Please click here to download the Newsletter as a PDF.
In this edition of the JSA Employment Newsletter, we examine the scope and ambit of reasonable accommodations and undue burden under the Indian disability rights framework. The newsletter also covers the considerations employers must keep in mind while extending reasonable accommodations to persons with disabilities, and otherwise. The newsletter also provides a brief roundup of key regulatory and legislative developments in Indian employment law for July and August 2026, including updates on the labour codes and recent judicial precedents across employment legislations.
‘Reasonability’ of accommodations for employers to consider under Indian disability laws
The concept of reasonable accommodation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 read with applicable rules thereunder (“RPwD Act”) is rooted in the principles of substantive equality and non-discrimination, where employers are required to undertake positive steps to ensure that persons with disabilities participate in the workplace on an equal basis with others. The RPwD Act defines ‘reasonable accommodation’ as necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments that enable persons with disabilities to exercise their rights equally with others, provided such measures do not impose a disproportionate or undue burden on the person required to provide them.
While the statutory definition appears straightforward, the practical contours of what may constitute a ‘reasonable accommodation’ and when an employer may legitimately invoke the defence of ‘undue burden’ have been shaped largely through judicial precedents. The statute offers limited guidance on the nature and scope of accommodations that employers must provide. This has emboldened the courts to step in, identify the measures that may be required in particular circumstances and determine the threshold for establishing undue burden.
Judicial trend: a broad and employee-centric approach
Indian courts have consistently adopted a broad interpretation of reasonable accommodation, viewing it not strictly as a welfare measure but as an inherent and substantive legal right. In Vikash Kumar vs. Union Public Service Commission and Ors.[1], the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) held that the obligation to provide reasonable accommodation is not restricted to individuals with benchmark disabilities and emphasised that accommodations must be determined through an individualised assessment of the employee’s circumstances. Significantly, the Supreme Court observed that any claim of ‘disproportionate or undue burden’ must be established through objective evidence and cannot be based on administrative inconvenience or speculative concerns.
This employee-centric approach is equally evident in Ravinder Kumar Dhariwal vs. Union of India[2], where disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against an employee suffering from mental illness. The Supreme Court held that disciplining an employee for conduct substantially linked to a disability may amount to indirect discrimination. Rather than imposing a punishment, the employer was expected to consider and explore accommodation measures, including re-assignment to an alternate role or post that would allow such person to continue employment while appropriately addressing his mental health concerns.
These decisions reflect a broader judicial recognition that disability may affect an individual’s ability to conform to conventional workplace norms and that employers are therefore required to adapt organisational practices rather than simply exclude affected employees from the workforce.
What is considered to be reasonable accommodation?
A review of recent decisions demonstrates that courts have required employers to implement a wide spectrum of accommodations depending on the employee’s disability, job function, and workplace circumstances.
One of the most common accommodations mandated by courts is the provision of an alternative role where an employee acquires a disability during employment and becomes unable to perform their existing functions. In Ch. Joseph vs. Telangana State Road Transport Corporation[3], a bus driver who developed colour blindness was medically retired without being considered for non-driving roles. The Supreme Court held that the employer was under a statutory obligation to explore alternate employment and could not simply retire the employee on medical grounds, especially when the employer did not even apply its mind to identifying other options or roles for the employee. The Supreme Court emphasised that reassignment to a suitable post is not an undue burden but rather a core component of reasonable accommodation, and that the burden is on the employer to prove that the accommodation causes undue burden.
Similar principles were applied in Laljee vs. State of Uttar Pradesh[4], where a teacher suffered a brain stroke and lost the ability to speak and write effectively. The Allahabad High Court held that the employer was obligated to identify a suitable alternative position with the same pay and service benefits. When a suitable alternate position was not available, the employee was required to be retained on a supernumerary post until an appropriate role became available. It is also important to note that in this case, the court insisted on retaining the employee on the same pay scale and service benefits as he was accustomed to earlier.
Courts have also recognised that reasonable accommodation may extend beyond job re-assignment and require employers to make structural or technological adjustments, based on the understanding that there is no universal approach and that accommodations must be made on an individual-centric basis. In Sujata Bora vs. Coal India Limited[5], the Supreme Court directed the employer to create a supernumerary position for a candidate with multiple disabilities and provide workplace accommodations including a suitable desk assignment, dedicated computer equipment, and accessibility-focused tools consistent with universal design principles. The Supreme Court characterised such measures as essential to ensuring meaningful workplace participation. This case also recognised equality at the workplace, with the extension of meaningful accommodations to persons with disabilities as a fundamental tenet of corporate social responsibility.
Likewise, in Syed Bashir-ud-din Qadri vs. Nazir Ahmed Shah[6], the Supreme Court reinstated a teacher with cerebral palsy despite speech and writing impairments. Noting his successful teaching record, the Supreme Court held that limitations relating to writing on a blackboard could be addressed through assistive devices and other technological aids, rather than treating the disability itself as a basis for termination.
