Employment Newsletter (July-August 2026)
Authors
(I) Legal updates on employment and labour laws
A. Central
1. MoLE notifies the Employees’ Enrolment Campaign, 2026, and urges employers to utilise it
The Ministry of Labour and Employment (“MoLE”) notified the Employees’ Enrolment Campaign, 2026 (“EEC 2026”) on June 29, 2026, under the Code on Social Security, 2020 (“SS Code”). The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (“EPFO”) thereafter issued an implementation circular dated July 8, 2026, summarising the salient features of EEC 2026, which are as follows:
- The campaign commenced on July 1, 2026, and will continue till October 31, 2026.
- It provides a special, one-time window for employers to voluntarily enrol eligible employees who remained outside EPF coverage during the period April 1, 2009, to March 31, 2026, and to regularise past non-compliance, provided the employee is alive and continuing in employment with the establishment on the date of declaration.
- The campaign applies to all establishments, irrespective of their existing coverage status. Employers not previously covered under the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 2026 (“EPF Scheme 2026”) may also apply for coverage and simultaneously declare and enrol employees who joined during the specified period.
- Employers must generate a Face Authentication-based Universal Account Number through the UMANG App for each declared employee, and remit contributions through the Electronic Challan-cum-Return. This is a mandatory condition for availing the benefits of EEC 2026.
- A lump sum damage of INR 100 per defaulting establishment (rather than the ordinary graduated rate of damages) will be treated as sufficient compliance across the three schemes notified under the SS Code, i.e., EPF Scheme, 2026, the Employee Pension Scheme, 2026 (“EPS, 2026”), and the Employees' Deposit-Linked Insurance Scheme, 2026.
- The employees’ share of contribution for the declared period stands waived, where it was not already deducted by the employer at the relevant time. However, if such amounts were deducted by the employer and not deposited, the same should be deposited.
By a press release dated August 22, 2026, EPFO reiterated that the EEC 2026 is intended to extend the benefits of provident fund, pension and insurance to workers who would otherwise remain outside the statutory social security net, and urged employers to review their employment and wage records to identify eligible employees before the window closes.
2. EPFO launches VISHWAS, 2026, for settlement of long-pending EPF damages disputes
On June 29, 2026 (issued as part of the EPF Scheme, 2026), the Central Government notified VISHWAS, 2026 (“VISHWAS”), a one-time scheme for amicable settlement of disputes relating to levy of damages under Section 14B of the erstwhile Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”) or Section 128 of the SS Code. The EPFO also issued a compliance circular dated July 9, 2026, addressed to its Zonal and Regional Offices, setting out the operational framework of the VISHWAS scheme. The key features of the VISHWAS Scheme are as follows:
- VISHWAS is effective from June 29, 2026, and will remain in force for six months, i.e., up to December 28, 2026.
- VISHWAS applies to four categories of cases — (a) ongoing litigation, where an order under Section 14B/128 has been issued and is under dispute before any judicial forum; (b) orders have been issued and is not disputed and where the levied amount remains unpaid or only partially paid; (c) pre-adjudication cases where a show-cause notice has been issued but no final order has yet been passed; and (d) pre-adjudication cases where no show-cause notice has yet been issued.
- Notwithstanding the rate of damages otherwise applicable, for the period of default prior to June 14, 2024, the rate under VISHWAS is fixed at 0.25% per month (default up to 2 months), 0.50% per month (default of more than 2 months but less than 4 months), and 1.00% per month (default beyond 4 months) — a sharp reduction from the the ordinary damages structure, under which rates ranged from 5%–25% per annum for defaults between 2008 and June 13, 2024.
- While there is a reduction in the rate of the damages, the entire interest payable under Section 7Q of the EPF Act or Section 127 of the SS Code, corresponding to the period of default, must be remitted in full before an application is submitted.
- The employer must also furnish a formal undertaking that no further appeal will be filed before any judicial or quasi-judicial forum once the dispute is settled and abated.
- The settlement process is through the EPFO Employer Portal where the employer concerned must first clear outstanding interest, then select the applicable category, upload documents, and complete digital authentication, following which the system auto-calculates the revised penalty. Employers are then given a 15-day payment window for payment of damages (extendable by a further 15 days), after which EPFO issues a digitally signed Settlement Certificate and the related court or tribunal proceedings stand closed.
