Category: Labour Cases

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 10 — Relief of back wages and regularisation — Employee illegally terminated, ordered reinstatement with back wages by Labour Commissioner and Industrial Court — Employer challenged, but interim order for back wages deposit was made and employee reinstated as daily wager — Employee sought regularisation after completing 180 days of service, granted by Industrial Court from the date of 180 days completion as per settlement clause — Employer failed to comply timely, only regularising employee on a sanctioned post after many years, imposing new conditions contrary to prior orders — Supreme Court held that employer cannot impose new conditions limiting regularisation contrary to earlier unchallenged orders and settlement terms, and reversed High Court’s decision setting aside back wages order.

2026 INSC 392 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BALAJI MADHUKAR KONKANWAR Vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATTION ( Before : Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ. ) Civil…

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — Section 33C(2) — Maintainability of claim petition — Labour Court and High Court dismissed the appellant’s case on the technical ground of non-maintainability of the petition under Section 33C(2) of the ID Act, primarily because proceedings under this section are in the nature of execution proceedings — The issue of grant of pension was disputed by the respondent-Bank and therefore could not be held to be a pre-existing right — Dismissal of the case at the threshold by both the Labour Court and High Court was upheld.

2026 INSC 333 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K.G. SESHADRI Vs. THE TRUSTEES OF STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ( Before : Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria,…

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

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.…

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.

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…

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.

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.…

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.

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. )…

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.

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…

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.

(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…

You missed