The courts have even treated financial considerations with caution when evaluating accommodation obligations. In Ranjit Kumar Rajak vs. State Bank of India[7], the Bombay High Court rejected the employer’s argument that anticipated future medical reimbursement costs associated with a candidate’s renal transplant created undue hardship. In this case, the court considered the following factors for evaluating ‘undue hardship’: financial cost; the morale of other employees; and the size of the operations. The court held that speculative claims of undue hardship, without substantiating how the requested accommodation would impose a financial burden on the employer, demoralise the workforce, or detrimentally affect the productivity of the operations, could not justify exclusion from employment.
The limits of accommodation: when does undue burden arise?
As discussed above, while courts have generally imposed robust accommodation obligations on employers, they have also acknowledged that reasonable accommodation cannot be extended in an unlimited fashion. The statutory requirement is to provide accommodations that are reasonable, not to fundamentally alter the nature of a role or compromise legitimate safety requirements that workplaces may have or may need to adhere to.
This distinction was highlighted in Pragati Kesharwani vs. Union of India[8], where a candidate challenged her non-selection for a field engineering role on account of impaired binocular vision. The Delhi High Court (“Delhi HC”) upheld the employer’s decision, recognising that the role involved hazardous working conditions and that the prescribed visual standards for employment were intrinsically linked to operational safety. Additionally, appointing the candidate in that specific role would not only cause her harm but would also deprive the employer of the operational requirements of such role, the criteria of which were clearly set out in the job description. The court held that the principle of reasonable accommodation does not require employers to dilute essential eligibility criteria that could adversely impact work safety and alter the nature of the position. The court also noted that employers are the best arbiters to determine the adequacy of a candidate for a role provided they meet the eligibility criteria, and that courts cannot sit in appeal over the employer’s decision regarding suitability of a candidate.
Accordingly, the emerging judicial position suggests that the defence of undue burden may be available where an employer can objectively demonstrate that the proposed accommodation would compromise safety, prevent performance of essential job functions, or impose a disproportionate operational or financial burden. However, courts have consistently set a high threshold for establishing such a defence and have generally required employers to demonstrate that less restrictive alternatives were explored before refusing accommodation.
As a result, employers assessing accommodation requests should focus on individualised assessments, documented consideration of alternative measures, and objective evidence supporting any refusal. The consistent message emerging from the courts is that exclusion should be a measure of last resort, and that meaningful workplace participation of persons with disabilities remains the central objective of the RPwD Act.
Labour codes updates
Andhra Pradesh notifies final rules under the Code on Social Security, 2020
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide notification dated July 7, 2026, has notified the Code on Social Security (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2026 (“Andhra Pradesh SS Rules”), giving effect to the Code on Social Security, 2020 (“Security Code”) in the State. The Andhra Pradesh SS Rules establish the procedural framework for, inter alia, registration and cancellation of establishments, employees’ compensation, nomination for gratuity, and the constitution and functioning of the Andhra Pradesh Unorganised Workers Social Security Board and the Andhra Pradesh Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board.
A key feature of the Andhra Pradesh SS Rules is the emphasis on electronic administration and compliance, including online registration of establishments through a designated State Labour Department portal, deemed registration within seven days, and digital submission and verification of related documents. The notification marks a significant step towards operationalising the social security framework envisaged under the labour codes in Andhra Pradesh.
Central Government reconstitutes central advisory board under the Code on Wages, 2019
The Central Government, vide notification[9] dated July 21, 2026, exercising powers under Section 42(1) of the Code on Wages, 2019 (“Wage Code”), and in supersession of the earlier notification dated January 29, 2019, has constituted a Central Advisory Board (“Board”). The Board comprises members under 4 (four) broad heads: (a) independent members, including the Minister for Labour and Employment (Chairperson); (b) representatives from State Governments, comprising Principal Secretaries (Labour Department) from 5 (five) States; (c) employers’ representatives, drawn from industry bodies; and (d) employees’ representatives, drawn from trade unions and workers’ associations.
In line with the Wage Code, the Board advises the Central Government on matters relating to, inter alia, fixation or revision of minimum wages, providing increasing employment opportunities for women, etc.
Union Territory of Ladakh notifies final rules under the Code on Social Security, 2020, Code on Wages, 2019 and Industrial Relations Code, 2020
The Administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh has notified rules under the 3 (three) labour codes: (a) the Code on Wages (Ladakh) Rules, 2026 (“Ladakh Wage Rules”), vide notification dated July 28, 2026, under the Wage Code; (b) the Industrial Relations (Ladakh) Rules, 2026 (“Ladakh IR Rules”), vide notification dated July 20, 2026, under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“IR Code”); and (c) the Code on Social Security (Ladakh) Rules, 2026 (“Ladakh SS Rules”), vide notification dated July 20, 2026, under the Security Code.
