143 results found

The Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ('Act') and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 ('Rules') were enacted on 9 December 2013 with the objective of preventing and protecting women against sexual harassment at workplace.

The Supreme Court of India has, in the case of The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II) West Bengal v. Vivekananda Vidyamandir and Others, clarified the issue of the allowances to be excluded while calculating provident fund contribution.

In a recent judgment delivered by Hon'ble Judges U. U. Lalit and Indu Malthotra, in the case of M/s. Pawan Hans Limited & Ors. Vs. Aviation Karmachari Sanghatana & Ors.[1],

On February 28, 2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its judgement in the case of The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II) West Bengal vs. Vivekananda Vidyamandir and Others.

On June 30, 2023, a division bench of the High Court of Delhi ("Court") passed a judgment in Dr. Sohail Malik vs. Union of India and Anr.,1 and held that the scope of the Sexual Harassment...

In the ongoing case of Bruhat Bangalore Hotels Association and Ors. vs. The Principal Secretary1, a single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court...

In the realm of industrial and labour jurisprudence, the burden of proof and the standard of evidence required to substantiate claims of illegal termination or unjustified removal from service remain subjects...

The Ministry of Labour and Employment, via a notification dated June 23, 2023, has declared the uranium industry as a public utility service for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947...

In the interplay between work and motherhood, the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 ("Act") remains a transformative force, redefining the narrative for working women.

In M/s Bharti Airtel Limited vs. A.S. Raghavendra, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India ("Supreme Court") holistically analysed the actual...

Madhya Pradesh High Court ("HC"), in Vikram Singh case,1 held that violation of service rules does not fall within the purview of violation of discharge of public functions.

The Allahabad High Court (HC) in the Shivakar Singh case denied relief to employee Shivakar Singh (Singh) of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited (UPPCL).

In the earlier parts of this series, we delved into the "Why" (how proper processes protect employers and ensure fairness for employees) and the "How" (crafting court-proof charge sheets).

Court Decides Not To Interfere With Decision of Internal Committee Set Up By Employer

On December 30, 2025, the Ministry of Labour and Employment pre-published the draft Central rules under all four (4) Labour Codes, namely...

The Supreme Court examined the issue of payment of gratuity to an Assistant Professor in the matter of Birla Institute of Education vs. State of Jharkhand

Lock-in period provision in an employment agreement during the term of employment is valid and does not infringe the fundamental rights of an employee; disputes on lock-in period are arbitrable under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996...