November Newsletter

Regulatory Updates

EPFO directions to display the extract of Form 5A

On 7 October 2025, the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) issued a circular under Para 78(3) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, directing all establishments covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, to prominently display an extract of Form 5A either at the entrance of the establishment or on its website or mobile application.

Employers are required to comply within 15 days of the order, failing which action may be initiated under the EPF Act. The displayed extract must include key particulars such as the EPF Code of the establishment, registered name, date of coverage under the Act, number and address of branches, and the relevant regional EPFO office.

The directive, issued under the Central Government’s instructions, aims to enhance transparency and public access to statutory establishment information, aligning EPFO’s compliance framework with other labour law display requirements. Employers are advised to retrieve their latest filed Form 5A, prepare and display the extract in a clearly visible location or homepage, and maintain documentary proof of compliance. Any subsequent changes in ownership, management, or branch details must be promptly updated to ensure consistency between the displayed extract and the official filing.

SC suggests legislature amend definition of ‘dependent’ under Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923

In a significant observation on 29 October 2025, a Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court (Justices Rajesh Bindal and Manmohan) flagged the definition of “dependent” under Section 2(1)(d)(iii)(d) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923, which currently limits the term to “a minor brother, or an unmarried sister or a widowed sister if a minor”, as outdated and inconsistent with modern social and legal realities.

While the Court upheld a High Court award in favour of adult widowed sisters in a death-compensation matter, it left the broader question open and directed that its order be forwarded to the Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, and referred to the Law Commission of India for possible amendment of the statutory definition.

Employers and legal-compliance teams should closely monitor any legislative and regulatory developments, as a broadened definition of “dependent” may increase the pool of claimants under the Act and impact actuarial assumptions and insurance-cover exposure.

Government launches “Employees’ Enrolment Scheme, 2025” to expand social-security coverage of employees

The Ministry of Labour and Employment on 13 October 2025, announced the “Employees’ Enrolment Scheme, 2025” (EES 2025), to be operational from 1 November 2025 to 30 April 2026.

Under the scheme, employers (both already registered and newly covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) may declare and enrol all existing employees who joined the establishment between 1 July 2017 and 31 October 2025, are alive and in employment on the date of declaration, and were earlier not enrolled in the provident‐fund scheme for any reason.

The employee’s share of the provident-fund contribution for the past period (from 1 July 2017 to 31 October 2025) shall be waived, provided the deduction from wages did not happen; only the employer’s share is required to be paid.

All establishments are eligible to participate irrespective of whether any inquiries under section 7A of the Act, paragraph 26B of the Scheme, or paragraph 8 of the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 are ongoing. Also, no suo-motu compliance action will be taken by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) against employers availing the benefits of EES 2025 for such employees who have already left the establishment at the date of declaration.

The Government expects this scheme to significantly boost enrolment under social-security cover for employees, facilitate regularisation of past records with minimal financial or legal burden, and support ease of doing business.

Telangana Government Revises Minimum Wages for Shops and Commercial Establishments Effective October 2025

The Telangana Government has issued a notice revising minimum wages for Shops & Commercial Establishments across the State, effective from 1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026.

Revised Wage Rates

Minimum wages are now specified by category and zone (Zone-I/Zone-II). For example, in the “Shops” category:

• A Manager/Sales Manager/Computer Programmer in Zone-I now has a basic wage of ₹ 5,557 plus VDA of ₹ 9,062.4, totalling ₹ 14,619.4.

• A helper/attender in Zone-II has a basic wage of ₹ 3,370 plus VDA of ₹ 9,062.4, totalling ₹ 12,432.4.

  
  

Similar structured rates apply for the “Commercial Establishments” category.

Key Highlights

• The wage revision is based on the latest Consumer Price Index for Industrial Workers (CPI-IW) applicable in the State.

• Employers in Telangana need to ensure that the new minimum wage rates are implemented from 1 October 2025 onwards.

• The revision affects all establishments covered under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 within the State.

Madhya Pradesh Revises Minimum Wages for 67 Scheduled Employments

The Madhya Pradesh Government, by notification dated 1 October 2025, has revised the minimum wages for employees in 67 scheduled employments (including shops and establishments) for the period 1 October 2025 to 31 March 2026.