The Ladakh Wage Rules establish the procedural framework for, inter alia, fixation and revision of minimum wages, categorisation of occupations by skill level, constitution of the Ladakh Advisory Board, payment of wages, claims and recovery proceedings, maintenance of registers and wage slips, and inspection mechanisms. The Ladakh IR Rules govern key aspects relating to constitution of works committees and grievance redressal committees, registration and recognition of trade unions and negotiating unions, standing orders, conciliation and adjudication of industrial disputes, voluntary arbitration, strikes and lockouts, lay-offs, retrenchment and closures, and the worker re-skilling fund. The Ladakh SS Rules provide for, inter alia, the constitution and functioning of the Ladakh Unorganised Workers Social Security Board and the Ladakh Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board, registration of establishments, employees’ compensation, nomination for gratuity, and related social security entitlements.
A common feature across the three sets of rules is the emphasis on electronic administration and compliance, including electronic filings, registers, communications with labour authorities and digital claims processing. The notifications mark a significant step towards operationalising the labour codes framework in the Union Territory of Ladakh.
Andhra Pradesh notifies final rules under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020
The Government of Andhra Pradesh, vide notification[10] dated August 7, 2026, has notified the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2026 (“Andhra Pradesh OSH Rules”), giving effect to the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (“OSH Code”) in the State. The Andhra Pradesh OSH Rules prescribe a comprehensive framework governing registration of establishments, including amendment of registration, procedure for preferring an appeal against the registering officer, and detailed duties of employer and employee, including the format for issuing the letter of appointment to an employee. The Andhra Pradesh OSH Rules also prescribe specific requirements for regulation of contract labour, occupational safety and health standards, working hours, welfare facilities, accident reporting, inspections, and compliance requirements applicable to establishments covered under the OSH Code.
A key feature of the Andhra Pradesh OSH Rules is facilitating compliance through online registration, including deemed registrations, digital filings and maintenance of registers. The Andhra Pradesh OSH Rules also introduce detailed requirements relating to safety committees and safety officers, medical examinations, welfare measures for employment of women workers, and the regulation of hazardous processes, thereby operationalising the OSH Code in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Rajasthan notifies final rules under the Wage Code
The Government of Rajasthan, vide notification[11] dated August 12, 2026, has notified the Code on Wages (Rajasthan) Rules, 2026 (“Rajasthan Wage Rules”), prescribing the framework for fixation and revision of minimum wages, working hours, weekly rest days, the manner of payment of wages, maintenance of registers and records, and other compliance requirements applicable to employers in the State.
To facilitate implementation of the Wage Code in the State of Rajasthan, the Rajasthan Wage Rules also set out procedures for deductions, recovery of dues, adjudication of wage disputes, compounding of offences, and responsibilities of principal employers in relation to contract labour.
Rajasthan notifies final rules under the IR Code
The Government of Rajasthan, vide notification[12] dated August 12, 2026, has notified the Rajasthan Industrial Relation Rules, 2026 (“Rajasthan IR Rules”), laying down the procedural framework relating to trade union registration and recognition, constitution of works committees and grievance redressal committees, certification and modification of standing orders, strikes and lockouts, retrenchment, lay-offs and closure of establishments. The Rajasthan IR Rules also prescribe specific requirements for operationalisation of the worker re-skilling fund.
The Rajasthan IR Rules further provide detailed procedures for reference of disputes to arbitration and resolution of industrial disputes, including the manner of filing complaints by aggrieved workers. In addition, the Rajasthan IR Rules facilitate electronic administration across various aspects of industrial relations compliance, including adjudication proceedings, notices relating to strikes and lockouts, and applications concerning lay-offs, retrenchment and closures.
Other regulatory and legislative updates
Ministry of Labour and Employment notifies contribution rates under the EPF, EPS and EDLI Schemes, 2026
The Ministry of Labour and Employment (“Labour Ministry”), vide 3 (three) notifications[13] dated July 1, 2026, has prescribed the statutory contribution rates under the Security Code, as follows: (a) the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 2026—12% of wages, payable by both employer and employee, deemed effective from November 21, 2025, subject to specified exemptions; (b) the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 2026—8.33% of wages, payable by the employer with effect from June 29, 2026; and (c) the Employees’ Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 2026—0.5% of wages, payable by the employer with effect from June 29, 2026.
State of Chhattisgarh amends shops and establishments act
The Government of Chhattisgarh, vide notification[14] dated July 8, 2026, has notified the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 2025 (“Chhattisgarh Amendment Act”), amending the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 (“Chhattisgarh S&E Act”).
The Chhattisgarh Amendment Act, inter alia: (a) raises the employee threshold for applicability of the Chhattisgarh S&E Act from 10 (ten) to 20 (twenty) employees; (b) permits women employees to work between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., subject to conditions notified by the State Government; (c) increases permissible daily work hours from 9 (nine) to 10 (ten) hours and the daily spread-over from 10.5 (ten and a half) hours to 12 (twelve) hours, while omitting the proviso capping spread-over at 12 (twelve) hours for workers engaged in intermittent or urgent work; and (d) increases the permissible quarterly overtime limit from 125 (one hundred and twenty-five) to 144 (one hundred and forty-four) hours.
