Karnataka High Court, in G. Linganagouda vs. General Manager, Karnataka Gramina Bank (WRIT PETITION NO.100339 OF 2025 (S-RES)),recently ruled that employers cannot withhold leave encashment from a dismissed employee, as it constitutes a property right under Article 300A of the Constitution. The...
Layout B (with infinite scroll)
Calcutta High Court, in SwarnaksharPrakasaniPvt. Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal (WPA 281 of 2025), recently examined whether an employee qualifies as a ‘workman’ under the ID Act. The court reiterated that an ’employee’s actual job functions, rather than their designation...
Calcutta High Court, in M/s. Stesalit Limited vs. Union of India & Ors. (WPA 532 of 2025), recently held that gratuity payments are excluded from a corporate debtor’s estate under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC“) and distinct from other liabilities. The court...
News Section
Disciplinary Orders cannot be modified unilaterally when attains Finality upon Communication: AP HC
Andhra Pradesh High Court in B. Asheervadam vs. UCO Bank (W.P. 12527 OF 2012), recently held that a disciplinary order, once communicated to an employee, cannot be modified unilaterally without separate notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized that disciplinary actions must...
Himachal Pradesh High Court in State of HP vs. Ramesh Chand (CWP No. 8500 of 2013), recently ruled that termination of employment cannot be based solely on a preliminary inquiry. The court emphasized that dismissal without a full-fledged departmental inquiry is legally impermissible, as no proper...
