Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Labour Laws

Administrative order punishing a delinquent employee - Certain generic principles governing interference with orders of punishment that are passed following inquiry proceedings have evolved over a period of time. Law is well settled that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not ordinarily subject to correction in judicial review because the disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. If there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the high court in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, should on consideration of the materials on record, the court be satisfied that there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, or that the inquiry proceedings have been conducted contrary to statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry, or that the ultimate decision of the disciplinary authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or that the conclusion of the disciplinary authority is ex facie arbitrary or capricious, so much so that no reasonable person could have arrived at such conclusion, or there is any other ground very similar to the above, the high court may in the exercise of its discretion interfere to set things right. After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated. (Para 33) Bhupinderpal Singh Gill v. State of Punjab, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 85 : AIR 2025 SC 620 : 2025 INSC 83 For a person to claim employment in an organization, a direct masterservant relationship must be established on paper. (Para 7) Joint Secretary, Central Board of Secondary Education v. Raj Kumar Mishra, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 343 Indefinite temporary employment for permanent roles is contrary to labour jurisprudence and principles of fairness. (Para 14 & 15) Shripal v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 153 : 2025 INSC 144 Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 Section 2(1)(d)(ii)(d) - "dependent" - Whether the definition of "dependent" as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii)(d) of the Act, specifically whether widowed sisters of the deceased, who were not minors, could be considered dependents entitled to compensation – Held, Section 2(1)(d)(ii)(d) of the 1923 Act defines dependents to include a "minor brother, or an unmarried sister, or a widowed sister if a minor" and noted the incongruity with present-day realities, referring to the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which makes the occurrence of a "widowed minor sister" unlikely - Supreme Court declined to interfere with the High Court judgment which treated widowed adult sisters as dependents, allowing compensation - Supreme Court left the question of law about the definition of "dependent" open and recommended the Law Commission of India to consider suitable amendments to the Employees Compensation Act to reflect current social realities. [Paras 2 - 6] New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kogga, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1039 Sections 2(8), 3 - Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (ESI Act) - Sections 2(8), 51E - Interpretation of “accident arising out of and in the course of employment” - High Court reversed Commissioner's order for compensation citing that accident of deceased-watchmen did not originate from his employment because it happened outside factory premises – Held, the phrase “accident arising out of and in the courts of his employment” as it appears in section 3 of EC Act, includes accidents that occur when an employee is travelling to or from their place of work - Introduction of Section 51E into the ESI Act in 2010, which explicitly states that an accident while commuting to work is “deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment”, provided a nexus between the accident and the employment is established - This interpretation is based on the principle that the EC Act and ESI Act are statutes in pari materia and serve the common goal of social security for employees - This amendment to be “clarificatory in character” and therefore, it has a retrospective effect - Both EC Act and ESI Act are beneficial legislations - Set aside order of High Court - Appeal allowed. [Paras 15, 16, 18, 23, 37, 39, 40, 44, 47, 55] Daivshala v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 748 : 2025 INSC 904 Courts are not strictly bound by the schedule under the Act, 1923, when determining compensation for functional disability. Courts may deviate from the statutory schedule to account for the actual loss of earning capacity due to functional disability, adopting a liberal interpretation of the Act as beneficial legislation. Overturning ...

Supreme Court Annual Digest 2025: Labour Laws

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags