Labour And Employment Law Newsletter | May 2026

This newsletter provides a curated overview of significant Supreme Court judgments, High Court judgments, regulatory developments in Indian labour and employment law and a few foreign developments relevant for Indian employers with operations outside India from February to May 2026. It is intended for employers, HR teams and business stakeholders as an informational and awareness resource.

PART A | Supreme Court Judgments

Supreme Court Extends Maternity Benefit to Adoptive Mothers Regardless of Age of Child at Adoption

Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India | 2026 INSC 246

Brief Facts

The Petitioner, an adoptive mother, challenged the validity of Section 5(4) of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (as amended in 2017). During the pendency of the proceedings, the Code on Social Security, 2020 (“COSS”) came into force with effect from 21 November 2025, and the operative provision under challenge became Section 60(4) of the COSS.

Section 60(4) of the COSS provides that a woman who legally adopts a child below the age of 3 (three) months, or a commissioning mother, is entitled to 12 (twelve) weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over to her. The challenge was directed at the 3 (three) month age threshold. The Petitioner contended that the classification between a woman adopting a child below 3 (three) months and one adopting a child aged 3 (three) months or above was discriminatory and contrary to the purpose of maternity protection. It was also argued that, given the adoption process under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and the Adoption Regulations, 2022, the threshold rendered the statutory benefit practically unworkable in a significant number of cases.

Observations of the Court

The Supreme Court held that Section 60(4) of the COSS, to the extent it prescribed a 3 (three) month age limit for the adopted child, was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

The court observed that maternity protection is not confined to the biological process of childbirth. It extends to motherhood, caregiving, bonding, adjustment and the integration of the child into the family. Women adopting a child below 3 (three) months and those adopting a child aged 3 (three) months or above are similarly situated for the purposes of maternity protection. The age threshold disclosed no reasonable basis for differentiation, bore no rational nexus with the legislative object and suffered from under-inclusiveness.

On workability, the court noted that the adoption framework necessarily involves safeguards, including reconsideration periods for surrendered children and tracing of biological parents. These cannot be compressed to meet a statutory age threshold. By the time a child is declared legally free for adoption, the child may no longer fall within the 3 (three) month limit, rendering the benefit illusory in practice.

The court directed that Section 60(4) of the COSS must be read as providing 12 (twelve) weeks of maternity benefit from the date the child is handed over to the adopting or commissioning mother, without reference to the age of the child. The court also urged the Union of India to consider introducing paternity leave as a statutory social security benefit.

Practical Implication

Employers must treat all adoptive mothers and commissioning mothers as eligible for 12 (twelve) weeks of maternity benefit under the COSS from the date of handover, regardless of the age of the child at adoption. Maternity leave policies, HRMS configurations and payroll processes should be reviewed.

The court's observation on paternity leave, while not binding, warrants monitoring for future legislative developments.

Statutory Penalty under the Employees' Compensation Act Remains with the Employer; Insurer Not Liable

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rekha Chaudhary and Others | 2026 INSC 177

Brief Facts

The deceased was employed as a commercial driver. During the course of employment, he collapsed while driving the insured vehicle and was declared dead. The Labour Commissioner found an employer-employee relationship and awarded compensation of INR 7,36,680 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of death under the Employees' Compensation Act, 1923 (“ECA”). The Commissioner also imposed a penalty of 35% of the compensation amount, being INR 2,57,838, on the employer under Section 4A(3)(b) of the ECA for delay in depositing compensation within the statutory period.

The Delhi High Court fastened liability for compensation, interest and penalty on the insurance company. The insurer accepted liability for compensation and interest but challenged the imposition of the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) of the ECA.

Observations of the Court

The Supreme Court held that whilst the insurance company is liable to indemnify the employer in respect of principal compensation and interest, the penalty under Section 4A(3)(b) of the ECA cannot be passed on to the insurer.

The court observed that the penalty arises from the employer's personal fault and negligence in failing to deposit compensation within the statutory period. Following the 1995 amendment to Section 4A of the ECA, compensation and interest under clause (a) and penalty under clause (b) are treated as distinct components, reflecting legislative intent that penalty operates as a deterrent against employer default and cannot be absorbed under an indemnity contract.

The Supreme Court accordingly set aside the High Court's order to the extent it fastened penalty liability on the insurer. The employer alone remains liable for the penalty amount.

Practical Implication

Employers must not assume that insurance cover will absorb the entirety of liability under the ECA. Delay in depositing statutory compensation after an employment accident triggers a personal penalty on the employer, regardless of whether compensation and interest are insured. Prompt deposit of compensation upon the occurrence of any employment-related accident is essential.

