December Newsletter

Notifications

Implementation of Four Labour Codes to Simplify and Streamline Labour Laws

The Government of India has notified the enforcement of the four Labour Codes, the Code on Wages, 2019; the Industrial Relations Code, 2020; the Code on Social Security, 2020; and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020, effective from 21 November 2025, consolidating 29 existing labour laws. This major reform modernizes labour governance, strengthens worker welfare, and aligns India’s labour framework with the changing dynamics of work. The initiative marks a significant step towards building a future-ready workforce and more resilient industries, furthering the vision of an Aatmanirbhar Bharat.

Key Changes

• Minimum wages will now apply to all workers, including those in the unorganised sector.A National Floor Wage and a uniform definition of “wages” ensure clarity and eliminate disputes on calculations.

• Gig, platform, and unorganised workers are brought under formal social security for the first time. Aadhaar-linked accounts, wider ESIC coverage, and voluntary EPFO/ESIC options expand nationwide protection.

• All employers must issue written appointment letters specifying key terms of employment.This applies universally across establishments, promoting transparency and reducing disputes.

• Women can work night shifts with their consent and mandatory safety measures.Uniform rules on flexible hours and anti-discrimination policies enhance equality in workplaces.

• The approval threshold for layoffs and closures increases from 100 to 300 workers.Smaller establishments gain flexibility to restructure, supported by a new Reskilling Fund.

• Gig and platform workers become eligible for social security benefits.Aggregators may contribute to a dedicated fund, and migrant workers gain portability of welfare entitlements.

• Safety Committees and free annual health check-ups become mandatory in larger establishments.

• Commute-related accidents are covered, with digital registers ensuring real-time monitoring.

• A single registration, license, and return reduces regulatory burden. Digital inspections and unified compliance portals streamline monitoring and filings.

The new Labour Codes are expected to bring significant future implications across India’s workforce and industries. A National Floor Wage and uniform wage definition will ensure predictable wage structures and reduce disputes, while expanded social security will finally include gig, platform, and unorganized workers with portable benefits for migrants. Mandatory appointment letters will formalize employment relationships and boost transparency. Gender-inclusive provisions, including night-shift permissions and anti-discrimination rules, will increase female workforce participation. By raising the layoff and retrenchment threshold to 300 employees, businesses especially MSMEs gain greater operational flexibility, encouraging growth and investment. Stronger safety norms, annual health check-ups, and coverage for commute-related accidents enhance worker well-being. The Reskilling Fund will support employees transitioning after retrenchment, promoting a more adaptable workforce. Finally, digital compliance systems, unified portals, and risk-based inspections will streamline governance, reduce paperwork, and improve ease of doing business across sectors.

Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025

On 5 December 2025, the Right to Disconnect Bill, 2025 was introduced in the Lok Sabha by MP Supriya Sule. The Bill seeks to protect employees from the adverse effects of hyper-connectivity and blurred work-life boundaries brought about by digital communication. It recognizes an employee’s legal right to disengage from work-related communication outside agreed working hours, while still allowing organizations flexibility to negotiate mutually acceptable terms based on their operational requirements. The proposed law aims to curb unpaid overtime, regulate remote work expectations, promote mental well-being, and institutionalize support systems for healthier digital practices.

Key Provisions

1. Definitions & Scope

The Bill defines essential terms such as out of work hours, Authority, company, and society to ensure clarity in application. It applies to all organizations registered under the Companies Act, 2013 or Societies Registration Act, 1860.

2. Establishment of Employees’ Welfare Authority

A central Employees’ Welfare Authority will monitor implementation of the right to disconnect. It will prepare negotiation charters, conduct studies, and promote counselling, awareness, and digital detox initiatives.

3. Legal Right to Disconnect (Section 7)

Employees have a legally enforceable right to ignore work-related calls, emails, or messages after agreed working hours. No disciplinary action can be taken for non-response, and employers may contact employees only during mutually agreed windows.

4. Negotiated Out-of-Work Hour Protocols

Employers and employees must collaboratively define after-hours communication rules through negotiation. If no agreement is reached, the national Charter’s standard out-of-work hours will automatically apply.

5. Overtime Compensation (Section 11)

Employees who voluntarily respond to after-hours work communication must receive overtime pay at the normal wage rate. This prevents unpaid digital labour and ensures fair compensation for extra work.

6. Remote Work Regulations

All remote work arrangements must be based on mutually agreed policies that outline expectations and boundaries. Companies must provide awareness programmes, counselling services, and access to Digital Detox Centres.

7. Penalties for Non-Compliance (Section 19)

Organizations that fail to comply with the Act or omit required provisions in their charters or policies face penalties. The fine is fixed at 1% of total employee remuneration, creating a strong financial deterrent.