The new wage structure is as follows:

• Unskilled workers: Basic ₹ 9,575 + VDA ₹ 2,575 = ₹ 12,150

• Semi-skilled workers: Basic ₹ 10,571 + VDA ₹ 2,575 = ₹ 13,146

• Skilled workers: Basic ₹ 12,294 + VDA ₹ 2,575 = ₹ 14,869

• Highly-skilled workers: Basic ₹ 13,919 + VDA ₹ 2,575 = ₹ 16,494

  
  

This revision aligns with the latest cost-of-living index to ensure fair and equitable remuneration for workers across industries. Employers in Madhya Pradesh are required to update their wage structures and ensure compliance with the revised rates effective 1 October 2025.

Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025

The Governor of Maharashtra, through the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, promulgated on 1 October 2025, has introduced key changes to the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017. The Ordinance, published in the Maharashtra Government Gazette on the same date, seeks to simplify compliance and enhance workplace flexibility across the State.

Under the amended provisions, the applicability threshold of the Act has been raised from 10 or more employees to 20 or more employees, thereby exempting smaller establishments from full registration requirements, such entities now only need to submit an intimation of business. The daily working hours limit has been increased from 9 to 10 hours, while the weekly maximum remains capped at 48 hours. The permissible continuous working period without a break has been extended from 5 to 6 hours, and the spread-over time (the duration between the start and end of work) has been increased from 10.5 to 12 hours a day. Additionally, the overtime limit per quarter has been enhanced from 125 hours to 144 hours.

These amendments are part of the State’s broader effort to promote ease of doing business and rationalise labour compliances, especially for micro and small enterprises, while maintaining core worker protections. Employers with 20 or more employees must update their shift schedules, working-hour policies, and overtime records in line with the revised provisions from 1 October 2025.

UIDAI Revises Medical Facility Provisions under 2025 Amendment Regulations

On 31 October 2025, UIDAI notified the Unique Identification Authority of India (Salary, Allowances and other Terms and Conditions of Service of Employees) Amendment Regulations, 2025, which came into force on the date of publication in the Gazette.

Under the amended regulations, Regulation 15 (Medical facility) has been revised: employees of the Authority will now be entitled to medical facilities under the Medical Reimbursement Scheme (MRS), as amended from time to time, and the prior Second Schedule setting out detailed medical-facility heads (for outdoor and indoor treatment) has been omitted entirely.

For employers, HR professionals and compliance teams engaged with the Authority or similar bodies, the change underscores a shift from prescriptive schedule-based benefit heads to a more flexible reimbursement scheme structure, review of existing medical-benefit policies and reimbursement processes is advised.

Judicial Updates

Samarendra Das v. M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Samarendra Das v. M/s Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd. (decided on 6 October 2025) upheld the Labour Court’s finding that a medical sales representative is not a “workman” within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Justice Ganju observed that the petitioner, a science graduate with specialized training engaged in promoting pharmaceutical products, was performing professional and technical duties rather than manual, clerical, or operative work. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in H.R. Adyanthaya v. Sandoz (India) Ltd. and similar precedents to reaffirm that medical representatives are engaged in sales promotion based on specialized knowledge, not as workmen for hire.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition and refused to extend labour law protections to the petitioner, holding that his nature of employment placed him outside the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Note: Lex Alliance, headed by Mr. Jitesh Pandey (Managing Partner), represented he respondent (Win Medicare Pvt. Ltd.)

Unitech Machines Karamchari Sangh v. Vivek Raheja

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Unitech Machines Karamchari Sangh v. Vivek Raheja (decided on 16 October 2025) held that workmen who did not actually render services during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) are not entitled to claim wages for that period as part of the insolvency cost. The case arose from a challenge by the employees’ union against a lay-off notice issued by the Resolution Professional (RP) during CIRP, which they contended amounted to an illegal retrenchment in violation of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

The Court upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT)’s finding that once the corporate debtor ceases to be a going concern, and no work is being performed, wages cannot be treated as CIRP costs. It reaffirmed that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) have overriding effect under Section 238, thereby limiting the applicability of the Industrial Disputes Act during insolvency proceedings.

This ruling clarifies that employee claims for wages or lay-off compensation during CIRP will be contingent upon actual work performed. It underscores the primacy of the IBC framework in insolvency contexts and signals a shift in how workmen’s dues are treated when an enterprise ceases operation under resolution.

Pradip Ramesh Shinde & Ors. v. Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Pradip Ramesh Shinde & Ors. v. Malegaon Municipal Corporation, Malegaon held that employees engaged on contractual terms but serving continuously over an extended period are entitled to protection against arbitrary termination and may claim reinstatement with back wages. The case concerned drivers and firemen who had been engaged by the Malegaon Municipal Corporation on six-month contracts that were renewed repeatedly since 2016–17 without any break in service. Despite the continuous nature of their employment, the Corporation treated them as temporary workers and later discontinued their services.