Dismissal Without Proper Enquiry or Witness Examination Vitiated; Evasive Denial of Charges Does Not Amount To Admission

Jai Prakash Saini v. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited and Others | 2026 INSC 305

Brief Facts

The appellant was employed in the U.P. Cooperative Federation Limited as the in-charge of a paddy procurement centre. He was served with a charge-sheet alleging irregularities in the procurement and delivery of paddy, including shortages and financial irregularities. He denied the charges. Without conducting any oral enquiry or examining any witnesses, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal and directed recovery of INR 9,53,433 from the appellant on the basis of documentary material alone.

The Allahabad High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the dismissal, and the matter came before the Supreme Court in appeal.

Observations of the Court

The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal. The court held that a departmental enquiry stands vitiated as no witnesses were examined to prove the charges, despite the employee's denial.

The court noted that a charge-sheet is not a plaint, an evasive reply to a charge-sheet does not amount to an admission of guilt. Where the employee denies the charges, the burden to prove them lies on the employer. If the employer relies on documentary evidence, those documents must be formally proved through witnesses, who must be available for cross-examination by the charged employee. Failure to do so renders the proceedings flawed.

The court further held that a personal hearing before the disciplinary authority after receipt of the enquiry report is not a substitute for the mandatory enquiry. The oral enquiry establishes facts; the personal hearing affords the employee an opportunity to respond to proposed punishment.

A de novo enquiry was directed to be conducted in accordance with law. The order of dismissal and recovery was set aside.

Practical Implication

This judgment reinforces the procedural rigour required in departmental disciplinary proceedings. Where an employee denies charges, the employer must conduct a proper enquiry in which witnesses are examined and made available for cross-examination.

Reliance on documents alone, without formal proof and cross-examination, will not sustain a punishment order. Employers should review their disciplinary enquiry procedures and ensure that enquiry officers are trained on natural justice requirements before initiating disciplinary action.

Part B | High Court Judgments

Kerala High Court Upholds Continuation of Existing Tribunals under the Industrial Relations Code

M.K. Suresh Kumar and Anr. v. Union of India | Kerala High Court | WA NO. 1051 of 2026

Brief Facts

The petitioners challenged the validity of the Industrial Relations Code (Amendment) Act, 2026, which inserted Section 104(1A) into the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (“IR Code”). The amendment permits tribunals and statutory authorities constituted under repealed labour laws to continue functioning until the corresponding authorities under the IR Code become operational.

The petitioners contended that the amendment was unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary and undermined the statutory scheme of the IR Code. The challenge arose in the context of a Central Government notification dated 8 December 2025 which had permitted existing labour courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to continue adjudicating existing and new cases pending operationalisation of the new framework. An earlier challenge to that notification had been dismissed, with a writ appeal pending.

Observations of the Court

The Kerala High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the validity of the 2026 Amendment. The newly inserted Section 104(1A) under the IR Code commences with a non-obstante clause and therefore operates notwithstanding any contrary provision in the same enactment.

The court held that the petitioners have no fundamental right to insist that industrial disputes be adjudicated only by authorities constituted under the IR Code. Applying the principles in Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1, the court rejected the challenge on grounds of manifest arbitrariness.

Practical Implication

This judgment confirms that existing Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals retain jurisdiction over industrial disputes until the new adjudicatory architecture under the IR Code becomes operational. Employers involved in pending or new proceedings before existing forums need not treat those proceedings as vulnerable to jurisdictional challenge on account of the transition to the IR Code.

Director Held to be an Employee for PoSH Act Purposes; IC Has Jurisdiction Over Complaint Against Him

Prof. (Dr.) J. Sundaresan Pillai v. Dr. K.K. Seethalakshmi and Others | 2026:KER:33013 | Kerala High Court

Brief Facts

The appellant, a retired Senior Principal Scientist of CSIR, was serving as Director of the Integrated Rural Technology Centre ("IRTC"), a registered society in Palakkad, Kerala. On 27 November 2024, a woman employee lodged a complaint of sexual harassment against him. The Internal Committee ("IC") constituted under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act") issued a notice directing him to appear before it. The Appellant challenged the IC's jurisdiction, contending that as Director he fell within the definition of "employer" under Section 2(g)(ii) of the PoSH Act, being the person responsible for management, supervision and control of the workplace and that accordingly the complaint ought to have been filed before the Local Committee under Section 6(1) of the PoSH Act, which alone has jurisdiction to receive complaints against an employer. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. The appellant filed a writ appeal before a Division Bench.

The appellant further contended that the IC constituted by the Registrar of IRTC had been dissolved by an order he himself issued as Director, thereby creating an additional basis for the complaint to go before the Local Committee. The matter also involved a conflict of interest allegation, the appellant contending that the Presiding Officer of the IC was personally aggrieved by his prior decision to withhold her salary.

Observations of the Court

The Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the findings of the Single Judge.

The court identified the central issue as whether the Director of IRTC fell within the definition of "employee" under Section 2(f) or "employer" under Section 2(g) of the PoSH Act. A combined reading of Sections 4, 6 and 9 of the PoSH Act establishes that the IC has jurisdiction where a complaint is lodged by one employee against another employee of the workplace. The Local Comitte’s jurisdiction under Section 6(1) of the PoSH Act is confined to two situations: where an IC has not been constituted on account of the establishment having fewer than 10 (ten) workers, or where the complaint is against the employer himself.

The High Court held that the determination of whether the Director was an employer or employee required examination of IRTC's Memorandum of Association. On a combined reading of Clauses 7, 18 and 23.2 of that instrument, the court found that the control, administration and management of IRTC's affairs are vested in the General Body and the Executive Committee, not in the Director. The Director's "overall management" under Clause 23.2 is expressly made subject to the control and supervision of the Executive Committee and the General Body. Clause 23.2 further provides that the Director is appointed by the Executive Committee. The Director therefore does not satisfy the definition of employer under Section 2(g)(ii), which requires the person to be "responsible for the management, supervision and control of the workplace" in a primary and independent sense. In the circumstances of IRTC's governance structure, the Director is an employee of the Society.

The court further noted that the order purporting to dissolve the IC issued by the appellant himself was a self-serving exercise and could not provide the appellant with the jurisdictional advantage of directing the complaint to the Local Committee.

On the conflict of interest allegation, the High Court noted that the counsel for IRTC had confirmed that the complainant herself, though an IC member, would not participate in the decision on the complaint against the Appellant.

Practical Implication

This judgment carries significant practical guidance for employers and HR governance professionals. The question of whether a senior functionary in a not-for-profit society, a trust, an autonomous body or a multi-tiered institution is an "employer" or an "employee" for PoSH Act purposes is not answered by title or designation alone. It turns on the actual governance structure of the organization specifically, whether that individual is the primary and independent repository of management, supervision and control, or whether those functions vest in a higher body such as a board, governing council or executive committee to which the individual is ultimately accountable and by whom they are appointed.

Employers should review their governance documents to identify where effective management authority truly vests. Attempts to dissolve or reconstitute an IC in anticipation of, or in response to, a complaint against a senior functionary will be treated as self-serving and will not displace the IC's jurisdiction.

Disproportionate Punishment for Recovery of Loss Quashed Against Employee

Satyaverat v. State of U.P. and 3 Others | Allahabad High Court | 2026:AHC:77636

Brief Facts

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner, working as an accountant in the U.P. Power Corporation Limited, for alleged negligence in pursuing recovery of outstanding electricity dues of INR 214.87 lakh from a consumer. The inquiry committee initially exonerated the Petitioner. The managing director of the corporation, disagreeing in part, imposed censure, withholding of one financial increment with cumulative effect and recovery of the full amount of INR 214.87 lakh from the Petitioner alone.

The petitioner challenged the recovery component as arbitrary and disproportionate, contending that there was no finding that he had caused financial loss to the department or obtained personal gain.

Observations of the Court

The Allahabad High Court set aside the recovery component as shockingly disproportionate. The court found that whilst the petitioner had been negligent in gathering information from earlier accountants, there was no finding that the department suffered financial loss attributable to his conduct, no finding that he obtained any monetary benefit, and no reason provided for imposing recovery of the entire amount against him alone.

Accordingly, the court set aside the recovery component of the punishment, while recognizing that lesser disciplinary penalties such as censure and withholding of increment were proportionate in the facts of the case.

Practical Implication

Disciplinary penalties involving monetary recovery must be supported by a clear charge, a finding of causal loss and a connection between the employee's conduct and the loss claimed. Imposing recovery without such findings or directing recovery of the entire amount against a single employee where multiple personnel were involved, risks being set aside as disproportionate. Disciplinary authorities must ensure that punishment is commensurate with the nature and extent of established loss.

Completion of Probation Alone Does Not Result in Deemed Confirmation; Written Order Required

Dhanraj R. Mahale and Ors. v. Kirloskar Oil Engines Ltd. and Ors. | Bombay High Court | 2026:BHC-AS:20034-DB

Brief Facts

The appellants were engaged by the respondent company in different phases. Initially as trainees, then on temporary appointments and subsequently on probation. Their services were discontinued at the end of the probationary period. The appellants contended that, under Clause 4A of Schedule I of the Model Standing Orders under the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1959 (“Bombay IESO Rules”), they were entitled to be treated as permanent employees upon completion of the prescribed probationary period.

The issue before the Bombay High Court was whether completion of the probationary period under the model standing orders resulted in automatic or deemed confirmation, and whether the employer was required to continue the employees as permanent workmen.

Observations of the Court

The Bombay High Court held that Clause 4A of the Model Standing Orders under Bombay IESO Rules requires a holistic reading. Although the provision states that a probationer who completes the prescribed period of uninterrupted service shall be made permanent, it also requires the manager to issue a written order of confirmation. There is no automatic or deemed confirmation merely on completion of the probationary period.

The court further held that an employer may assess performance during the probationary period and discontinue the services of a probationer at the end of probation if performance is found unsatisfactory, provided such assessment is genuine and documented.

Practical Implication

Confirmation requires a positive written act by the employer. In the absence of a written confirmation order, the employee does not automatically acquire permanency. Employers covered by the Model Standing Orders should review appointment letters, probation policies and confirmation processes. Performance assessments should be documented and written confirmation orders issued where warranted.

Trade Union Cannot Invoke Recovery under Section 50 of the MRTU and PULP Act Without Written Authorisation from Employees

Vidyut Metallics Employees Union v. Vidyut Metallics Private Limited | Bombay High Court | 2026:BHC-AS:16846

Brief Facts

The petitioner trade union entered into a settlement with the respondent employer governing service conditions, including bonus and ex gratia. Under the settlement, an amount of INR 320 per employee was to be deducted and remitted to the trade union. The trade union alleged that although bonus had been paid to employees, the deducted amount had not been remitted to the trade union. The Industrial Court had earlier directed the respondent to pay the said amount to the trade union, however, upon alleged non-compliance the trade union initiated recovery proceedings under Section 50 of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (“MRTU and PULP Act”).

The Industrial Court in the said proceedings rejected the recovery application, following which the Union approached the Bombay High Court.

Observations of the Court

The Bombay High Court held that Section 50 of the MRTU and PULP Act is a recovery provision and not an independent substantive right. Recovery may be initiated by the employee himself, by a person authorised by him in writing or, in the case of death, by his assignee or heirs. The word ‘employee’ in Section 50 of the MRTU and PULP Act cannot be construed to include a trade union. It held that the statutory language is clear and that the requirement of written authorisation from employees cannot be ignored

Since the trade union had not produced written authorisation from the employees concerned, it lacked the locus to independently maintain recovery proceedings under Section 50 of the MRTU and PULP Act.

Practical Implication

Recovery proceedings under Section 50 of the MRTU and PULP Act require strict compliance with the statutory requirement of written authorisation from each employee on whose behalf recovery is sought. Employers facing recovery applications under the said section should verify whether the requisite written authorisation has been obtained by the initiating party.

Part C | Recent Developments in Labour and Employment Law in India

Central Government Notifies Central Rules under the Four Labour Codes

Issuing Authority: Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India

Date: 8 May 2026

Key Features

On 8 May 2026, the Ministry of Labour and Employment (“MoLE”) notified the final central rules under all 4 (four) Labour Codes: the Code on Wages (Central) Rules, 2026; the Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026; the Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026; and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 (collectively, “Central Rules”).

Central Rules came into force on the date of publication in the Official Gazette (i.e. 8th May 2026). Alongside the 4 sets of Central Rules, MoLE issued a substantial package of supplementary notifications. These notifications constituted the institutional and enforcement infrastructure under the Codes such as appointment of conciliation officers, certifying officers, appellate authorities and Inspector-cum-Facilitators; compounding officers; designation of registering officers and appellate authorities under the OSH Code and other.

The Code on Wages (Central) Rules, 2026 prescribe the framework for minimum wage fixation, floor wage, wage period, payment of wages, wage slips, deductions and records.

The Industrial Relations (Central) Rules, 2026 prescribe requirements for Grievance Redressal Committees in establishments employing 20 or more workers, recognition of negotiating unions and councils, certification and display of standing orders, and procedural requirements for lay-off, retrenchment, closure and lock-out.

The Social Security (Central) Rules, 2026 prescribe the operational framework for registration, provident fund, employees’ state insurance, gratuity, maternity benefit, social security for gig and platform workers, and recovery mechanisms.

The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Central) Rules, 2026 prescribe registration requirements, employer and contractor duties, welfare facilities, contract labour licensing, records and returns.

Additionally, MoLE notified the Model Standing Orders, 2026 ("MSO 2026") under Section 29(1) of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The notification supersedes the earlier Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 insofar as they related to model standing orders. The MSO 2026 prescribe separate standing orders for the mining sector (Schedule A), manufacturing sector (Schedule B) and the service sector (Schedule C). The extension of the standing orders framework to the service sector is a significant development, formally bringing office and other businesses within its scope. Establishments employing 300 (three) or more workers must either adopt the MSO 2026 by intimating the certifying officer, or formulate and certify their own standing orders within 6 (six) months of the Code's commencement.

Recommended Action Points

• Determine if any of the provisions of the Central Rules apply to your establishment / units.
• Conduct a readiness review covering registration status, standing orders, grievance redressal committees, contract labour licensing, records and returns, maternity benefit processes, crèche arrangements and occupational safety compliance.
• Monitor relevant state notifications for corresponding state rules applicable to your establishment, offices, factories and other units.

Bihar Repeals its Shops and Establishments Act, 2025 to Align with the OSH Code

Issuing Authority: Government of Bihar

Date: 1 June 2026 (Ordinance No. 1 of 2026)

Key Features

The Government of Bihar promulgated Ordinance No. 1 of 2026 dated 1 June 2026, repealing the Bihar Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2025 (“Bihar S&E Act, 2025”). The Bihar S&E Act, 2025 had been enacted to replace the Bihar Shops and Establishments Act, 1953.

