Supreme Court judgments
Leading Supreme Court decisions under the law that the Labour Codes replaced. Each page gives the Court's own words, checked word for word against the Supreme Court's official copy, with the page and margin letter in the Supreme Court Reports. Where the judgment quotes the provision the Court interpreted, the page sets it beside the Code provision this library compares it with.
These decisions were made under the earlier Acts. This library does not say whether they hold good under the Codes; where the Code is worded differently, the case page says so.
The Code on Wages, 2019
- Bijay Cotton Mills Ltd. v. State of Ajmer[1955] 1 S.C.R. 752 · 14 Oct 1954 · decided on the Constitution: whether the restrictions the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 puts on the freedom of trade or business are reasonable under Article 19
Whether the Minimum Wages Act, which makes it an offence to pay less than the minimum wages fixed under it, puts unreasonable restrictions on employers and workers.
Listed on Code on Wages, section 5, Code on Wages, section 8
- Mumbai Kamgar Sabha, Bombay v. Abdulbhai Faizullabhai[1976] 3 S.C.R. 591 · 10 Mar 1976 · decided under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965, s.17
Whether the Payment of Bonus Act ruled out claims to bonus based on custom or on conditions of service.
Compared with Code on Wages, section 37
- Sanjit Roy v. State of Rajasthan[1983] 2 S.C.R. 271 · 20 Jan 1983 · decided on the Constitution, on wages below the minimum wage notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948: Article 23 (forced labour) in the opinion of Bhagwati J., and Article 14 (equality) in that of Pathak J
Whether the State could pay workers on famine relief works less than the minimum wage, under a State Act that excluded the Minimum Wages Act from those works.
Listed on Code on Wages, section 5
- Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'Costa[1987] 2 S.C.R. 659 · 26 Mar 1987 · decided under the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, s.4(1)
Whether women stenographers paid less than men for the same work were denied equal remuneration.
Compared with Code on Wages, section 3(1) · wording differs
- Workmen v. Management of Reptakos Brett & Co. Ltd.[1991] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 129 · 31 Oct 1991 · decided on an industrial dispute over a dearness allowance scheme under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, in which the Court set out norms for fixing the minimum wage
Whether a long-standing dearness allowance scheme could be abolished to the workmen's prejudice, and what norms guide the fixing of a minimum wage.
Listed on Code on Wages, section 6
The Industrial Relations Code, 2020
- State Bank of India v. N. Sundara Money[1976] 3 S.C.R. 160 · 16 Jan 1976 · decided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s.2(oo)
Whether employment that ends on a date fixed in the appointment order is ended by retrenchment.
Compared with Industrial Relations Code, section 2(zh) · wording differs
- Bangalore Water-Supply & Sewerage Board v. R. Rajappa[1978] 3 S.C.R. 207 · 21 Feb 1978 · decided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s.2(j)
What is an 'industry' under the Industrial Disputes Act, and whether a water supply board, hospitals, educational institutions and research institutes can be industries.
Compared with Industrial Relations Code, section 2(p) · wording differs
- Punjab Land Development and Reclamation Corporation Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Chandigarh[1990] 3 S.C.R. 111 · 4 May 1990 · decided under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, s.2(oo)
Whether 'retrenchment' means only the discharge of surplus staff, or every termination of service other than those the definition excludes.
Compared with Industrial Relations Code, section 2(zh) · wording differs
The Code on Social Security, 2020
- B. Shah v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore[1978] 1 S.C.R. 701 · 12 Oct 1977 · decided under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, s.5(1); the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, s.5(3)
Whether maternity benefit for the weeks of a woman's absence is paid for Sundays and other wageless rest days.
Compared with Social Security Code, section 60(1), Social Security Code, section 60(3) · wording differs
- Shri Digvijay Woollen Mills Ltd. v. Mahendra Prataprai Buch[1981] 1 S.C.R. 64 · 23 Jul 1980 · decided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, s.4(2)
How fifteen days' wages are worked out for the gratuity of a monthly-rated employee.
Compared with Social Security Code, section 53(2)
- Lalappa Lingappa v. Laxmi Vishnu Textile Mills Ltd.[1981] 2 S.C.R. 796 · 11 Feb 1981 · decided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, s.2(c)
Whether years in which a worker actually worked fewer than 240 days count as continuous service for gratuity.
Compared with Social Security Code, section 54 · wording differs
- Jeewanlal (1929) Ltd. v. Appellate Authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act[1985] 1 S.C.R. 664 · 29 Aug 1984 · decided under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, s.4(2); the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, s.4(3)
How fifteen days' wages are worked out for a monthly-rated employee, and whether the ceiling of twenty months' wages is counted in working days too.
Compared with Social Security Code, section 53(2), Social Security Code, section 53(3) · wording differs
- Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Female Workers (Muster Roll)[2000] 2 S.C.R. 171 · 8 Mar 2000 · decided under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, s.3(o)
Whether women engaged on muster roll on daily wages are entitled to maternity benefit.
Compared with Social Security Code, section 2(91) · wording differs
- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (II), West Bengal v. Vivekananda Vidyamandir[2019] 2 S.C.R. 275 · 28 Feb 2019 · decided under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, s.2(b)
Whether special allowances paid to all employees are part of the basic wages on which provident fund contributions are paid.
Compared with Social Security Code, section 2(88) · wording differs
The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020
- Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. National Union Water Front Workers[2001] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 343 · 30 Aug 2001 · decided under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, s.10
Whether, once the Government prohibits contract labour in an establishment, the principal employer must absorb the contract labour.
Compared with OSH Code, section 57 · wording differs