L&E Newsletter - April 2026 Edition

A.    Regulatory Updates

1.) Delhi introduced key amendments to its shops and establishments Act; increased threshold, enhanced working hours and prior written consent for night shifts for women

The Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, vide its notification dated March 11, 2026, has introduced the Delhi Shops and Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2026 (“Act”), amending the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954. Notably, the amendments restrict the Act's applicability exclusively to shops and establishments employing 20 (twenty) or more workers.

The reforms introduce significant operational relaxations. The definition of "child" is revised upward from twelve (12) to fourteen (14) years. Daily working hours are increased to 10 (ten), inclusive of rest intervals and lunch breaks. Weekly working limits rise to sixty (60) hours from fifty-four (54), with overtime capped quarterly at one hundred forty-four (144) hours, substituting the prior one hundred fifty (150) hour annual limit. Continuous working periods extend from five (5) to six (6) hours, while spread over for commercial establishments advances to twelve (12) hours daily from ten and a half (10.5), encompassing intervals.

Provisions for women's employment during night shifts defined as 9:00 PM to 7:00 AM (summer) or 8:00 PM to 8:00 AM (winter) mandate prior written consent and strict adherence to prescribed safety measures.

2.) Department of Labour, Haryana, issued a notification regarding exemptions for shops and establishments

The Department of Labour, Haryana, has, vide notification dated March 30, 2026, permitted shops and commercial establishments registered under the self-certification scheme to operate beyond prescribed opening and closing hours and weekly off requirements.

The notification allows employment of women during night shifts (8:00 PM to 6:00 AM), subject to prior approval and prescribed safeguards. It also reiterates key working hour limits forty-eight (48) hours per week and ten (10) hours per day, with total spread-over (including rest intervals) capped at twelve (12) hours.

Overtime must be paid at twice the normal rate, and employees are entitled to a minimum thirty (30) minute rest break after six (6) hours of work. The notification clarifies that all other applicable labour laws must be complied with, and a copy of the exemption must be displayed at the workplace. It further specifies that the exemption does not override other applicable government or police regulations.

3.) Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 notified, key changes to certification and identity rights

The Ministry of Law and Justice on March 30, 2026, issued the Transgender Persons (protection of Rights) Amendment Act, 2026 (“Act”) to further amend the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.

Key amendments include the removal of Section 4(2) and revisions to the certification process under Sections 6 and 7. The role of the District Magistrate has been expanded to include consideration of recommendations from the designated authority and, where necessary, assistance from medical experts. The amendments also introduce a statutory right for transgender persons to change their first name in birth certificates and other official documents upon issuance of a certificate of identity.

Further, the process for recognition of change in gender post-surgery has been formalised. Medical institutions are now required to report such cases to the District Magistrate and relevant authority, and the issuance of revised gender certificates has been streamlined based on medical certification. The Act will come into force on a date to be notified by the Central Government.

4.) Government of Maharashtra directs districts to conduct POSH Internal Committee (IC) Audit

The Maharashtra State Women’s Commission, vide directive dated February 28, 2026, has instructed all districts to conduct a special audit of Internal Committees (ICs) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) following concerns over non-constitution and ineffective functioning across establishments.

District authorities have been directed to verify proper constitution of ICs, review complaints received and actions taken, assess pending cases, ensure implementation of disciplinary measures, confirm submission of annual reports, and check awareness, training initiatives, and display of IC details at workplaces.

In cases of non-compliance or incomplete constitution, authorities are required to mandate immediate corrective action and initiate proceedings where necessary. Audit reports must be submitted to the Commission within thirty (30) days, with legal action proposed for violations of the POSH Act.

5.) State of Andhra Pradesh notifies 24×7 operations and rolls out lifetime registration for commercial establishments under the state-specific shops and establishment act

The Government of Andhra Pradesh has, vide notification dated March 12, 2026 authorised establishments in areas with population exceeding 4,00,000 (Four lakhs) to operate 24x7 year-round under the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (“AP S&E Act”). Such operations necessitate compliance with conditions including filing online returns; granting employees a weekly off; providing compensatory holidays for notified public holidays; maintaining statutory registers in soft copy; and limiting weekly work to forty-eight (48) hours, with overtime payments for excess.

Complementing this flexibility, another notification dated March 12, 2026, introduces lifetime registration certificates for commercial establishments employing twenty (20) or more workers. Eligibility hinges on two (2) key conditions: filing combined annual returns in Form B under the Andhra Pradesh (Issuance of Integrated Registration and Furnishing of Combined Returns under Various Labour Laws by Certain Establishments) Act, 2015, and paying the prescribed registration fee at initial registration or renewal.

6.) Karnataka notifies rules for social security and welfare of platform-based gig workers; operational framework for social security and grievance redressal

The Government of Karnataka has, on March 26, 2026, notified the Karnataka Platform-Based Gig Workers (Social Security and Welfare Development) Rules, 2025 (“Rules”), finalising the draft issued in June 2025 after considering stakeholder feedback.

The Rules lay down the operational framework for implementing welfare measures for platform-based gig workers. They establish key authorities, including the Appellate Authority, Grievance Redressal Officer, and other designated officials, to oversee dispute resolution and administration under the scheme.

The Rules are intended to strengthen social security coverage, formalise grievance redressal mechanisms, and provide institutional clarity for gig workers engaged through digital platforms. They will come into effect upon publication in the Official Gazette.

7.) Puducherry Shops and Establishments Act Authorizes 24/7 Operations Subject to Conditions

The Government of Puducherry has, vide notification dated March 15, 2026 issued under the Puducherry Shops and Establishments Act, 1964, permitted all shops and establishments to operate on a 24x7 basis throughout the year, subject to specified conditions. The exemption from restrictions on opening and closing hours is accompanied by requirements including provision of a weekly holiday to employees on a rotational basis, maintenance and display of employee leave records, and payment of wages (including overtime) through bank transfers. Employers are also required to ensure that overtime work is undertaken only with proper authorization, failing which action may be initiated under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020.

The notification further permits employment of women during night shifts (between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.) subject to conditions, including obtaining written consent of the employee, ensuring compliance with maternity benefit provisions under the Code on Social Security, 2020, and maintaining adequate lighting and workplace safety measures. Additional safeguards include provision of accessible sanitation and drinking facilities, installation of CCTV surveillance in relevant areas, display of emergency and women helpline numbers, and compliance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. The notification is effective from the date of its publication.

8.) Ministry of Labour and Employment Released FAQs under the OSH Code on March 13, 2026

The Ministry of Labour and Employment has, as on March 13, 2026, issued a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 clarifying certain operational aspects of the Code. The FAQs address the applicability of central rules and standards to dock work across all ports, while recognising the role of State Governments as the appropriate authority for minor ports with powers to frame rules and amend standards with prior Central approval. They also clarify that employers are required to provide free pre-employment and periodic medical examinations for workers engaged in hazardous processes and dangerous operations irrespective of age, with periodicity to be prescribed by the State Governments.

Further, the FAQs reiterate that occupational safety and health standards will be prescribed by the Central Government, subject to modification by States in accordance with the Code. Clarifications have also been issued in relation to the inspector-cum-facilitator framework and inspection mechanism, the structure of penalties, and the coverage of contract labour, including the responsibility of the principal employer to provide welfare facilities and the obligation on contractors to issue experience certificates to contract workers on demand.

9.     Ministry of Labour and Employment Issued Additional FAQs under the Labour Codes on March 13, 2026

The Ministry of Labour and Employment has, on March 16, 2026, issued an additional set of consolidated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) under the four Labour Codes, namely, the Code on Wages, 2019, Industrial Relations Code, 2020, Code on Social Security, 2020 and the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020. These FAQs supplement earlier guidance and set out clarifications on specific aspects of implementation following the coming into force of the Labour Codes on November 21, 2025.

The FAQs, inter alia, clarify the following:

• The scope and meaning of “remuneration in kind”, supported by illustrative examples;

• The treatment of annual performance-based incentives/variable pay for the purposes of determining “wages”;

• The applicability of overtime provisions to employees in managerial and administrative roles; and

• That gratuity calculations, based on the revised definition of wages under the Labour Codes, will apply prospectively from November 21, 2025.

The issuance of these FAQs forms part of the Ministry’s ongoing effort to provide interpretative clarity on the operational aspects of the Labour Codes.

B.     Judicial Updates 

1. ) Supreme Court: Age limit for adoptive and commissioning mothers' maternity benefit under the Code on Social Security, 2020 

The Supreme Court, in Hamsaanandini Nanduri v. Union of India and Others, 2026 INSC 246, examined the validity of Section 60(4) of the Code on Social Security, 2020, which granted maternity benefits to adoptive and commissioning mothers only where the child was below three months of age. The Court held that this age-based restriction is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and Article 21. It found that adoptive mothers are similarly placed irrespective of the age of the child, and that the purpose of maternity benefits extends beyond childbirth to include caregiving, bonding, and integration of the child into the family. These objectives, the Court noted, apply equally in cases of adoption, regardless of the child’s age. 

The Court also took into account the practical operation of the provision, observing that the statutory adoption process in India typically takes several months. As a result, by the time a child is legally adopted and handed over, the child is unlikely to be below three months of age, making the benefit largely inaccessible in practice. Accordingly, the Court read down Section 60(4) to remove the age restriction and clarified that adoptive and commissioning mothers are entitled to twelve (12) weeks of maternity leave from the date the child is handed over to them, irrespective of the child’s age. The Court also noted the absence of a statutory framework on paternity leave and highlighted the need for a more balanced approach to parental responsibilities. 

2.) Supreme Court: PIL seeking uniform Menstrual Leave Policy disposed off 

The Shailendra Mani Tripathi vs. Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Union of India and Ors., Writ Petition (Civil) No. 317 of 2026, was disposed of by the Supreme Court of India on March 13, 2026, with the Court declining to issue further directions regarding the formulation of a nationwide uniform menstrual leave policy.

This petition marked the third public interest litigation filed by Advocate Shailendra Mani Tripathi on the issue, following earlier petitions in the year 2023 and 2024. While acknowledging the petitioner’s role in foregrounding menstrual hygiene and workplace equity concerns, the Court observed that repeated judicial intervention was unwarranted at this stage.

The Court referred to its earlier orders dated February 24, 2023 and July 8, 2024, wherein the Union Government, through the Ministry of Women and Child Development, had already been directed to examine the feasibility of a policy framework after undertaking consultations with stakeholders at both Union and State levels. In light of these directions, the Court expressed confidence that the competent authorities would take appropriate steps towards policy formulation. Importantly, the Court reiterated that matters of such socio-economic policy fall within the executive domain, and that State Governments retain the autonomy to independently introduce menstrual leave policies suited to their respective contexts.

3.) Supreme Court: Nine-Judge bench reserves verdict on 'Industry' definition under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 

A nine-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India, on March 19, 2026, reserved judgment in State of UP v. Jai Bir Singh, Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2002, revisiting the scope of the term “industry” under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reference centres on the continuing validity of the expansive interpretation laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, where a seven-judge bench evolved the “triple test”, systematic activity, employer-employee cooperation, and production or distribution of goods or services to satisfy human wants, thereby bringing a wide range of entities, including hospitals, educational institutions, and government welfare bodies, within the ambit of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regardless of profit motive.

The Constitution Bench is now examining whether such breadth remains tenable, particularly in relation to sovereign and welfare functions of the state, including activities such as social forestry and public welfare schemes. The Court is also considering the impact of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020, and whether it reflects a legislative intent to recalibrate or narrow the earlier judicial interpretation amid labour law consolidation. Key questions include whether organized employer–employee cooperation alone is sufficient to attract labour law protections, and whether non-commercial governmental functions should fall within the industrial adjudication framework. The outcome of this reference is expected to have far-reaching implications for the contours of labour jurisprudence in India, potentially redefining the reach of industrial dispute mechanisms while balancing worker protections against the distinct character of sovereign state functions. Updates will follow judgment delivery. 

4.) Delhi High Court: Break in service is a bar to regularisation of service 

The Delhi High Court, in Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya v. Delhi Jal Board, LPA 1101/2024 considered whether a daily wage employee was entitled to regularisation after being reinstated in service following an earlier finding that his termination was illegal. The appellant had initially been engaged as a Baildar on a daily wage basis in 1982. His services were terminated in 1993, and although he was later reinstated pursuant to a labour court award in 2002, the reinstatement was granted only from July 17, 1996 with 50% back wages and without continuity of service. 

Subsequently, the appellant raised a fresh industrial dispute seeking regularisation, contending that similarly placed employees had been regularised and that denial of the same benefit amounted to discrimination. However, the Industrial Tribunal rejected this claim, holding that the appellant was not entitled to regularisation, inter alia, because his initial engagement was not against a sanctioned post and, more importantly, because there was a break in service between 1993 and 1996. This break arose due to the terms of the earlier award, which the appellant had not challenged.  

The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s findings and dismissed the intra-court appeal. It noted that while the principle of parity with similarly situated employees is well recognised, the same would not apply where the employee is not identically placed. In the present case, the Court found that the appellant would have been regularised under the employer’s scheme but for the break in service, which disentitled him from claiming parity. The Court also rejected reliance on precedents relating to continuity of service, observing that the earlier award had clearly limited reinstatement to a prospective date and that this position had attained finality. Accordingly, the Court held that there was no illegality in the Tribunal’s decision and no grounds to interfere. 

5.) Karnataka High Court – Court mandates implementation of State Menstrual Leave Policy 

The Karnataka High Court in Chandravva Hanamant Gokavi v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (order dated April 15, 2026) upheld the constitutional validity of the State’s Menstrual Leave Policy, 2025, recognising menstrual leave as a right grounded in dignity, health, and workplace justice. The case arose from a petition highlighting the lack of effective access to menstrual leave, particularly for women in the unorganised sector, despite the State having already introduced a policy granting one day of paid leave per month. 

The Court held that menstrual health is intrinsically linked to the right to life and dignity under Article 21, and that the State is empowered to introduce welfare measures addressing women’s biological realities. Rejecting equality-based objections, it clarified that recognising gender-specific needs does not violate Article 14 but advances substantive equality. The Court further noted that the policy forms part of a broader legislative framework, including the proposed Karnataka Menstrual Leave and Hygiene Bill, 2025, reflecting a structured approach to workplace dignity and health. 

While acknowledging implementation challenges, particularly in the unorganised sector, the Court emphasised that such difficulties cannot defeat welfare entitlements. It directed strict and effective implementation of the existing policy through administrative measures and sensitisation efforts across sectors, and further mandated that, upon enactment of the proposed legislation, appropriate rules be framed to ensure full and meaningful enforcement of menstrual leave rights. 

6.) Bombay High Court: Apprentices do not have an automatic right to absorption upon completion of training 

The Bombay High Court in Prajwalit Tularam Gaikwad and Ors. vs. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and Ors. (Writ Petition No. 3767 of 2018, decided on March 9, 2026) addressed whether graduate apprentices could claim absorption into regular employment upon completion of training. The petitioners, engaged as Graduate Apprentice Trainees by HPCL, sought directions for their appointment as Grade “A” officers and challenged their disengagement after the one-year apprenticeship period. The Court examined the scheme of the Apprentices Act, 1961 and emphasised that apprenticeship is fundamentally a training arrangement rather than a pathway guaranteeing employment. It noted that apprentices are statutorily regarded as “trainees” and not employees, and that employers are not obligated to offer employment upon completion of training unless specifically provided by contract or policy. The Court also considered HPCL’s recruitment processes and subsequent policy, which provided limited preference (such as age relaxation and additional marks) but did not mandate absorption. 

Rejecting the petitioners’ claims, the Court held that there is no enforceable right to regular employment merely by virtue of completing apprenticeship training. It clarified that Section 22 only requires employers to frame a recruitment policy and does not create a vested right of absorption. Consequently, the petitioners’ challenge to their non-absorption and to HPCL’s policy framework failed, reinforcing the principle that apprenticeship does not translate into automatic public employment. 

7.) Bombay High Court: Maternity leave cannot be treated as a breach of bond obligations for medical professionals  

The Bombay High Court in Dr. Meenakshi Muthiah v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Writ Petition No. 3319 of 2025, decided on February 25, 2026) considered whether a medical professional could be penalised for not completing a mandatory bond period due to availing maternity leave. The petitioner, appointed as an Assistant Professor under a one-year bond service obligation, was imposed a substantial monetary penalty for the period she remained on maternity leave and was unable to complete the full tenure. 

The Court examined the interplay between contractual bond obligations and maternity rights  and held that maternity leave is an integral facet of the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. It rejected the State’s contention that, in the absence of an express provision under the bond scheme or applicability of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961, maternity leave could be disregarded. The Court emphasised that no contract, bond, or policy can override a woman’s right to maternity protection, and any such condition would be inconsistent with Section 27 of the Act and constitutional guarantees. 

Accordingly, the Court set aside the penalty and held that the period of maternity leave must be treated as part of service, not a break. It directed payment of salary for the maternity leave period and permitted the petitioner to complete the remaining bond tenure excluding such leave, or alternatively, to be issued a bond completion certificate.  

8.) Madhya Pradesh High Court: 80-day eligibility condition under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 cannot be applied mechanically by the State 

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. Priti Saket vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. (W.P. No. 9877/2026, decided on March 24, 2026) examined whether a guest faculty member could be denied paid maternity leave on the ground that she had not fulfilled the minimum service requirement under the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961. The petitioner challenged an order which, while granting maternity leave, withdrew payment of honorarium by relying on a State circular and the statutory eligibility condition. 

A key issue before the Court was the requirement under Section 5(2) of the Act, which provides that a woman is entitled to maternity benefits only if she has worked for at least eighty (80) days in the twelve (12) months preceding the expected date of delivery. The State relied on this provision to deny paid leave. However, the Court held that although this condition exists in the statute, its application cannot be mechanical in the case of State-run establishments, particularly where it would undermine the beneficial object of the legislation. 

The Court emphasised that maternity benefits are a welfare measure grounded in constitutional principles of social justice and protection of women’s health. It held that the State, as a model employer, cannot deny such benefits by strictly invoking the eighty (80) day requirement, especially in cases of contractual or temporary engagements. Accordingly, the impugned order was set aside, and the petitioner was granted paid maternity leave for twenty-six (26) weeks under the Act, with any additional period to be treated as leave without pay.

© Anhad Law