Employment, Labour and Benefits

The Supreme Court of India (Court), in its recent judgement in the case of Deepika Singh v Central Administrative Tribunal and Others [Civil Appeal No. 5308 of 2022] (Deepika Singh), has reiterated that the rule of purposive interpretation should be adopted while giving effect to the provisions of social welfare legislations.

By way of a circular dated 27 July 2022 (New Circular), the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) issued a clarification on the status of student-trainees ‘under any scheme’ vis-à-vis the applicability of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act). This circular has been issued in furtherance of EPFO’s circular dated 12 October 2015 (Old Circular), wherein a distinction was made as regards student-trainees and their coverage under the EPF Act.

In its recent judgment in the case of Grasim Industries Limited v Employees Union and Others [Writ Appeal Number 100250 of 2021] (Grasim Industries), Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka (Court) held that the retirement age of 60 years for workmen as set out in the certified standing orders of the appellant (which, in turn, were modified pursuant to a similar stipulation made in the model standing orders by the state government) must be complied with by the employer.

In its recent judgment in the case of Jacob Puliyel v Union of India and Others [Writ Petition (Civil) Number 607 of 2021] (Jacob Puliyel), the Supreme Court of India (Court) held that the restrictions imposed on individuals who have not fully vaccinated themselves against COVID-19 cannot be considered to be constitutional.