The Right to Disconnect Bill is poised to fundamentally reshape India’s work culture by prioritising employee well-being in an increasingly digital workplace. As hyper-connectivity continues to blur boundaries between professional and personal life, the Bill provides a legal framework that empowers employees to reclaim their time while still allowing businesses the flexibility to operate efficiently. It is likely to reduce burnout, improve mental health outcomes, and promote healthier long-term work habits.

The Bill will also push organisations to articulate clear communication norms and adopt structured digital practices. This shift could increase operational discipline, reduce unnecessary after-hour exchanges, and enhance productivity during regular working hours. Remote and hybrid work, now a critical part of the Indian workforce, will especially benefit from this clarity, resulting in more sustainable work environments.

Finally, as India aligns with global labour standards seen in Europe, the Bill may encourage more employee-centric reforms in the future. It signals a cultural turn toward respecting personal time, fostering a more balanced workplace, and enhancing employer-employee trust across industries.

Judgments

J&K Service Selection Board & Anr. v. Sudesh Kumar & Ors.

In J&K Service Selection Board & Anr. v. Sudesh Kumar & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has affirmed the Hon’ble High Court’s decision that the Jammu and Kashmir Services Selection Board cannot modify the selection criteria after candidates have completed the interview and other recruitment stages. The Court held that any change in weightage or qualification assessment after the process is underway violates fairness, transparency, and the candidates’ legitimate expectations, relying on earlier judgments such as K. Manjusree and Tej Prakash Pathak. Consequently, the Board’s appeal was dismissed.

The case stemmed from a recruitment notification for 38 Forester posts requiring a 10+2 (Science) qualification. Initially, the Board allotted 25 marks to candidates with a B.Sc. in Forestry. After the interviews concluded, it altered the weightage by differentiating between three-year and four-year forestry degrees, reducing the marks for three-year degree holders. This post-interview change was challenged before the High Court as arbitrary and unfair, which agreed with the candidates, prompting the Board’s appeal.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reiterates that recruitment authorities cannot alter evaluation norms once candidates have participated under previously announced criteria. It strengthens the principle that selection parameters, including academic weightage and interview marks, must remain fixed from the time of notification until final selection. The judgment signals the need for public authorities to define all eligibility and evaluation criteria clearly at the outset, reducing the scope for litigation and ensuring trust in the recruitment process. It also sets a significant precedent for similar cases involving post-process changes by selection boards and public service commissions.

ARM Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Ritesh Singh

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of ARM Digital Media Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Ritesh Singh, held that disputes arising from employment agreements do not qualify as “commercial disputes” under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. It clarified that employment contracts even for senior executives or directors and even if they include business-related clauses like confidentiality, IP assignment, or non-compete terms remain contracts of personal service. Such matters do not fall within the jurisdiction of the NCLT and are not barred by Section 430 of the Companies Act. The Court further held that if even one relief is maintainable before a civil court, the plaint cannot be rejected and must proceed to trial.

The case involved a suit filed by a company against its former Managing Director for alleged breaches of an employment agreement dated 8 September 2016 and violations of fiduciary duties under Section 166 of the Companies Act. The allegations included unauthorized salary hikes, non-compliance with statutory requirements, misuse of confidential information post-resignation, joining a competitor, and soliciting clients. The defendant argued that the matter was a commercial dispute requiring institution before the Commercial Court, that pre-institution mediation under Section 12A was mandatory, and that Section 430 barred the suit. After examining the agreement and allegations, the Court concluded that all issues arose solely from the defendant’s employment and directorial role, not from any commercial or shareholder arrangement.

This judgment underscores that employment-related disputes even those involving senior leadership, fiduciary breaches, or restrictive covenants lie outside the Commercial Courts Act. It prevents companies from rebranding employment matters as commercial disputes to shift them into commercial courts and confirms that the NCLT cannot adjudicate breaches of employment contracts or obligations of personal service. The ruling provides clearer guidance on the boundary between employment relationships and commercial arrangements, enabling organizations to draft employment contracts with a more accurate understanding of how courts will classify them.

S. K. Pant Professor v. UOI

The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of S. K. Pant Professor v. UOI, held that employees of the Govind Ballabh Pant Social Science Institute (GBPSSI) are not entitled to the General Provident Fund (GPF) Scheme merely because the institution became a constituent of the University of Allahabad. The Court ruled that, in the absence of any specific statutory provision extending the GPF benefit to GBPSSI, and given that the institute continues to function as an autonomous body, the petitioners have no absolute right to claim GPF benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.