- Where an amount already remitted towards damages in part exceeds the revised damages computed under VISHWAS, no refund is admissible, and the excess cannot be adjusted against any other order or notice. Where the amount remitted is less, the establishment must remit the shortfall.
- VISHWAS does not apply where damages have already been fully recovered, or where the case involves fraud, misappropriation or deliberate falsification of records, or where disputed interest has not been fully remitted.
By a press release dated September 3, 2026, EPFO noted that the Bombay High Court, the Madras High Court, and the Kerala High Court have also directed employers to apply under VISHWAS and disposed of the related tribunal and writ proceedings accordingly
3. Amnesty provisions introduced for retrospective regularisation of exempt status of Provident Fund Trusts
The Amnesty provisions were introduced as a transitional, one-time measure — as part of the EPF Scheme 2026 notified on June 29, 2026 — for regularisation of the exemption status of Provident Fund Trusts ("PF Trusts") that are recognised under the Income Tax Act, 1961, but do not hold a formal exemption order under Section 17 of the EPF Act (now Section 143 of the SS Code).
The operational guidelines for availing the Amnesty, including the manner of application and procedural requirements, were issued vide a detailed circular dated July 11, 2026. Key aspects include:
- The Amnesty provisions are valid for six months from the date of notification, i.e., up to December 28, 2026.
- Besides retrospective regularisation of exemption status, eligible PF Trusts are granted a waiver of certain conditions otherwise applicable under the SS Code, including the minimum employee headcount, minimum corpus size, and the requirement of 3 years’ continuous compliance.
- Regularisation is initiated by the Provident Fund Trust filing an application in the prescribed format with the jurisdictional EPFO Regional/District Office, accompanied by CA-audited Trust accounts, the list of covered employees, and a statement of investments since the Trust's inception. EPFO thereafter conducts a Compliance Audit and a Special Audit (to be completed within three months, at the establishment's cost), issues a public notice inviting objections from affected persons, and, on satisfactory resolution of the audit findings and objections, forwards the case with its recommendation through the Zonal Office to the Central Board of Trustees. Exemption is then granted retrospectively — from the Trust's inception up to the applicable cut-off date — by way of a final order of the Central/State Government, as applicable, to be issued, to the extent possible, within three months of the Board's recommendation.
- Following regularisation on a retrospective basis, an establishment may elect, going forward, to comply either as an exempt establishment (continuing to manage its own PF Trust) or as an unexempt establishment (transitioning to EPFO-administered coverage).
4. ESIC issues Standard Operating Procedure for compounding of offences under Section 138 of the SS Code
The Employees’ State Insurance Corporation issued a Standard Operating Procedure (“SOP”) in August 2026 for compounding of offences under the SS Code. The SOP applies to all offences compoundable under Section 138(1) of the SS Code. This includes offences such as failure to pay the employer's contribution otherwise than by way of deduction from an employee's wages, unauthorised deduction or attempted deduction of the employer's contribution from an employee's wages, etc. Key features of the SOP are as follows:
- i. The Compounding Officer must examine whether an offence is compoundable and issue the Compounding Notice (Parts I and II of Form-XXIV) electronically.
- ii. The person noticed may apply in Part III of Form-XXIV and deposit the compounding amount electronically within 15 days of receipt of the notice.
- iii. On receipt of the amount, the Compounding Officer must issue a Composition Certificate (Part IV of Form-XXIV) within 10 days of such receipt. Upon issuance of the Composition Certificate, the proceedings stand closed.
- iv. Additionally, where compounding takes place before institution of prosecution, no prosecution will thereafter be instituted in respect of the compounded offence; while, where it takes place after prosecution has already been instituted, the compounding is brought to the notice of the court and the accused stands discharged.
- v. If the amount is not paid within the prescribed time, prosecution is to be initiated 1 month after the expiry of such time.
- vi. Only first-time offences are compoundable. The compounding amount is fixed at half of the maximum fine (for offences punishable with fine only) or three-fourths of the maximum fine (for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to 1 year together with fine).
Compounding is not available for an offence committed a second time, or thereafter, within 3 years of an earlier compounding or conviction for a similar offence, and any person who fails to comply with a compounding order is additionally liable to pay 20% of the maximum fine over and above the fine itself.