The stated ground for repeal is the overlap between the provisions of the Bihar S&E Act, 2025 and those of the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020. The Ordinance clarifies that proceedings initiated under the Bihar S&E Act, 2025 prior to its repeal shall continue as if the Act had not been repealed.

Employer Impact

Bihar’s repeal of its 2025 S&E Act reflects the broader pattern of state-level deference to the OSH Code as the primary regulatory instrument for establishments employing 10 or more workers.

Employers should monitor the notification of Bihar’s OSH Code rules, which will govern registration, working conditions, safety and welfare obligations going forward.

Additional FAQs on Labour Code Implementation Issued

Issuing Authority: Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India

Date: 16 March 2026

Key Features

MoLE issued a further set of FAQs on 16 March 2026 providing clarifications on the implementation of all four Labour Codes.

Under the Code on Wages, 2019: overtime allowance forms part of the 50% wage calculation. Employer PF and pension contributions and statutory bonus are included for the 50% threshold; gratuity, ESI and other retirement benefits are not. Annual performance-based incentives do not form part of ‘wages’ for labour codes purposes. Timely payment of wages provisions apply to all employees, including white-collar employees.

Under the COSS: fixed term employment covers employees directly engaged by the employer and does not extend to contract labour. Fixed term employees are eligible for gratuity on completion of 1 (one) year of service under the contract (from start of contract). Gratuity liability for contract labour rests with the contractor. The revised definition of ‘wages’ applies for ESI coverage purposes from 21 November 2025, while the existing ESI wage threshold of INR 21,000 per month continues. Gig and platform worker contributions will be separately notified.

Under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (“OSH Code”): leave provisions apply to workers and to supervisors with wages not exceeding INR 18,000 (Rupees Eighteen Thousand) per month. A worker may carry forward up to 30 (thirty) days of leave; leave refused by the employer may be carried forward without limit. Crèche facilities are available to all employees irrespective of gender. Overtime becomes payable where a worker works more than eight hours in a day or 48 (forty-eight) hours in a week.

Employer Impact

Employers should review wage structures, overtime computation, gratuity calculations, fixed term employment templates, leave policies and ESI coverage assumptions in light of these clarifications.

Karnataka Menstrual Leave Framework: High Court Directs Strict Implementation Pending Legislation

Government Order: No. LD 466 LET 2023, Government of Karnataka, dated 20 November 2025

High Court Order: CAV Order dated 15 April 2026 in W.P. No. 109734 of 2025, Karnataka High Court

Key Features

The Government of Karnataka issued Government Order No. LD 466 LET 2023 dated 20 November 2025 introducing paid menstrual leave for women employees in covered establishments. The framework provides 1 (one) day of paid menstrual leave per month, subject to an annual cap of 12 (twelve) days, for women employees between 18 (eighteen) and 52 (fifty-two) years. The entitlement applies to permanent, contract and outsourced women employees. Leave must be availed in the relevant month, cannot be carried forward and does not require a medical certificate.

The Government Order applies to establishments registered under the Factories Act, 1948, the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, the Plantations Labour Act, 1951, the Beedi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966 and the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961.

The Karnataka High Court, by CAV order dated 15 April 2026 in W.P. No. 109734 of 2025, directed strict and faithful implementation of the Government Order pending enactment of the proposed Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025. The High Court also directed the state government to issue guidelines and administrative instructions for effective operationalisation.

Separately, a writ petition filed by the Bangalore Hotels Association challenging the State’s competence to introduce mandatory paid menstrual leave through executive action remains pending before the Karnataka High Court.

Recommended Action Points

• Confirm whether the establishment is covered under the government order.
• Update leave policies, HRMS and payroll configurations to reflect the entitlement.
• Sensitise HR teams and line managers on privacy, dignity, confidentiality and non-discriminatory administration of menstrual leave.
• Monitor the outcome of the pending challenge and the progress of the proposed Bill.

Goa Issues Circular on the SHe Box Portal under the PoSH Act

Issuing Authority: Department of Information and Publicity, Government of Goa

Date: 20 February 2026

Key Features

The Government of Goa issued a circular on 20 February 2026 drawing attention to the SHe Box Portal maintained by the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The portal serves as a centralised platform for implementing the PoSH Act.

It acts as a repository of information on ICs and Local Committees across public and private sectors.

The portal enables aggrieved women to file complaints online, tracks complaint status in real time and forwards complaints to the relevant IC or Local Committee. The circular reiterates that every workplace must implement the PoSH Act and that non-compliance may attract a penalty of up to INR 50,000 under Section 26 of the PoSH Act.

Employer Impact

Employers should confirm that ICs are duly constituted, that IC details are updated on the She Box Portal, and that PoSH policies and display notices are in place.