National Commission for Women releases handbook on inquiry procedure for internal committees and local committees under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
The National Commission for Women (“NCW”) has released a handbook (“Handbook”) on inquiry procedure for Internal Committees (“IC”) and Local Committees (“LC”) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”). The Handbook aims to provide step-by-step procedural guidance, flowcharts, and frequently asked questions to address the practical challenges ICs and LCs face in conducting inquiries that are procedurally fair and legally sustainable.
The Handbook sets out 3 (three) distinct procedural frameworks depending on the respondent: the general procedure before an IC where no service rules apply; the procedure before an LC; and the procedure applicable to Government servants governed by service rules. It further consolidates key principles governing inquiry proceedings, including natural justice, impartiality, procedural fairness, confidentiality, and sensitivity, along with relevant judicial precedents on standard of proof, cross-examination, and inquiry timelines. The Handbook also provides standardised complaint analysis report formats for use by ICs and LCs.
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation notifies commencement of India-UK social security agreement
The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (“EPFO”), vide circular[15] dated July 16, 2026, records that the agreement between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on social security (“Agreement”), along with its administrative arrangement dated July 14, 2025, has entered into force with effect from July 15, 2026. Under the detachment clause of the Agreement, employees deputed by their home-country employer to perform work in the host country are exempted from social security contributions in the host country, provided the anticipated duration of such work does not exceed 60 (sixty) months. This exemption is available based on a ‘certificate of coverage’ issued by EPFO or His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, UK. Concerned employees may apply for this certificate through their employer to the relevant regional office in accordance with EPFO’s consolidated guidelines.
Labour Ministry notifies procedure for determination of ‘core activity’ disputes under the OSH Code
The Labour Ministry, vide order[16] dated July 7, 2026, pursuant to Rule 101 of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026, has notified the manner and process for an aggrieved party to apply to the Central Government for a determination of whether any activity of an establishment constitutes a ‘core activity’ or otherwise.
The prescribed process requires the aggrieved party to submit an application in the specified form, along with supporting documents, either by email or speed post to the Under Secretary (Contract Labour). Following this, the Labour Ministry may refer the application to the concerned designated authority appointed in this regard. The designated authority would then submit a recommendatory report within 60 (sixty) days of receipt of the application, and the Ministry Labour must decide the question within 30 (thirty) days of receiving that report, in accordance with the principles of natural justice, with its decision to be communicated to the aggrieved party.
Labour Ministry notifies commencement of campaign on EPFO enrolment
The Labour Ministry, vide notification[17] dated July 8, 2026, has introduced the Employees’ Enrolment Campaign, 2026 (“Enrolment Campaign”) under the Security Code, which has come into force on July 1, 2026, and will remain operational until October 31, 2026.
The Enrolment Campaign (applicable to all establishments, irrespective of existing coverage status) provides a one-time opportunity for employers to voluntarily enrol eligible employees who were required to be covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”) during the period between April 1, 2009 and March 31, 2026, but were not enrolled, and to regularise past compliance for such employees.
Employers are required to submit an electronic declaration through the UMANG application for each employee after generating a valid universal account number and remitting contributions using electronic challans.
A special compliance relaxation has been provided under the Enrolment Campaign, whereby the employee’s share of provident fund contributions will be deemed waived for the declared period if it was not previously deducted from wages. Further, employers will not be subjected to enquiries in relation to employees covered through valid declarations made under the Enrolment Campaign. However, each defaulting establishment will be liable to deposit interest on employer’s share and administrative charges along with lumpsum damages of INR 100 (Indian Rupees one hundred).
Central Government introduces the Vishwas 2026 and Amnesty 2026
Vishwas 2026
The Central Government, vide circular[18] dated July 9, 2026, has operationalised Vishwas 2026 (“Vishwas Scheme”), a dispute resolution scheme introduced under the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 2026 (“EPF Scheme”). The Vishwas Scheme is effective from June 29, 2026, for a period of 6 (six) months. The Vishwas Scheme seeks to facilitate amicable settlement of disputes relating to damages levied under the EPF Act/Security Code.
The Vishwas Scheme covers 4 (four) categories of cases: (a) ongoing litigation cases where a notice issued under the EPF Act is under dispute; (b) finalised orders where notice is issued but recovery of the levied amount is pending; (c) pre-adjudication cases where a notice has been issued but no final order has been passed; and (d) cases where a notice is yet to be issued. The Vishwas Scheme does not apply to establishments where damages have already been fully recovered, cases involving fraud, misappropriation, or falsification of records, or cases where the corresponding interest liability remains unpaid. As a pre-condition to availing the Vishwas Scheme, the employer is required to fully discharge the interest liability payable under the EPF Act or the Security Code, as applicable.
For defaults occurring prior to June 14, 2024, damages will be recalculated at significantly reduced monthly rates of 0.25% (for default up to 2 (two) months), 0.50% (for default between 2 (two) to 4 (four) months), and 1% (for default exceeding 4 (four) months), irrespective of the rates otherwise applicable.