5. Central Government notifies 12% EPF contribution rate and specifies exempted establishments
By a notification dated July 1, 2026, the Central Government has notified 12% as the rate of contribution to be paid by the employer and employees of every covered establishment under the EPF Scheme, 2026. The notification is deemed to have come into force from November 21, 2025.
The 12% rate does not apply to certain notified establishments. These are: (i) establishments for which a resolution plan or repayment plan has been approved by the Adjudicating Authority under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016; and (ii) establishments in the jute, beedi, brick and guar gum industries, and the coir industry (other than the spinning sector). The applicable rate for such establishments is 10%, in line with the previous law.
6. Central Government notifies employer’s 8.33% contribution rate to the EPS, 2026
By a notification dated July 1, 2026, the Central Government notified 8.33% of wages as the rate of contribution payable every month by the employer to the Pension Fund under the EPS, 2026, with effect from its date of commencement, i.e., June 29, 2026. This notification is without prejudice to the Central Government's earlier notification, dated May 3, 2023.
The notification dated May 3, 2023, pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment on the higher pension option under the erstwhile Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995, separately fixed the employer's contribution at 9.49% (an increase of 1.16% over the standard rate) on wages exceeding INR 15,000 per month, for employers and employees who exercised the joint option for higher pension under the erstwhile pension scheme.
7. Central Government notifies the bonus eligibility wage ceiling and wage ceiling for calculation of bonus
On August 25, 2026, the Central Government fixed the wage ceilings applicable for payment of statutory bonus under the Code on Wages, 2019 (“Wage Code”). Every employee drawing wages not exceeding INR 21,000 per month is eligible to be paid a statutory bonus.
Where an eligible employee’s wage as defined under the Wage Code exceeds INR 7,000 per month, the bonus payable shall be calculated as if the wage were INR 7,000 per month, or the minimum wage fixed by the Central Government, whichever is higher.
This will be deemed to come into force from November 21, 2025. These thresholds mirror the eligibility and calculation ceilings that already applied under the erstwhile Payment of Bonus Act, 1965.
8. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry notified the prohibition on the import of goods produced using forced labour
On July 13, 2026, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry inserted a provision in the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023 prohibiting the import of goods produced or manufactured, wholly or partly, using forced labour. This will come into effect 30 days after the publication in the official gazette. The newly inserted para essentially empowers the Central Government to prohibit, by notification, the import of goods produced or manufactured (wholly or partly) using forced labour.
Forced labour is defined to mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the threat of penalty and for which the said person has not offered themselves voluntarily.
It is important to also note that the procedure for conducting an enquiry into the use of forced labour by the Director General of Foreign Trade will be as prescribed in the Handbook of Procedures, 2023, issued by the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, under the Foreign Trade Policy, 2023.
B. State
1. Labour Codes: Development and where things stand
| State | Final Rules/Draft Rules | Date of Publication | Status |
| Andhra Pradesh | The Code on Social Security (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2026 | July 7, 2026 | Brought into force |
| The Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Andhra Pradesh) Rules, 2026. | August 7, 2026 | ||
| Bihar | The Industrial Relation (Bihar) Rules, 2026 | July 1, 2026 | Brought into force |
| The Union Territory of Chandigarh | Chandigarh Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Rules, 2026 [Draft Rules] | July 2, 2026
| Stakeholders to submit objections and suggestions within 45 days. |
| Chandigarh Social Security Rules, 2026 [Draft Rules] | |||
| Industrial Relations (Chandigarh) Rules, 2026 [Draft Rules] | Stakeholders to submit objections and suggestions within 30 days. | ||
| Chandigarh Code on Wages Rules, 2026 [Draft Rules] | |||
| Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu | The Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Rules, 2026 [Draft Rules] | July 20, 2026 | Stakeholders to submit objections and suggestions within 45 days. |
The Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu Social Security Rules, 2026. [Draft Rules]
| |||
| The Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu Industrial Relations Rules, 2026 [Draft Rules] | |||
| The Code on Wages (Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu) Rules, 2026 [Draft Rules] | |||