GBPSSI, an autonomous institution registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, historically received financial support from the Central Government through the Indian Council of Social Science Research and the Government of Uttar Pradesh. In 2005, when the University of Allahabad was granted Central University status, GBPSSI became its constituent institution. The petitioners argued that this change entitled them to the same service benefits as Central University employees, including pension benefits under the General Provident Fund Scheme instead of the Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. The University Grants Commission rejected this claim, stating that the CCS Pension Rules, 1972, including the GPF Scheme, were not available to new entrants and did not automatically apply to autonomous bodies like GBPSSI. No specific legal provision or precedent supporting the automatic extension of GPF benefits to constituent but autonomous institutions was presented, and the Hon’ble Court found that the institute’s constitutional structure and financial autonomy remained unchanged despite its affiliation with the University.

This judgment reinforces that affiliation with or recognition as a constituent institution of a Central University does not automatically extend Central Government service benefits to employees of autonomous institutions. It underscores the principle that statutory benefits like GPF can only be granted when explicitly provided by law, not through institutional restructuring or administrative transitions. Going forward, employees of autonomous or semi-autonomous bodies will need to rely strictly on governing statutes and service rules rather than institutional status to claim Central Government pension benefits, thereby limiting the scope of claims based solely on affiliation with Central Universities.

Sunil v. State of Karnataka & Others

The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Sunil v. State of Karnataka & Others, set aside the State Government’s notification cancelling the petitioner’s appointment as Additional District Government Pleader within 24 hours and restoring his original appointment. The Court held that although such appointments are made at the pleasure of the Government, this power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, and must conform to Article 14 of the Constitution. The abrupt cancellation, lacking any justification or administrative necessity, was held to be “gross arbitrary exercise of power”, warranting judicial correction.

Advocate Sunil Sank was appointed as Additional District Government Pleader for the XI Additional District and Sessions Court, Belagavi on 28-10-2025 under the Karnataka Law Officers (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977. He assumed charge and appeared in court. However, within 24 hours, the Government cancelled his appointment through a notification dated 29-10-2025 and appointed another advocate in his place, allegedly on account of a tippani (note) from the Minister. The State defended the cancellation by arguing that appointments of Government Pleaders under Rule 26 are at the pleasure of the Government and can be withdrawn anytime, claiming no legal right of the petitioner was violated.

The Hon’ble Court rejected this position, observing that even where appointments are at the Government’s pleasure, the authority is not absolute or unrestrained. It held that every State action must pass the test of Article 14, described as the “golden thread woven through the Constitution”. The Court found no administrative exigency, procedural defect, or legal infirmity justifying the cancellation. The arbitrariness was “palpable and demonstrable”, making intervention not just appropriate but imperative.

This ruling reinforces that executive power, even when discretionary or pleasure-based, is subject to constitutional discipline, particularly Article 14. The government cannot cancel or alter appointments of law officers whimsically or based on extraneous considerations. The judgment strengthens protections against arbitrary State action, ensures transparency in appointments of law officers, and sends a strong message that judicial review will step in where the executive acts in an unstructured, capricious, or mala fide manner.

Kirti Chowdhary v. the State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Kirti Chowdhary v. the State of Rajasthan & Ors. held that when a reserved category candidate secures higher marks than the last selected general-category candidate and has not availed any relaxation other than a fee concession, the State is mandatorily required to migrate such a candidate to the General Category. The Court reaffirmed that the General Category is fundamentally an “open merit” category accessible to all candidates, and failure to migrate a higher-merit reserved candidate violates constitutional equality and vitiates the selection process.

The petitioner belonged to the BC, Women (WE) category, where only one seat was available and was filled by another candidate. She was placed in the reserve list, as she was the sole BC-WE candidate there. The BC-WE category cut-off was 61, whereas the General category cut-off was 58, indicating that the selected BC-WE candidate had scored above the General cut-off. Relying on Supreme Court rulings in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and BSNL v. Sandeep Choudhary, the petitioner argued that the higher-merit BC-WE candidate should have been migrated to the General category, creating a consequential vacancy for her in the reserved category. The Court found merit in this contention and held the State’s failure to migrate the candidate to be illegal.

This ruling strengthens the doctrine of merit-based migration across categories, ensuring that open merit prevails over mechanical reservation placement. It reinforces that reserved category candidates who outperform general-category cut-offs must be placed in the General category, preventing misallocation of seats and protecting the integrity of selection processes. Future recruitments across Rajasthan and potentially influencing practices in other states—will now require stricter adherence to merit migration, improved administrative scrutiny, and accountability to prevent similar lapses that undermine equal opportunity principles.

International Updates

Mozambique’s ratification of ILO Conventions No. 155, its 2002 Protocol, and Convention No. 190.

The Maldives launched its first Decent Work Country Programme (DWCP) 2025–2031 through a memorandum of understanding between the Government, employers’ and workers’ organizations, and the ILO. The programme aims to strengthen cooperation among tripartite stakeholders and advance dignity, equality, and inclusive economic development in the Maldivian world of work.

