINAGAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. (BISCUIT DIVISION) AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Prashant…

Labour Cases

Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status to Workmen) Act, 1981- Dispute over the permanent status of certain workmen – The Court considered whether the Act, 1981 applies to the parties and if the suggestion to institute an ‘Industrial Disputes Claim’ was sustainable – The Corporation argued that the Act and the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 do not apply to them, and that certain activities, like construction, exempt them from the Act – The Union argued that the Corporation has exploited temporary employees for years and that the Inspector of Labour’s order granting permanent status should not be questioned – The Corporation’s appeal was dismissed, and the Union’s appeal was allowed – The Court found the Corporation an industrial establishment, and the employees had uninterrupted service qualifying them for permanent status – The Court analyzed the Act’s definitions, the Corporation’s activities, and previous orders and judgments – The Court concluded that the Act applies to the dispute, and the Inspector of Labour’s findings should not have been disturbed.

Jun 3, 2024 sclaw

(2024) INSC 446 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION LIMITED — Appellant Vs. TAMIL NADU MEDICAL SERVICES CORPORATION EMPLOYEES WELFARE UNION AND ANOTHER — Respondent…

Labour Cases

The main issues revolve around the revision of pay scales, allowances, and the comparability of the employer’s units for wage determination – unal to re-examine the case afresh within six months – The Court found that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence and making independent factual determinations – The Court referenced several cases to establish the scope of the High Court’s jurisdiction and the industry-cum-region test for wage revision

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE VVF LTD. EMPLOYEES UNION — Appellant Vs. M/S. VVF INDIA LIMITED AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Aniruddha Bose and Sanjay Kumar,…

Labour Cases

Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 – Section 3, 7 and 10(3) – Transferring of employees between different units of the company – – The Supreme Court refers to the case of Cipla Ltd. to assert that the terms of employment and Standing Orders do not conflict, and transfers are permissible – The Court analyzes the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, particularly Sections 7 and 10, to determine the operation and modification of Standing Orders – The Supreme Court concludes that the transfers were legal, overturns the High Court’s judgment, and dismisses the writ petitions filed by the respondents – The Court does not address the broader issue of the power to modify Standing Orders.

Mar 26, 2024 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES LTD. — Appellant Vs. M/S. DIVGI METAL WARES EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai and…

You missed

Bail Granted

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — Section 108, 80, 103, 85 — Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — Sections 3, 4 — Offences — Abetment to suicide, Dowry death, Murder — Allegations of extra-marital relationship, demand of money/dowry — Deceased died of poisoning/injection — Autopsy findings — Prosecution case not strong at bail stage.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33(1) — Requirement for employer to seek permission before altering service conditions or stopping work of workmen during pendency of dispute — Failure to do so constitutes a breach of the Act.

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Sections 10(1), 12 — Reference of industrial dispute — Apprehended dispute — Appropriate Government’s power to refer — The appropriate Government has the power to refer an industrial dispute for adjudication if it is of the opinion that such dispute exists or is apprehended. The initiation of conciliation proceedings under Section 12 does not statutorily require a prior demand notice to the employer as a pre-condition to approaching the Conciliation Officer. The management’s argument that a prior demand notice is essential, based on certain previous judgments, fails as it ignores the provision for referring an apprehended dispute, which can be invoked to prevent industrial unrest

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw
Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 175(4) — Complaints against public servants alleged to have committed offenses in discharge of official duties — Interpretation — This provision is not a standalone provision, nor is it a proviso to Section 175(3) — It must be read in harmony with Section 175(3), with Section 175(4) forming an extension of Section 175(3) — The power to order investigation under Section 175(3) is conferred upon a judicial magistrate, while Section 175(4) also confers such power but prescribes a special procedure for complaints against public servants — The expression “complaint” in Section 175(4) does not encompass oral complaints and must be understood in the context of a written complaint supported by an affidavit, as required by Section 175(3) — This interpretation ensures that the procedural safeguard of an affidavit, mandated by Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., is not undermined even when dealing with public servants — The intention is to provide a two-tier protection: first, at the threshold stage under Section 175(4) with additional safeguards, and second, at the post-investigation stage under Section 218(1) regarding previous sanction. (Paras 26, 31, 37.1, 37.2, 37.4, 37.5, 37.6, 37.8, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44)

Feb 1, 2026 sclaw