The Supreme Court partly allowed an electricity-company clerk's appeal, holding that once a defective departmental inquiry is set aside and misconduct is later proved on fresh evidence, the disciplinary authority cannot mechanically fall back on the old, pre-remand show-cause notice and reimpose dismissal — it must independently apply its mind to the quantum of punishment. A digest of the facts, the holding on proportionality and natural justice, and what it means for service-law practice.
A three-judge bench laid down a strict, impropriety-based six-fold test for piercing the corporate veil, holding that canteen workers engaged through a wholly-owned subsidiary were not workmen of the parent company.
On 13 December 2021, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court issued notice on a writ petition seeking recognition of gig workers as workers within the Indian labour-law architecture, social security entitlements under the Code on Social Security 2020 Chapter IX, and operational implementation of the Unorganised Workers' Social Security Act 2008 — a doctrinal classification question that remains pending.
On 1 May 2001, a five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court affirmed the Shambhu Nath Goyal threshold-pleading rule — management must, at the first opportunity in its written statement before the Tribunal, reserve the right to lead fresh evidence in the event the domestic enquiry is found invalid.
The May-June 2026 cycle in Indian labour and employment law has been dominated by the 8 May 2026 Industrial Relations (Central) Rules notification, the operationalisation of state-level gig-worker frameworks led by Karnataka, the continuing IFAT v. Union of India petition before the Supreme Court, and a clutch of apex-court rulings on workman classification and contract-labour referral jurisdiction.
On 28 August 1985, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court read Section 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act with the breadth its language demands — every termination by the employer is retrenchment unless it falls within one of the enumerated exceptions.
On 6 March 1973, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court gave Section 11A its foundational construction — the Industrial Tribunal's own satisfaction on guilt and punishment displaces the four-grounds restraint of Indian Iron & Steel, and the Tribunal may alter the punishment imposed by an employer.
On 27 January 2026, a two-judge bench of Justices Pankaj Mithal and S.V.N. Bhatti held that disputes relating to the employment, termination, or alleged sham nature of contract labour arrangements must be adjudicated by a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 — and that the State's reference jurisdiction operates even on an apprehended dispute and is not foreclosed by the absence of a prior written demand on the employer. The judgment reaffirms the SAIL safeguards for contract labour and supplies a working architecture for contract-labour litigation.
Forty-eight years after Justice Krishna Iyer's expansive reading of 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, a nine-judge Constitution Bench led by the Chief Justice has reserved judgment on whether the test in *Bangalore Water Supply* lays down correct law. A practitioner's preview of the reference, the bench, the questions, and what an answer either way would mean for labour and HR practice.