Maharashtra State Commission for Women Directs Special Audit of Internal Committees under the PoSH Act

Issuing Authority: Maharashtra State Commission for Women, Government of Maharashtra

Date: 28 February 2026

Key Features

The Maharashtra State Commission for Women (“MSCW”) issued a direction on 28 February 2026 to all Divisional Commissioners and District Collectors in Maharashtra requiring a special audit of ICs constituted under the PoSH Act.

The MSCW noted that several offices had not constituted ICs, maintained functional ICs, submitted annual reports, conducted awareness and training programmes, displayed IC details at the workplace or implemented IC recommendations.

The direction requires verification of IC constitution across government, semi-government, local self-government bodies, corporations, boards, autonomous bodies and private establishments.

The audit parameters cover: IC composition and constitution order, complaints received and pending; action taken, implementation of IC decisions, annual report submission, training and awareness programmes, and display of IC details.

Recommended Action Points

• Verify that the IC has been duly constituted under PoSH Act, that the constitution order has been issued and that the IC is functional.
• Confirm annual reports have been submitted as required under the PoSH Act.
• Ensure IC contact details and the PoSH policy are displayed at all workplaces.
• Confirm that IC recommendations, including disciplinary action, have been implemented in accordance with the PoSH Act.

Maharashtra Clarifies Registration Requirements under OSH Code and Maharashtra Shops and Establishments Act

Issuing Authority: Industries, Energy, Labour and Mining Department, Government of Maharashtra

Date: 30 April 2026

Key Features

The Government of Maharashtra issued a Circular on 30 April 2026 clarifying the overlap between registration under the OSH Code and the Maharashtra Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 (“Maharashtra S&E Act”).

The Circular states that establishments engaging 10 (ten) or more employees are required to register under Section 3 of the OSH Code. Once such registration is obtained after finalisation of the corresponding rules, separate registration under the Maharashtra S&E Act will not be required for subject matter covered by the OSH Code. The Circular relies on the principle of repugnancy under Article 254 of the Constitution of India.

However, establishments are required to continue complying with other provisions of the Maharashtra S&E Act to the extent they are not inconsistent with the OSH Code. Establishments employing fewer than 10 workers must continue to intimate commencement of business under Section 7 of the Maharashtra S&E Act.

Employer Impact

The OSH Code Rules for Maharashtra remain in draft as at the date of this newsletter. Until the rules are finalised and notified, OSH Code registration as a formal mechanism is not yet available, and the Circular's relief from dual registration has not yet taken practical effect.

Employers should also note that the threshold under the Maharashtra S&E Act was revised by ordinance dated 1 October 2025; the reference to 10 workers in the Circular should be read in that context. The Circular does not constitute a general exemption from non-conflicting obligations under the Maharashtra S&E Act.

Gujarat Enacts Shops and Establishments Amendment Act, 2026

Issuing Authority: Government of Gujarat

Date: 27 February 2026; effective retrospectively from 16 December 2025

Key Features

The Government of Gujarat notified the Gujarat Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 2026 on 27 February 2026, amending the Gujarat Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2019 (“Guj S&E Act”). The amendment act repeals the corresponding 2025 Ordinance and has been given retrospective effect from 16 December 2025.

Key changes include:

• Applicability threshold: The Guj S&E Act now covers establishments employing 20 (twenty) or more employees.
• Working hours: Greater flexibility in daily working hours and continuous period before rest has been introduced. The daily working hour cap has been increased to 10 (ten) and the continuous work period has been increased to six (six) hours from 5 (five) hours.
• Overtime: The quarterly overtime limit has been increased from 125 (One hundred and twenty five) hours to 144 (One hundred and forty-four) hours.
• Night shifts for women: Women employees may be engaged between 9:00 PM and 6:00 AM, subject to prior written consent and certain defined safeguards.

Employer Impact

Employers with operations in Gujarat should review working hour arrangements, shift schedules and overtime registers, and ensure compliance with night shift safeguard requirements where women employees are deployed.

Andhra Pradesh Permits Lifetime Registration Certificate for Shops and Commercial Establishments

Issuing Authority: Labour, Factories, Boilers & Insurance Medical Services Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh

Date: 12 March 2026

Key Features

The Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.4 dated 12 March 2026 under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (“Andhra S&E Act”). The notification permits shops and commercial establishments employing 20 (twenty) or more workers to obtain a lifetime registration certificate under Section 3 of the Andhra S&E Act and exempts such establishments from Section 4 of the Andhra S&E Act, subject to following conditions:

Combined annual returns in Form B must continue to be filed under the Andhra Pradesh Issuance of Integrated Registration and Furnishing of Combined Returns under Various Labour Laws by Certain Establishments Act, 2015.

New Registration or Renewal of Existing Registrations, Notice of Change and Duplicate Certificate obligations under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Rules, 1988 continue to apply.

Employer Impact

Employers with operations in Andhra Pradesh should assess eligibility for lifetime registration and the associated conditions. This development reduces the recurring registration burden for covered establishments.

