Labour & Service Monthly Digest: June 2025

Once Candidates Are Absorbed On Regular Posts, Irregularity In Initial Appointments Is Deemed To Have Been Cured: Allahabad High Court Case Title: Devendra Singh v. State Of Up And 4 Others Case No. : SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 167 of 2024 The Allahabad High Court has held that once the appellants-employees were absorbed against vacancies in regular posts, any irregularity which would have existed at the time of their initial appointment would be deemed to have been cured. While dealing with subseqeunt termination of employees due appointments being made on unsanctioned posts, the bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held the appellants were not at fault even though there was irregularity in their initial appointments.********************************************************************************************************************************************************************[Employees Provident Fund Act] No Appeal Lies Against Rejection Of Review Plea, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court Case Title: M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another Case No. : WRIT - C No. - 9281 of 2025 Relying on its earlier decision in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Another, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a writ petition would be maintainable against the order in review under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as no statutory appeal is provided against such order.******************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Bombay High Court Voluntarily Abandoning Service Is Not Retrenchment: Bombay HC Case Name: Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society vs Smt. Indira Madhukar Muraskar & Ors Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5139 A single judge bench consisting of Justice Anil L. Pansare set aside multiple Industrial Court orders that had directed the reinstatement and back wages of several employees. These employees were absent from duty without notice. The court held that prolonged absence despite repeated calls amounted to voluntary abandonment of service, and not termination. Thus, the court held that retrenchment procedure under the Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable.******************************************************************************************************************************************************************** Payment Of Gratuity Act Overrides Other State Pension Rules: Bombay HC Case Name: Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Amravati vs Ganesh Gulabrao Nawale Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5311 A single judge bench of justice MS Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ('Act'), prevails over the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 ('MCS Rules'), unless a specific exemption is provided under Section 5 of the Act. The court clarified that the mere pendency of proceedings or any minor punishment under the latter, cannot justify withholding gratuity under Section 4(6) of the Act. Payment Of Gratuity Act Applies To Zilla Parishad Employees: Bombay HCPayment Of Gratuity Act Applies To Zilla Parishad Employees: Bombay HC Case Name: Zilla Parishad & Ors vs Pradeep Bhaurao Pokale Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-NAG:5300 A single judge bench of Justice M.S. Jawalkar held that the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, applies to Zilla parishad employees. However, the court explained that Section 4(6) of the Act allows the withholding or forfeiture of gratuity if an employee faces criminal proceedings that involve moral turpitude. Industrial Disputes Act; Section 33(C)(2) Only Applies If Entitlement Is Established Through Undisputed Evidence: Bombay HC Case Name: The Superintending Engineer, MSEDCL vs Pundlik Kondiba Pachpinde Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:15061 A single judge bench of the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), consisting of Justice Prafulla Khubalkar dismissed a challenge to a labour court award that provided overtime wages with interest to retired employees. The court held that an employees' right to overtime wages was a pre-existing statutory right under Section 59 of the Factories Act, 1948, and that it can be enforced through Section 33(c )(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Calcutta High Court Illegal Disciplinary Proceedings And Termination Of Services Of Co-op Bank Employee : Calcutta HC Sets Aside Order Case Name: Sagar Sengupta vs State of West Bengal &Ors. Case No.: WPA 4221 of 2023 A single judge bench of Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee held that the disciplinary proceedings against a senior bank employee were conducted by officials who did not have the...

Labour & Service Monthly Digest: June 2025

Namdev Singh

Tags