Employers seeking to avail the Vishwas Scheme must submit an online application (in the manner prescribed under the Vishwas Scheme) through the EPFO portal, following which the application will be verified and processed by the jurisdictional EPFO office. Upon approval and payment of the revised damages amount, a digitally signed certificate under the Vishwas Scheme will be issued.
Amnesty 2026
The Central Government, vide circular[19] dated July 11, 2026, has notified the Amnesty 2026 (“Amnesty Scheme”), a one-time scheme introduced under the EPF Scheme for regularising the exemption status of provident fund trusts recognised under the Income Tax Act, 1961, but which have not obtained formal exemption under the EPF Act or the Security Code. The Amnesty Scheme will remain valid until December 28, 2026, with a possibility of extension for up to 6 (six) months.
The Amnesty Scheme applies to 2 (two) categories of establishments:
- Category I: Establishments seeking retrospective regularisation of exemption for their provident fund trusts, which commenced compliance as an un-exempted establishment, or establishments opting for prospective compliance as un-exempted establishments (“Category I Establishments”); and
- Category II: Establishments seeking retrospective regularisation of exemption for their provident fund trusts while continuing as exempted establishments under the Security Code (“Category II Establishments”).
Category I Establishments may obtain retrospective exemption from the inception of the trust up to a cut-off date, i.e., the date from which such establishment commences compliance as an un-exempted establishment. The period of operation of the trust will be deemed to satisfy the 3 (three) year compliance requirement otherwise prescribed for grant of exemption. The Amnesty Scheme waives minimum employee threshold and conditions ordinarily applicable for exemption. Under the Amnesty Scheme, no assessment proceedings, damages proceedings, or interest proceedings will lie merely on the ground that a formal exemption notification had not been obtained, provided employee contributions and interest credited under the trust are at rates equivalent to or more favourable than statutory rates. Any such pending but not completed proceedings will stand withdrawn and abated.
However, the protection under the Amnesty Scheme does not extend to cases involving employees left out, delayed remittance of funds to the trust, delayed transfer of funds under the EPF Act. Where assessments, damages or interest orders have already been issued solely on account of absence of formal exemption, such orders will be treated as void ab initio and recovered amounts may be adjusted against future liabilities, subject to right to appeal under the Security Code.
Category II Establishments, in addition to compliance with the above requirements, are also required to adhere to the compliance requirements under the Security Code and the EPF Scheme.
The Amnesty Scheme expressly provides that the provisions of Vishwas Scheme will apply in respect of levy of damages under the EPF Act, and the provisions of Enrolment Campaign will apply in cases involving evasion of membership.
EPFO issues updated format for quarterly establishment returns
The EPFO, vide circular dated August 3, 2026, has issued updated formats (Annexures A to L) for submission of quarterly establishment returns by zonal offices with the Head Office, in supersession of its earlier circular dated December 29, 2025, with a view to streamline the reporting mechanism in line with data sought by EPFO, statutory commissions, parliamentary committees and other such bodies.
The updated formats, inter alia, introduce cumulative quarterly reporting of actions under various service provisions, capture category-wise details for promotions and retirements, and track IC status of complaints and reports under the POSH Act (including a dedicated table for SHe-Box complaints). They also introduce a new annexure for reporting monthly National Pension System contributions. All zonal offices are required to submit the completed returns to the Head Office by the 20th day following the close of each quarter.
Labour Ministry issues corrigenda to the EPF, EPS and EDLI Schemes, 2026
The Labour Ministry, vide 3 (three) separate notifications dated August 4, 2026, has published corrigenda to the EPF Scheme[20], the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 2026 (“EPS Scheme”)[21] and the Employees’ Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 2026 (“EDLI Scheme”)[22], each of which was originally notified under the Security Code on June 29, 2026.
The corrigenda address a range of textual, typographical, and cross-referencing corrections across the 3 (three) schemes. These include, inter alia, rectification of statutory nomenclature (e.g., ‘Employees Provident Fund’ to ‘Employees’ Provident Funds’ under the EPF Scheme), alignment of definitional and computation references, and removal of the reference to ‘penalty’ from the damages provisions under the EPS Scheme and the EDLI Scheme.
Government of Maharashtra amends the schedule to the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969
The Government of Maharashtra, vide notification[23] dated August 7, 2026, has exercised powers under Section 26 of the Maharashtra Mathadi, Hamal and Other Manual Workers (Regulation of Employment and Welfare) Act, 1969 (“Mathadi Act”) to amend the schedule appended thereto. The amendments expressly exclude ‘building and other construction work’ from the scope of employments covered under item numbers 1 and 5 of the said schedule, and additionally exclude work related to shifting of the house or office from item number 5. Further, item number 15 has been substituted to cover employment in metal (excluding iron and steel) and paper market or shops in connection with loading, unloading, stacking, carrying, weighing, measuring and related preparatory or incidental work, while expressly excluding building and other construction work.