| The Union Territory of Ladakh | The Industrial Relations (Ladakh) Rules, 2026 | August 4, 2026 | Brought into force |
| The Code on Social Security (Ladakh) Rules, 2026 | August 3, 2026 | ||
| The Code on Wages (Ladakh) Rules, 2026. | |||
| The Union Territory of Puducherry | Puducherry Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Rules, 2026. [Draft Rules] | August 24, 2026 | Stakeholders to submit objections and suggestions within 45 days. |
| Rajasthan | The Rajasthan Industrial Relation Rules, 2026 | August 12, 2026. | Brought into force
|
| The Code on Wages (Rajasthan) Rules, 2026. | |||
| Tripura | Tripura Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Rules, 2026 [Draft Rules] | August 25, 2026 | Stakeholders to submit objections and suggestions within 45 days. |
| Uttar Pradesh | Uttar Pradesh Code on Wages Rules, 2026 | August 12, 2026. | Brought into force
|
| Uttar Pradesh Code on Social Security Rules, 2026 | August 27, 2026 | ||
| West Bengal | The Draft West Bengal Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Rules, 2026. [Draft Rules] | July 13, 2026
| Stakeholders to submit objections and suggestions within 45 days. |
| The Draft West Bengal Social Security Rules, 2026. [Draft Rules] | |||
| The Draft West Bengal Code on Wages Rules, 2026. [Draft Rules] | |||
| The Draft West Bengal Industrial Relations Rules, 2026. [Draft Rules] |
2. Karnataka Government directs District Authorities to ensure constitution of Internal Committees
On August 11, 2026, the Government of Karnataka issued a direction to the Deputy Commissioners, acting as District Nodal Officers, to ensure that Internal Committees are constituted in government and private organisations having more than 10 employees and are registered on the SHE-Box portal.
The Deputy Commissioners have been directed to follow up with the concerned organisations, complete the process within 1 month and submit a comprehensive report on the action taken to the Government.
While the direction is addressed to the Deputy Commissioners and not directly to employers, employers in Karnataka with more than 10 employees should ensure that their Internal Committee has been duly constituted and that the relevant details are registered on the SHE-Box portal. The Government's direction indicates increased administrative follow-up and verification of compliance with these requirements.
3. Maharashtra Government introduces Gig and Platform (Online) Workers Rights and Protection Bill, 2026
On July 3, 2026, the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly introduced the Maharashtra Gig and Platform (Online) Workers Rights and Protection Bill, 2026 (“Mah Gig Workers Bill”).
The key aspects of the Mah Gig workers Bill are:
- Applicability: The Mah Gig Workers Bill applies to gig and platform workers engaged through online platforms, including delivery partners, ride-hailing drivers and service providers working through digital platforms.
- Rights of gig and platform workers: The Mah Gig Workers Bill provides that every registered gig and platform worker would have the right to fair wages and timely payment thereof and would be included in social security schemes approved by the State Government. It also states that companies would not be permitted to block worker IDs, impose fines or reduce incentives without due process and prior notice. Further, the gig and platform workers will also have the right to organise and bargain collectively with platform companies and would be required to register on the e-Shram portal to facilitate portability of benefits.
- Registration and obligations of platform companies: The platform companies would be required to register with the Maharashtra Gig and Platform Workers Welfare Board (“MGWWB”). The companies would also be required to disclose their algorithmic management practices and ensure that work is allocated without discrimination. The Mah Gig Workers Bill further provides for contributions by platform companies, the State Government and worker representatives to the Gig and Platform Workers Welfare Fund. This contribution is to be aligned with the social security fund mandated under the SS Code. Further, the platform companies would also be required to provide accident insurance and emergency assistance to workers injured during service.
- Maharashtra Gig and Platform Workers Welfare Board: The Mah Gig Workers Bill proposes the establishment of the MGWWB to approve and oversee wage and benefit structures, monitor compliance by platform companies, recommend policy measures for the welfare of gig and platform workers and conduct awareness campaigns. The MGWWB will also establish facilitation centres, helplines and grievance redressal mechanisms in accordance with the SS Code.
- Penalties: Violation of the provisions of the Mah Gig Workers Bill by the platform company is punishable with a fine of INR 5 lakh, which may extend to INR 50 lakh for repeated offences. In cases of intentional exploitation, misappropriation of earnings or denial of social security, the responsible officers may be subject to imprisonment of 2 to 5 years and a fine, or both.