Key Highlights

• A landmark MoU was signed between the Government, NFME, MTUC, MATI, and the ILO Country Office. This establishes a unified commitment to advancing decent work and labour reforms across the Maldives.

• The Maldives officially launched its inaugural 2025–2031 DWCP after extensive collaboration with ILO constituents and partners. It marks a historic step in formalizing national labour priorities aligned with global standards.

• The DWCP focuses on promoting shared prosperity, improving labour standards, and strengthening tripartism and social dialogue. All priorities are gender-responsive and aligned with national policies and the UN SDGs.

• The programme includes enhanced efforts to mainstream gender equality across labour laws and institutions. This ensures fairer, safer, and more inclusive work environments for women and youth. The DWCP integrates key SDG objectives into Maldives’ labour governance reforms. This supports long-term sustainability, economic inclusion, and decent work for all.

The DWCP will modernize Maldives’ labour governance by strengthening worker protections, improving enforcement of international labour standards, and enhancing workplace safety and fairness. Employers will benefit from clearer compliance frameworks and better social dialogue mechanisms, while workers gain stronger rights, equality measures, and safer conditions. Nationally, the programme supports sustainable economic growth and inclusive development; internationally, it positions the Maldives as a proactive supporter of decent work and the SDG agenda.

ILO expands Digital Labour Platform Policy Tracker to include collective bargaining agreements

The ILO has introduced a new section in its Digital Labour Platform Policy Tracker dedicated to collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) in the platform economy. It compiles agreements between platform companies and trade unions across several countries mainly in the EU and outlines their scope, practical application, and legal status at national, sectoral, or enterprise levels. Integrated into the ILO’s Observatory on AI and Work in the Digital Economy, the tool lets users filter CBAs by country, platform type, and topic, making it easier to compare how different jurisdictions use collective bargaining to regulate platform work. This update supports the ILO’s broader effort to monitor global approaches to governing gig and algorithm-driven work.

Key Highlights

• First consolidated database of CBAs specific to platform work, showing how unions and platforms are negotiating issues like pay, working time, safety, data use, and grievance processes.

• Includes enterprise-level agreements (e.g., individual platforms), sectoral agreements (e.g., delivery or ride-hailing), and national frameworks where they exist.

• Current emphasis is on the European Union, where collective bargaining for platform workers has seen active development due to legal recognition and social dialogue traditions.

• Users can sort agreements by geography and platform type, such as ride-hailing, delivery, micro-tasking and view structured summaries under standard themes.

• Linked to the ILO’s digital work observatory, which tracks policy, legislation, AI use, and labour protections in the global platform economy.

• Upcoming phases will widen the database to cover more countries, add thematic depth, and include judicial decisions and new laws affecting platform labour markets.

The tracker has wide-ranging implications. It gives policymakers a clear reference for shaping regulations, helps unions learn from existing bargaining models, and shows platform companies the standards they’re increasingly expected to meet. Researchers gain a reliable source of comparative data, while the broader trend points toward greater recognition of platform workers’ role in collective bargaining, something that may influence future laws and court rulings on employment status.

The ILO adopts the first of its kind Guidelines to promote fair labour market services for migrant fishers

The fishing sector’s tripartite representatives, governments, fishing vessel owners and fishers’ organisations adopted the first-ever ILO Guidelines for Fair Labour Market Services for Migrant Fishers on 31 October 2025 after five days of ILO-supported discussions in Geneva. These Guidelines aim to strengthen fairness, transparency, and accountability in recruitment practices for migrant fishers worldwide, complementing the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188). They mark a significant step toward protecting migrant fishers, who remain among the most vulnerable and least regulated workforces globally.

Key Highlights

• First global guidelines dedicated to fair recruitment of migrant fishers.

• Developed through tripartite dialogue among governments, employers, and workers.

• Complement the Work in Fishing Convention, 2007 (No. 188).

• Establish clear responsibilities and liability mechanisms for recruiters and employers.

• Provide measures for financial security in cases of abandonment.

• Introduce rules for transfer at sea, shore leave, and model recruitment agreements.

• Include safeguards against deception and accessible complaint mechanisms.

• Promote cross-border cooperation to address abuses across the recruitment chain.

• Emphasise dignity, safety, and decent work for migrant fishers.

The adoption of these Guidelines is expected to significantly strengthen global recruitment standards in the fishing industry by setting a unified framework that promotes transparency, shared responsibility, and stronger protections for migrant fishers. Governments will be encouraged to enhance oversight, harmonise procedures, and collaborate across borders, while employers and recruiters will be held to clearer accountability standards through model agreements, liability mechanisms, and financial security requirements. For fishers, these measures promise improved safety, reduced risks of exploitation, and greater access to remedies, marking a major step toward fair recruitment and dignified working conditions across an industry long plagued by informality and weak regulation.