Government of Karnataka directs District Magistrates to ensure compliance with the POSH Act and registration on the SHe-Box portal by all eligible workplaces within 1 month
The Government of Karnataka, vide circular[24] dated August 11, 2026 (“Circular”), has directed a review of the constitution of ICs under the POSH Act and their registration on the SHe-Box portal by every eligible workplace in the State of Karnataka. The Circular noted that there are over 81,000 (eighty-one thousand) eligible workplaces; however, only 26,000 (twenty-six thousand) of them have set up their IC and uploaded details on the SHe-Box portal.
For the remaining approximately 55,000 (fifty-five thousand) workplaces that have not formed the IC or uploaded details yet, District Magistrates have been required to ensure constitution of ICs and registration of such ICs on the SHe-Box portal. This exercise is to be completed within 1 (one) month from the date of the Circular, and concerned District Magistrates are required to submit a detailed report to the Chief Secretary’s office confirming the action undertaken.
Government of Rajasthan amends the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018
The Government of Rajasthan, vide notification[25] dated August 18, 2026, has notified the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2026, amending the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018, as framed under the RPwD Act.
The amendment substitutes the existing second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5, providing that reservation in promotion for persons with disabilities will, with effect from June 30, 2016, be in accordance with instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. Promotional benefits under this provision are to be granted on a notional basis from June 30, 2016, up to the date of commencement of the amendment rules, with a safeguard that persons promoted prior to such commencement will not be reverted on account of the promotion of a person with disability from an earlier year. Where the number of persons promoted exceeds the sanctioned posts, the administrative department may create shadow posts with the concurrence of the Finance Department.
Labour Ministry notifies wage thresholds for bonus eligibility and bonus calculation under the Wage Code
Pursuant to powers under Section 26(2) of the Wage Code, the Labour Ministry, vide notification[26] dated August 25, 2026, has revised the ceiling for payment of bonus. For calculating the bonus payable under the Wage Code, where the wages of an employee eligible for payment of bonus exceed INR 7,000 (Indian Rupees seven thousand) per month, the bonus will be calculated as if the wages were INR 7,000 (Indian Rupees seven thousand) per month, or the minimum wage fixed by the Central Government, whichever is higher. The notification will apply retrospectively and is deemed to have come into force on November 21, 2025.
The Labour Ministry, vide another notification[27] dated August 25, 2026, has revised the ceiling on the eligibility for payment of bonus. Every employee earning below INR 21,000 (Indian Rupees twenty-one thousand) per month will be eligible for payment of bonus under the Wage Code. Unlike the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (now subsumed under the Wage Code), which provided the threshold of INR 21,000 in the legislation itself, the Wage Code had no such provision. Section 21(1) of the Wage Code merely prescribes that the threshold will be notified by the Central Government. Similar to the previous notification, this notification will apply retrospectively and is deemed to have come into force on November 21, 2025.
Case law ratios
Supreme Court orders compensation: Mere pendency of criminal case does not justify police dismissal
In the case of SPO/Constable IRB Satpal Singh vs. State of Punjab and Ors.[28], the Supreme Court examined whether a police employee could be discharged from service solely on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him and whether his subsequent release on probation entitled him to reinstatement.
The appellant was appointed as a special police officer in Punjab in 1991 and was later selected for appointment as a constable in the Indian Reserve Battalion. However, he was denied joining on account of the pendency of a criminal case registered against him. Subsequently, in January 2003, he was discharged from service solely because of the pending criminal proceedings. The criminal trial later resulted in his conviction, though the appellate court ultimately maintained the conviction only under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and released him on probation, while observing that the conviction should not affect his service career.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that his discharge from service was illegal since, at the time of termination, he had merely been accused in a criminal case and had not been convicted. He further argued that in light of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (“PO Act”) and the appellate court’s direction that the conviction should not affect his service career, the respondents ought to have reinstated him.
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled position that release on probation does not erase or obliterate a conviction and that an employee cannot claim a right to continue in service solely because the benefit of probation has been granted. Relying on several earlier decisions, the Supreme Court held that Section 12 of the PO Act removes certain statutory disqualifications attached to a conviction but does not prevent an employer from taking action against an employee on the basis of such conviction.
However, the Supreme Court found that the appellant’s discharge was effected much earlier, when the criminal case was only pending and before any conviction had been recorded. The Supreme Court observed that the respondents had failed to show any legal basis authorising termination of a police employee with more than a decade of service solely on account of the pendency of a criminal case, and that no opportunity of hearing had been afforded to the appellant before his discharge. The Supreme Court therefore held that the termination was illegal and arbitrary.
While noting that reinstatement could not be granted due to procedural and legal deficiencies in the manner in which the suit had been framed, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice and directed the respondents to pay compensation of INR 5,00,000 (Indian Rupees five lakh) to the appellant within 3 (three) months.
By way of this ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that although release on probation does not wipe out a conviction or guarantee continuation in public employment, an employer cannot terminate an employee merely because a criminal case is pending against him. The judgment underscores that arbitrary termination based solely on unproven allegations may attract judicial intervention and compensatory relief. While the subject in the instant case involves public employment, this judgment will have likely consequential effects on private establishments as well.