- Data protection: The Mah Gig Workers Bill provides that digital records of gig and platform workers would be required to comply with the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”). It further provides that the Mah Gig Workers Bill would be implemented in accordance with the SS Code, the Information Technology Act, 2000 and the DPDP Act, and that the MGWWB would coordinate with the MoLE, NITI Aayog and other relevant national institutions.
4. Karnataka introduces amendments to the Shops and Commercial Establishments Act
On August 24, 2026, the Government of Karnataka introduced the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments (Amendment) Bill, 2026 (“Amendment Bill”), proposing amendments to the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 (“KSECA”). The Amendment Bill has since been enacted as the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2026 (“Amendment Act”), which was brought into force on September 4, 2026. The key amendments introduced by the Amendment Act are set out below:
- Exemption from dual registration: The Amendment Act exempts establishments employing 10 or more workers that are already registered under the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code, 2020 (“OSH Code”) from separate registration under the KSCEA. Godowns or storage facilities located within 100 metres of the principal establishment will also not require separate registration.
- Digitisation of registration and closure process: Registration applications, registration certificates and related processes will be permitted through electronic or digital mode. The timeline for processing registration applications will also be reduced from 30 days to 7 days. Employers will also be required to notify the Inspector of closure of an establishment through electronic or digital mode.
- Registration valid until closure: Registration, once issued, will remain valid until the closure or cessation of business of the establishment, removing the requirement for periodic renewal.
- Service certificates and retention of employee documents: Employers will be required to issue a service certificate to an employee within 7 days of receiving an application. Employers will also be prohibited from retaining original educational certificates, experience certificates or other original documents of employees.
- Employment of women during night shifts: The Amendment Act removes several existing conditions relating to the employment of women during night shifts, including requirements relating to driver antecedent verification, protection of employees’ contact details, security personnel, route selection, vehicle monitoring and control rooms. The existing requirements relating to written consent, transportation with GPS, rotation of shifts, rest-room facilities and creche costs will continue.
- Revised penalty framework: The Amendment Act increases penalties under the KSCEA, including:
- general contraventions: up to INR 3,000 for the first offence and INR 5,000 for subsequent offences;
- specified contraventions relating to overtime, leave, production of documents and maintenance/display of records: up to INR 2,000;
- contraventions relating to employment of young persons and women during night shifts: a fine of not less than INR 10,000; and
- obstruction of an Inspector: penalty increased to INR 10,000.
vii. Alignment with the Labour Codes: The Amendment Act also updates references in the KSCEA to the Wage Code and the SS Code, replacing references to the earlier Payment of Wages Act and Workmen’s Compensation Act.
5. Government of Chhattisgarh Notifies the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishments (Amendment) Act, 2025
On July 8, 2026, the Government of Chhattisgarh published the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Amendment) Act, 2025 amending the Chhattisgarh Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2017 ("CSEA").
The key amendments are set out below:
- Change in applicability threshold: The threshold for applicability of the CSEA has been increased from establishments employing 10 or more persons to establishments employing 20 or more persons.
- Employment of women during night shifts: Women may be permitted to work between 9:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., subject to conditions notified by the State Government.
- Revised working hours and spread-over
- In line with other State Governments increasing working hours, the Government of Chhattisgarh has also increased the working hours. The daily working hours have been increased from 9 hours to 10 hours;
- The minimum continuous work period after which an employee is entitled to a rest interval has been increased from 5 hours to 6 hours.
- The spread-over period has been increased from 10.5 hours to 12 hours.
- The permissible overtime limit has been increased from 125 hours to 144 hours per quarter.
6. Bihar Enacts the Bihar Shops and Establishments (Repeal) Act, 2026
As discussed in our previous edition [here], on June 1, 2026, the Governor of Bihar promulgated the Bihar Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Repeal) Ordinance, 2026 (“Bihar Ordinance”), repealing the Bihar Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 2025 (“BSEA”).
On July 22, 2026, the Bihar Government enacted the Bihar Shops and Establishments (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) (Repeal) Act, 2026 (“Bihar Repeal Act”), which formally repeals the BSEA and replaces the Bihar Ordinance. The Bihar Repeal Act was published in the Bihar Gazette on July 23, 2026, and came into force from the date of publication.