Delhi Enacts Shops and Establishments Amendment Act, 2026

Assent / Publication: Presidential assent on 23 February 2026 | Published in Official Gazette: 11 March 2026

Commencement / Enforcement Date: To be notified; not yet in force.

Key Features

The Delhi Shops and Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2026 (Act No. 03 of 2026) was passed by the Delhi Legislative Assembly on 9 January 2026, received Presidential assent on 23 February 2026 and was published in the Official Gazette on 11 March 2026. It will come into force on a date to be separately notified by the Government of NCT of Delhi. Until that notification is issued, the existing provisions of the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 (“Delhi S&E Act”) remain in force.

Key amendments

• Applicability: The Delhi S&E Act will after amendment apply to shops and establishments employing 20 or more employees.
• Daily working hours: Revised from 9 (nine) hours to 10 (ten) hours.
• Weekly overtime cap: 60 (sixty) hours per week, with aggregate overtime not exceeding 144 (One hundred and forty-four) hours in a quarter.
• Rest interval trigger: Revised from 5 (five) hours to 6 (six) hours of continuous work.
• Spread over: Standardised at 12 (twelve) hours for both commercial establishment and shops.
• Child labour: Age threshold revised from the 12 year to 14 year.
• Women employees: May be engaged, with written consent, between 9:00 PM–7:00 AM (summer) and 8:00 PM–8:00 AM (winter), subject to CCTV surveillance, security, transport, PoSH compliance, minimum staffing of 2 (two) women employees and other conditions.

Employer Impact

Employers in Delhi should monitor the commencement notification. Once in force, establishments will need to review working hour structures, overtime tracking, spread-over records, night shift protocols, transport arrangements and PoSH compliance documentation.

Haryana Grants Exemption from Opening & Closing Hours and Close Day for Self-Certified Establishments

Issuing Authority: Labour Department, Haryana Government

Date: 30 March 2026

Key Features

The Government of Haryana exempted shops and commercial establishments situated in state of Haryana, that get itself registered online in auto mode on the basis of self-certification, from the operation of the provisions of Section 9 (opening and closing hours) and Section 10 (close day) of the Haryana Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, (“Haryana S&E Act”) subject to certain conditions.

Conditions include: no employee to work more than 48 (forty-eight) hours in a week or 10 (ten) hours in a day; spread over not exceeding 12 (twelve) hours including rest interval; overtime at 2x (twice) the normal rate; and no employee to work more than 6 (six) hours without a rest interval of at least 30 (thirty) minutes. A copy of the notification must be prominently displayed at employee’s entrance/exit. Establishments for employing women during night shifts between 8:00 PM and 6:00 AM would need to apply for grant of exemption under Section 28 of the Haryana S&E Act.

Employer Impact

Establishments registered online in auto mode in Haryana may now operate without restriction on opening or closing hours and without a mandatory close day, subject to compliance with all conditions.

Uttarakhand Clarifies that Shops and Establishments May Remain Open 24×7

Issuing Authority: Labour Department, Government of Uttarakhand

Date: 17 February 2026

Key Features

The Uttarakhand Labour Department issued a notification clarifying that there is no restriction under the Uttarakhand Shops and Establishments Act, 2017 (“Uttarakhand S&E Act”) on the opening and closing hours of shops and establishments. Shops and establishments may accordingly remain open 24 (twenty-four) hours a day, 7 (seven) days a week.

The notification also clarifies that the working hours and holidays of the employees continue to be governed by the provisions of the Uttarakhand S&E Act.

Employer Impact

Employers in Uttarakhand should review the policies pertaining to working hours, weekly holidays and leave.

Karnataka Exempts Specified Enrolled Persons from Professional Tax Return Filing

Issuing Authority: Office of Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Karnataka

Date: 1 April 2026

Key Features

The Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Government of Karnataka issued a notification exempting specified classes of enrolled persons from furnishing professional tax returns under the Karnataka Tax on Professions, Trade, Callings and Employment Act, 1976 (“Karnataka Professional Tax Act”), subject to uploading prescribed supporting documents on the E-Prerana portal.

Exempted categories include: senior citizens aged 60 (sixty) and above; specified transport vehicle permit holders; physically challenged persons meeting prescribed criteria; individuals with a single child who have undergone sterilisation; specified ex-servicemen; specified charitable and philanthropic hospitals or nursing homes; institutes teaching Kannada or English shorthand or typewriting; and certain educational institutions.

Employer Impact

Employers and enrolled persons in Karnataka should review whether any eligible category applies to their employees or principals and, where it does, ensure required documentation is uploaded through the E Prerana portal to avail the said benefit.

Madhya Pradesh Amends Factories Rules on Deployment of Women and Adolescent Workers in Hazardous Processes

Issuing Authority: Government of Madhya Pradesh

Publication Date: 3 April 2026

Key Features

The Government of Madhya Pradesh published a notification on 2 April 2026 amending Rule 107 of the Madhya Pradesh Factories Rules, 1962. The amendment revises schedule entries dealing with restrictions on the deployment of certain categories of workers in specified factory processes involving hazardous substances, risk of exposure or other specified conditions.