Supreme Court retains triple test for defining ‘industry’ for pending cases under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Jai Bir Singh[29], a 9 (nine) judge bench of the Supreme Court examined the scope of the term ‘industry’ under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”) and revisited the landmark 7 (seven) judge bench decision in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. A. Rajappa[30] (“Bangalore Water Supply Case”), which had governed industrial jurisprudence in India for nearly 5 (five) decades.
The reference arose from conflicting judicial opinions on whether welfare-oriented government activities, particularly those undertaken by Social Forestry Departments, constitute an “industry” under the ID Act. The matter was initially referred to a larger Bench in 2005 due to concerns regarding the breadth of the “triple test” laid down in the Bangalore Water Supply Case. This test classified a wide range of organisations, including educational institutions, charitable organisations, and research bodies, as industries based primarily on the existence of organised employer-employee cooperation.
The 9 (nine) judge bench undertook an extensive review of the historical evolution of the expression ‘industry’, the jurisprudence preceding and succeeding Bangalore Water Supply Case, and the practical consequences of the expansive interpretation adopted therein. The Supreme Court observed that the existing test had, over time, widened the scope of ‘industry’ to an extent that risked encompassing organisations and activities that were never intended to be regulated under industrial law.
While the Supreme Court did not entirely discard the Bangalore Water Supply Case framework, it expressed disagreement with certain aspects of the judgment, particularly the near-exclusive emphasis on the employer-employee relations. The Supreme Court held that the nature and character of the activity undertaken must also be a significant consideration. In this regard, the Supreme Court opined that an activity should ordinarily possess a discernible commercial character analogous to trade or business before being treated as an industry, although the existence of a profit motive would remain irrelevant.
The Supreme Court further clarified that governmental welfare activities and public functions cannot automatically be treated as industries merely because they are organised and employ personnel. Instead, government bodies, charitable institutions, educational institutions, research organisations, and other similar entities must be evaluated based on the nature of the activity undertaken, its commercial character, and the overall employer-employee relationship. The Supreme Court also endorsed the continued application of the ‘dominant nature test’ for determining whether a composite organisation qualifies as an industry.
Importantly, the Supreme Court noted that the ID Act has since been repealed and replaced by the IR Code. Given this legislative development, the Supreme Court clarified that its reformulation of the Bangalore Water Supply Case principles would operate prospectively and would not disturb completed cases or proceedings already pending under the ID Act. The Supreme Court also expressly declined to interpret the definition of ‘industry’ under the IR Code, leaving that question open for future adjudication.
By way of this significant ruling, the 9 (nine) judge bench of the Supreme Court has sought to bring clarity to one of the most frequently debated concepts in Indian labour law. While preserving the broad protective intent of industrial legislation, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the determination of whether an entity constitutes an ‘industry’ must involve an assessment of the nature and commercial character of its activities, rather than relying solely on the existence of an employer-employee relationship. The decision is likely to serve as an important reference point in the interpretation of labour legislation and the treatment of welfare, charitable, and governmental organisations under industrial law.
Right of appeal takes precedence over compensation orders under the POSH Act
The Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (“MP HC”) in the Dr. Dilip Kumar Dureha vs. Anusha Deepak Tyagi and Ors.[31], examined a key procedural aspect under the POSH Act, namely whether a compensation order against the appellant, pursuant to the findings of the IC can be sustained, when the appeal against those findings is pending.
The ruling clarifies that the right of appeal under the POSH Act is a substantive statutory right and underscores that the penal action by way of a compensation order cannot be enforced, while the final decision by the appellate authority (“Appellate Authority”), is awaited.
The MP HC held that the appellant, under Section 18 of the POSH Act, has a procedural and substantive entitlement to approach the Appellate Authority, which must first examine the matter at hand, before determining any consequential relief from the IC’s findings.
The judgment provides important guidance to employers and employees on the procedural nuances of the POSH Act and reaffirms the appellate mechanism under Section 18 of the POSH Act as a substantive safeguard.
For a detailed analysis, please refer to the JSA Prism of July 21, 2026.
Telangana High Court holds that twins born during first pregnancy cannot disentitle a woman employee from maternity leave for a subsequent pregnancy
In the case of Smt. Jadi Swarupa Rani vs. State of Telangana and Ors.[32], the High Court of Telangana (“Telangana HC“) examined whether a woman government employee whose first pregnancy resulted in the birth of twins could be denied maternity leave for a subsequent pregnancy on the ground that she already had 2 (two) surviving children under the Telangana Fundamental Rules (which govern service conditions of government employees in the State of Telangana).
The Petitioner, who was employed as a Junior Lecturer with the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, had given birth to twins during her first pregnancy and was granted 180 (one hundred and eighty) days’ maternity leave for that delivery. However, when the employee sought maternity leave for her second pregnancy, the Respondent rejected the application on the ground that she already had 2 (two) surviving children and was therefore ineligible for maternity leave under the Telangana Fundamental Rules, which limit maternity leave to employees with fewer than 2 (two) surviving children.