The Bihar Repeal Act has been enacted in view of the implementation of the OSH Code and the avoid the substantial overlap between the OSH Code and the BSEA. The Bihar Government considered that several provisions of the BSEA substantially overlap with the OSH Code, while matters not covered by the OSH Code would be addressed under the other Labour Codes.
7. Tamil Nadu extends permission for shops and establishments to remain open on all 365 days
On August 24, 2026, the Tamil Nadu Government issued a notification extending the exemption that permits all shops and establishments in the State to remain open on all 365 days of the year for a further period of 3 years, with effect from August 24, 2026, unless revoked earlier.
The exemption is subject to the following conditions:
- Every employee must be provided 1 day of holiday every week on a rotational basis. Details of all employees must be maintained in Form S of the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 (“TNSEA”) and displayed at a conspicuous place in the establishment.
- Employers must display, on a daily basis, details of employees who are on leave or holiday at a conspicuous location within the establishment.
- Wages, including overtime wages, must be credited directly to employees’ savings bank accounts.
- Employees cannot be required or permitted to work for more than 8 hours per day or 48 hours per week. The total working hours including overtime must not exceed 10.5 hours per day or 57 hours per week.
- If employees are found working on holidays or beyond normal working hours without proper overtime authorization, penal action may be initiated against the employer under the TNSEA.
- Women employees should ordinarily not be required to work beyond 8:00 p.m. However, they may be permitted to work between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. with their written consent, and if adequate measures are taken to ensure their dignity, safety and protection.
- Employers must provide transportation facilities to women employees working in Night shifts and display a notice regarding the availability of such transportation at the main entrance of the establishment.
- Employers must provide employees with rest rooms, washrooms, safety lockers and other basic amenities.
- Every employer engaging women employee must constitute and maintain an Internal Committee in accordance with the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”).
- Any violation of the statutory provisions or the conditions of the exemption may result in penal action against the employer or manager.
- Employers operating establishments in Tamil Nadu can continue to keep their establishments open throughout the year for a further period of 3 years. However, they must ensure strict compliance with the prescribed employee welfare, working hours, overtime, transportation and workplace safety requirements to continue availing the exemption.
8. Gujarat opens online registration portal for establishments under the OSH Code
On August 27, 2026, the Office of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Ahmedabad, issued a public notice regarding mandatory online registration of establishments under the OSH Code. The notice follows the launch of the Shram Setu Portal by the Government of Gujarat for implementation of the registration framework under the Gujarat Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Rules, 2025.
The public notice states that factories, construction sites, industrial establishments and commercial establishments employing 10 or more workers are required to obtain registration under the OSH Code.
The key requirements are set out below:
- Online registration through Shram Setu Portal: The Government of Gujarat has operationalised the Shram Setu Portal with effect from August 25, 2026, to enable online registration of establishments covered under the OSH Code.
- Registration of new establishments: New establishments covered under the OSH Code must file Form I online and obtain registration within 60 days of the Code becoming applicable to them.
- Updation of registrations by existing establishments: Establishments already registered under the erstwhile labour laws are required to file Form I online and update their registration certificates within 180 days from implementation of the OSH Code.
- Display of registration certificate: Employers are required to prominently display the registration certificate at the establishment, either in physical or digital form.
- Registration process: Employers are required to complete user registration, create an establishment profile and submit the online registration application through the portal.
- Penalties for non-compliance: Failure to obtain registration within the prescribed timelines or submission of incorrect information may attract penalties under the OSH Code, including fines ranging from INR 2,00,000 to INR 3,00,000
While the notice is addressed to labour authorities and Inspector-cum-Facilitators, employers operating eligible establishments in Gujarat should ensure timely registration and updation of registration details through the Shram Setu Portal. The notice indicates increased enforcement focus on compliance with the OSH Code registration requirements.
9. West Bengal proposes revised Profession Tax Schedule
On August 18, 2026, the Government of West Bengal issued a draft notification proposing a new Schedule under the West Bengal State Tax on Professions, Trades, Callings and Employments Act, 1979. The draft Schedule seeks to revise profession tax rates and introduce new classifications of taxpayers. Stakeholders may submit objections or suggestions within 14 days from the date of publication of the notification.
The key proposals include:
- Revised profession tax slabs for employees: Employees earning more than INR 20,000 per month would be liable to profession tax ranging from INR 100 to INR 208 per month, depending on salary levels.