The Court observed that such repeated renewals amounted to an ongoing employment relationship and that the Corporation’s practice of artificially segmenting contracts was a device to evade statutory obligations. It directed reinstatement of the petitioners with back wages from the date of termination, emphasizing that long and uninterrupted service creates a legitimate expectation of continuity.

This judgment reinforces that public authorities cannot exploit contractual arrangements to deny job security and statutory benefits to employees who have, in substance, rendered regular service. It underscores the judiciary’s consistent stance that the nature and continuity of work, rather than the terminology of the contract, determine an employee’s rights under labour law.

Buta Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Buta Ram & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. held that the services rendered by Gramin Dak Sevaks (GDS) prior to their absorption into regular Group C posts must be counted for the purpose of computing pension and gratuity benefits under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. The Court observed that the exclusion of GDS service by the notification dated 12 December 2010 was discriminatory and violated the principles of equality and legitimate expectation, especially since the petitioners had rendered continuous service before regularisation.

The Court noted that once GDS employees are absorbed into civil posts, their service cannot be artificially segmented to deny them pensionary entitlements. Relying on earlier Supreme Court rulings, it reiterated that GDSs discharge public functions under the administrative control of the Department of Posts and are, therefore, holders of civil posts.

This judgment affirms that the nature and continuity of service, not merely the classification of employment, determines pension eligibility. It serves as a precedent for similarly placed employees and a reminder for government departments to reassess pension claims where GDS or equivalent contractual service precedes regular absorption.

D.N. Sharma & Ors. v Union of India & Ors.

The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) in D.N. Sharma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. held that employees of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) merit parity in dearness allowance and other pecuniary benefits when they perform equivalent duties under the same administrative control as regular KVS employees. The Court observed that the impugned orders dated 11 June 2014 and 21 October 2014 denying such benefits to petitioners constituted discriminatory treatment.

According to the judgement delivered on 30 October 2025 (WP No. 1063 of 2015), the petitioners were placed on par with regular KVS employees for the purpose of benefit calculations, rationalising the principle of equal pay for equal work even in a central-government context. The Court emphasised that the nomenclature of employment cannot override the substance of responsibilities performed.   

For legal-compliance and HR teams in central educational establishments and other public sector units, this ruling underscore the importance of assessing duties and functional parity when determining entitlement to allowances. It signals that administrative classification should not obstruct equal treatment under wage and allowance statutes.

Rakesh & Ors. v Nagar Palika Parishad Nagda and Ors. 

The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rakesh & Ors. v. Nagar Palika Parishad Nagda and Ors. held that daily-wage employees who had been continuously engaged since 2007 are entitled to regularisation under the State Government’s circular dated 7 October 2016. The Court observed that the petitioners satisfied the eligibility criteria, having been in service on both the cut-off dates of 16 May 2007 and 1 September 2016, and that their long and uninterrupted service could not be ignored merely because they were designated as daily wagers.

The Court upheld the Industrial Tribunal’s finding that the petitioners’ employment was genuine and continuous, rejecting the municipal authority’s contention that they were not eligible under the circular. It ruled that the award directing their regularisation and associated benefits was based on sound reasoning and did not warrant interference.

This judgment reinforces that municipal and public bodies cannot circumvent regularisation policies through technical objections when employees have demonstrably served continuously for years. It also reiterates the principle that sustained engagement, even as daily wagers, attracts legitimate expectation of fair treatment and service regularisation under State policy.

P. Samuel Joseph v Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai 

The Hon’ble Madras High Court in P. Samuel Joseph v Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Chennai (decided on 10 October 2025) held that an adoption deed executed by a civil‐servant, without formal recognition of adoption in service records or submission of requisite documentation, does not suffice to establish the adopted child as a valid nominee for terminal benefits.

The petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of the deceased employee under a registered deed dated 6 October 1988 and sought death benefits. The Court held that, since the adopting employee had not informed the relevant government department of the adoption nor had the service record been updated, the adoption could not qualify under the law applicable to Christians and thus the petitioner was not entitled to claim the benefits.

This judgment underscores that for nominating dependents in government service, formal institutional recognition of adoption, and corresponding administrative updates, is essential. It alerts employers, HR/legal teams and dependents to ensure compliance with service rules and supporting documentation when processing nomination or adoption claims.

Anju Rani v North Delhi Municipal Corporation 

The Industrial Tribunal (Rouse Avenue) in Anju Rani v. North Delhi Municipal Corporation held that termination of an employee during the pendency of an industrial dispute, without obtaining prior permission under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, is illegal and void ab initio. The petitioner, appointed as an Auxiliary Nurse Midwife (ANM) in 2006 on a contractual basis, was terminated in November 2017 while her demand for regularisation was pending.