The Telangana HC relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Deepika Singh vs. Central Administrative Tribunal and others[33] and the Delhi HC’s ruling in Commissioner of Police and another vs. Ravina Yadav and another[34], where the Supreme Court and Delhi HC observed that maternity leave is a welfare-oriented benefit that must be interpreted purposively and not denied solely based on the number of surviving children. The Telangana HC ruled that since the underlying Government orders do not envisage a situation where a woman’s first pregnancy results in the birth of twins, maternity leave provisions must be interpreted purposively rather than literally. Allowing the writ petition, the Telangana HC held that the Respondents cannot deny the Petitioner’s maternity leave for her second delivery as the same would be in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
By way of this ruling, the Telangana HC has highlighted that the object of maternity leave is to safeguard the health of a woman employee and her continuance in employment, rather than treating childbirth as a basis for denying benefits. While this decision was rendered in the context of rules applicable to government employees, it reinforces the broader judicial principle that maternity benefits are to be treated as welfare measures that should not restrict a woman’s entitlement to maternity protection.
Karnataka High Court hearing plea on applicability of minimum wages notification
The Karnataka High Court (“Karnataka HC”) is currently hearing a writ petition filed by the Karnataka Employers’ Association and another petitioner challenging the validity and applicability of the minimum wages notification issued by the State Government of Karnataka on May 22, 2026, in Karnataka Employers’ Association and Anr. vs. State of Karnataka and Ors.[35]. The notification substantially revised minimum wage rates across the State and has attracted significant attention due to the extent of the increase in wage rates across several categories of employment as well as its potential financial and operational implications for employers.
One of the principal grounds of challenge is that the notification appears to have been issued under the provisions of the erstwhile Minimum Wages Act, 1948, which has since been subsumed under the labour code framework. The petitioners have contended that reliance on the repealed legislation renders the notification legally unsustainable and, consequently, liable to be declared null and void. In addition, the petitioners have argued that the notification continues to refer to the 81 (eighty-one) scheduled employments, even though the concept of ‘scheduled employment’ has been removed under the labour codes.
As of June 2, 2026, the Karnataka HC has issued notice in the matter and directed the respondents, including the State Government, to file their response. The proceedings are currently pending, and it remains uncertain how the Court will ultimately adjudicate the issues raised. In particular, it remains to be seen whether the notification will be upheld or set aside, and whether any relief will be granted to affected employers.
Pending further developments, it may be prudent for employers to exercise caution before implementing large-scale wage revisions solely on the basis of the notification. Employers may consider awaiting further directions or orders from the Karnataka HC, particularly given the possibility that any required revisions could subsequently be implemented with retrospective effect, subject to the outcome of the proceedings and applicable legal requirements.
This Newsletter is prepared by:
|
Gerald Manoharan |
Devika Sreekumar |
Lijin Varughese |
Mayank Jain |
Shreeya Sucharita |
|
For more details, please contact km@jsalaw.com.
[1] (2021) 5 SCC 370 (February 11, 2021)
[2] (2023) 2 SCC 209 (December 17, 2021)
[3] Special Leave Petition (Civil) No(s). 36278 of 2017 (August 1, 2025)
[4] Writ – A No. – 7815 of 2024 (September 22, 2025)
[5] Civil Appeal No. 120 of 2026 (January 13, 2026)
[6] (2010) 3 SCC 603 (March 10, 2010)
[7] (2009) 5 Bom CR 227 (May 8, 2009)
[8] LPA 494/2025, CM Appl. 46865/2025, CM Appl. 46866/2025, CM Appl. 46867/2025, CM Appl. 46868/2025 and CM Appl (October 14, 2025)
[9] No. S.O. 3985(E).
[10] No. G.O.Rt.No.146
[11] No. S.O.40
[12] No. S.O.41
[13] No. S.O. 3580(E), S.O. 3581(E) and S.O. 3582(E)
[14] No. 1311/D-85/21-A/Pra:/Chh.G./26
[15] No. IWU/7(8)2010/UK/E-34753/26/3018
[16] No. S.O. 3672(E)
[17] No. EEC/2025/E-1190921/4278204
[18] No. Compliance/E-1203096/2025/2823
[19] No. Exemption/AMNESTY-2026/[E.III/10(58)/2025]
[20] No. G.S.R. 703(E)
[21] No. G.S.R. 704 (E)
[22] No. G.S.R. 705(E)
[23] No. UWA-2025/C.R.209/LAB-5
[24] No. MuKa/13091045/2026
[25] No. G.S.R. 56
[26] No. S.O. 4710(E)
[27] No. S.O. 4711(E)
[28] Civil Appeal No. 9749 of 2016 (decided on August 4, 2026)
[29] Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2002 and connected matters (decided on August 20, 2026)
[30] 1978 AIR 548
[31] Writ Appeal No. 2332 of 2025 (decided on June 29, 2026)
[32] Writ Petition No. 7640 of 2026 (decided on July 15, 2026)
[33] (2023) 13 SCC 681
[34] 2024 SCC OnLine Del 4987
[35] WP 16145/2026