The revised entries provide that pregnant or lactating women, children and adolescents should not be employed or permitted to work in the specified processes. In certain cases, pregnant or lactating women should not be deployed until 6 (six) months after the end of pregnancy or the lactation period.

Employer Impact

Factories in Madhya Pradesh should review the amended schedules to identify whether existing role assignments, production processes or shop floor deployments involve categories of workers affected by the revised restrictions, and update deployment records accordingly.

May 2026 - Central Government Issues Institutional and Compliance Notifications

Issuing Authority: Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India

Publication Dates: 8 May 2026 - 29 May 2026

Between 8 and 29 May 2026, MoLE issued an extensive series of notifications completing the institutional and enforcement infrastructure required to give operational effect to the 4 Labour Codes in the Central Government sphere. These include:

• MoLE designated the full hierarchy of enforcement officers, including Inspectors-cum-Facilitators, Chief Inspectors-cum-Facilitators, Registering Officers, Conciliation Officers and Certifying Officers. The adjudicatory and appellate architecture for wage claims, gratuity disputes, ESI and EPF matters, and standing order challenges were also notified. Compounding officers and prosecution sanction authorities were designated across all relevant chapters of each Code.
• Several financial parameters critical to day-to-day compliance were also confirmed. The interest rate on delayed contributions and payments under both the ESI and EPF chapters was fixed, deemed to have come into force on 21 November 2025. The EPF wage ceiling was notified at INR 15,000 per month, and inspection charges for exempted EPF establishments were fixed at 0.35% of wages.
• A designated authority committee was also constituted under the OSH Code, chaired by the Director General, Labour Welfare, to advise the government on whether a particular activity constitutes a core or non-core activity.

Employers should treat this notification package as a further and material step in the operationalisation of the Labour Code framework.

Part D | Foreign Developments

European Union: Pay Transparency Directive - Obligations Apply from 7 June 2026

EU Member States were required to transpose Directive (EU) 2023/970 on Pay Transparency into national law by 7 June 2026. The Directive applies to all public and private sector employers in EU Member States, regardless of size, and introduces binding obligations across the employment lifecycle.

From 7 June 2026, core obligations apply: employers must provide job applicants with information on the initial pay level or pay range; employers may not ask candidates about their salary history; and employees may request in writing information on their individual pay and the average pay levels for comparable roles, disaggregated by sex. Employers must respond to such requests within 2 (two) months. Pay secrecy clauses in employment contracts are prohibited. Employers with 250 or more employees will be required to report gender pay gap data annually from June 2027, using 2026 pay data.

Employers with 150-249 employees must report every 3 (three) years from June 2027. Where a pay gap of 5% or more within a worker category is identified and cannot be objectively justified, employers must conduct a joint pay assessment with employee representatives and implement remedial measures.

Indian employers with operations or entities in EU jurisdictions should verify national implementing legislation in each country where they employ staff and prepare for compliance with the Directive’s core obligations.

United Arab Emirates: Minimum Wage for Emirati Private Sector Employees and Strengthened Compliance Environment

A minimum wage of AED 6,000 per month for private sector Emirati employees took effect from 1 January 2026. Private companies were required to adjust existing employment contracts by 30 June 2026.

Additionally, the UAE extended the limitation period for filing labour claims from 1 (one) year to two years from the date of termination of the employment relationship.

The General Pension and Social Security Authority implemented a daily penalty of 0.1% on overdue pension contributions for GCC national employees, accruing without warning once payment is delayed.

Indian companies operating in the UAE should ensure compliance with the revised minimum wage obligations, updated claim timelines and the enhanced pension contribution discipline regime.

United Kingdom: Employment Rights Act 2025 - Phased Implementation Brings Sweeping Changes for Employers

The United Kingdom's Employment Rights Act 2025 received Royal Assent in 2025 and has entered phased implementation. The reform is, described as the biggest overhaul of employment rights in a generation, consist of over 30 individual measures, with provisions taking effect in April and October 2026 and into 2027.

Key changes of relevance to Indian employers with UK operations or subsidiaries include

• the introduction of a right to guaranteed hours for zero-hours and low-hours workers after a qualifying reference period, preventing employers from maintaining long-term casualised arrangements without offering stable contracts
• Unfair dismissal protection, all employees will be protected from unfair dismissal after 6 months’ service. The government’s original proposal to bring in ‘dayone’ rights for unfar dismissal has been replaced by a six-mont qualifying period for unfair dismissal.
• strengthened collective redundancy and trade union rights
• extended protection against dismissal connected with trade union activities.

Indian companies with UK operations should audit their employment contracts, zero-hours arrangements, dismissal and redundancy procedures in light of these changes.