The Tribunal observed that the management failed to prove that her employment fell under the exception of Section 2(oo)(bb), i.e., a fixed-term contractual engagement. It further noted that the employee had continuously worked for more than a decade, thereby establishing a clear employer-employee relationship.

Accordingly, the Tribunal directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity of service and full back wages, along with all consequential benefits, holding that the termination amounted to an unfair labour practice and violated the statutory safeguards available to workmen.

Shyam Sunder v Delhi Transport Corporation

The Hon’ble Labour Court in Shyam Sunder & Ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation (Award dated 28 October 2025) held that the termination of the workman’s services by the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) was justified and lawful, given that the management proved the workman had submitted a bogus educational certificate, which undermined his initial eligibility for appointment.

The Court noted that although the management did not conduct a formal domestic enquiry before terminating service, it was nevertheless open to adduce evidence before the Court under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the record demonstrated that the workman’s certificate was invalid, thereby breaching Clause 12 of his terms of appointment.

Accordingly, the workman was found not entitled to reinstatement or back‐wages. The Tribunal emphasised that the absence of enquiry alone does not automatically render termination illegal, in cases where misconduct has been shown on the merits, dismissal may be upheld.

Dhirendra Pratap Singh v M/s Scholar Alley Pvt. Ltd.

The Labour Court (No. IV), Rouse Avenue, Delhi in Dhirendra Pratap Singh v M/s Scholar Alley Pvt. Ltd. (LCA No. 1652/2020; Award dated 30 October 2025) held that the claimant, though styling himself as “City Operations Manager” with a last drawn salary of ₹ 45,067/month, did not qualify as a “workman” under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction under Section 33-C(2) of the Act.

The Court noted that the applicant performed managerial functions—collecting payments from hostel guests, supervising operations, and thus his duties fell outside the scope of manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational or clerical work typically covered under the “workman” definition. The management successfully challenged the contention that the position was an ordinary workman role covered under the ID Act.

Accordingly, the claimant’s application for dues, notice pay, bonus, earned wages, overtime and other reliefs under Section 33-C(2) was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability. The Court emphasised that where the employment relationship is managerial in nature, the remedy under Section 33-C(2) is unavailable.

International Updates

OECD Reports Record Employment Levels, Signalling a Shift from Recovery to Labour Market Stability

On 16 October 2025, the OECD released its latest labour market update, showing that employment and participation rates across its 38-member countries have reached record highs. The overall employment rate stood at around 70.3% in the second quarter of 2025, while labour-force participation was approximately 74.1%. Some of the strongest performers were Japan, Switzerland, and the Netherlands, each recording employment levels exceeding 80%. Unemployment across the OECD area remained steady at about 5% as of August 2025, with minimal movement compared to previous months.

The data suggests that labour markets in advanced economies have largely transitioned from post-pandemic recovery to a period of stability. Hiring remains strong, but growth momentum has plateaued as most economies reach near-full employment. While wage pressures have moderated, productivity gains and participation among older workers and women continue to support overall resilience. The OECD cautioned that continued policy focus is needed on skilling, job quality, and inclusion to sustain these gains in the face of technological change and demographic ageing. In short, the global jobs picture is steady and strong, but no longer surging, signalling the start of a new equilibrium phase for employment.

EU Adopts Landmark Reform of European Works Council Directive, Expanding Worker Representation Across Borders

On 9 October 2025, the European Union formally adopted a major reform of the European Works Council (EWC) Directive, marking the most significant change in transnational employee consultation laws in over two decades. The new directive, highlighted in DLA Piper’s October 2025 update, strengthens the framework for employee representation across multinational companies operating in the EU.

The amendments expand workers’ rights in cross-border matters and impose tougher obligations on employers to cover training, expert advice, and legal costs for EWC members. Crucially, Articles 13 and 3, which had long allowed certain multinationals to remain exempt under older agreements, have been revoked. This means that previously exempt companies will now be required to establish EWCs and comply with the new consultation standards. The reform also introduces gender-balance requirements within EWCs and tighter timelines and disclosure duties for information-sharing by employers.

The changes are designed to enhance transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in cross-border employment governance. For multinational employers, this represents a significant compliance shift, as the cost and complexity of managing European employee relations will rise substantially. For labour-law advisers, it marks a new era of regulatory oversight and structured dialogue across the EU’s internal labour landscape.