Rajasthan High Court in Leela Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. CWP No. 7728/2025),on May 1, 2025 observed that an employee receiving a new appointment order will not be bound by the conditions of the bond outlined in her prior appointment order. The fact that the new appointment was granted...
Layout B (with infinite scroll)
News Section
It is for employer to prove counter once workman proves 240 days working: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pankaj Kumar Mishra vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti (MP No. 865/2018), on May 2, 2025, reinstated a skilled labourer who was orally terminated from service. The Court held that while the initial burden lies with the workman to establish continuous employment for 240 days...
News Section
Panchayat employee absorbed in state Govt is entitled to gratuity under the Gratuity Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madhya Pradesh HC in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Shiv Nath Singh Kushwaha & Ors. (W.P. No. 31272 of 2024)on May 6, 2025 dismissed the state Government’s contention that its employees were not governed by the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 (“Gratuity Act“). The Court...
News Section
Employee termination is illegal merely on the basis of show cause notice Inquiry is must: Rajasthan High Court
Rajasthan High Court in Sharvan Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. CWP No. 4298/2025),on May 8, 2025, reinstated an employee whose services were terminated solely on the basis of a show cause notice and the employer’s dissatisfaction with the employee’s reply. The Court noted that...
Supreme Court in Vijaya Bank & Anr. vs. Prashant B Narnaware (CA No. 11708/2016), on May 14, 2025, upheld the enforceability of a clause in the employee’s appointment letter requiring a minimum employment period of 3 years, with a stipulation for liquidated damages of ₹2,00,000/- in case of non...