- New tax structure for professionals and businesses: Profession tax liabilities for individuals engaged in professions, callings, trades and businesses would be linked to annual income, turnover or gross receipts, subject to prescribed thresholds.
- Fixed annual tax for specified categories: Certain categories of persons and businesses, including companies, directors, consultants, hospitals, security service providers and digital economy professionals, would be required to pay profession tax of INR 2,500 per annum irrespective of income or turnover. categories include companies, directors, consultants, hospitals, security service providers and various digital and technology professionals, including persons independently engaged in cloud computing, cybersecurity, blockchain development, data analytics, UI/UX design, product management and digital consulting.
While the notification is currently in draft form, employers and businesses operating in West Bengal should review the proposed changes as they may result in expanded profession tax coverage and revised tax liabilities.
(II) Anti-bribery and anti-corruption
1. U.S. Federal Court Dismisses Criminal Fraud and Bribery Case Against Gautam Adani and Others
In a significant development, U.S. Federal Judge Nicholas Garaufis dismissed the criminal fraud and bribery case against Indian billionaire Gautam Adani, Sagar Adani, and associated individuals, following the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) decision to drop the prosecution.
The prosecution stems from an alleged USD 250 million bribery scheme involving solar energy contracts in India, which was the subject of parallel investigations by the DoJ and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). Earlier this year, the SEC settled its civil case and resolved the charges against Adani and his nephew, directing them to pay USD 18 million in fines.
This development follows the earlier closure, reported in our March–April 2026 edition [here], of a parallel long-running Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) probe by the DoJ against Dr Reddy's Laboratories without enforcement action, and the SEC's conclusion of its related investigation in February 2026 without proposing any action. Taken together, these developments signal that while cross-border enforcement against India-based entities and individuals remains a live risk, both the DoJ and SEC continue to evaluate and, in appropriate cases, exercise prosecutorial discretion.
2. Former Goldman Sachs Banker Convicted for Bribery Scheme in Ghana
On August 6, 2026, a federal jury convicted Asante Kwako Berko, a dual U.S.-Ghanaian citizen and former Executive Director in Goldman Sachs' Investment Banking Division, on charges of conspiracy to violate the FCPA, a substantive FCPA violation, and money laundering conspiracy.
Berko was responsible for a deal between Aksa Enerji (a Turkish energy company and Goldman Sachs’ client) and the Republic of Ghana for the construction and financing of a power plant, beginning in December 2014. He and co-conspirators paid or agreed to pay more than USD 1 million in bribes to multiple Ghanaian government officials, including a discussed USD 1 million payment to Ghana’s Minister of Power and USD 5,000 cash payments to five officials during an all-expenses-paid trip to Turkey.
The scheme allegedly involved various methods to conceal the payments, including the use of a personal email account, false statements to Goldman Sachs compliance team, shell companies, sham invoices, nominee account holders, and cash withdrawals. The payments were laundered through U.S. and foreign bank accounts. Goldman Sachs ultimately withdrew from the deal due to concerns regarding corruption concerns.
The case underscores the DoJ's continued FCPA enforcement focus on individual bankers/dealmakers (not just corporates), the risks of using personal communications channels to evade compliance monitoring, and the importance of robust third-party/deal-vetting controls, particularly for infrastructure and energy financing deals involving foreign government approvals.
(III) Judicial developments
| S. No. | Ratio | Brief Details |
| SUPREME COURT | ||
| 1. | A nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court ("SC") upheld the "Triple Test" laid down in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa, 1978 ("Bangalore Water Supply") as the governing standard for determining whether an entity constitutes an "industry" under Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("IDA"). The Court clarified that all pending proceedings under the IDA will continue to be decided in accordance with the Triple Test as laid down in Bangalore Water Supply. The State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Jai Bir Singh, Civil Appeal No. 897/2002 | The Bangalore Water Supply case had expanded the scope of "industry" to include institutions such as hospitals, educational establishments, and clubs, thereby providing employees of these establishments with labour protection under the IDA. It laid down the “Triple test”, to classify an activity as industry under the IDA- (i) whether the activity is systematic; (ii) whether such activity is organised by co-operation between employer-employee; and (iii) whether the purpose of such activity is for the production and/or distribution of goods and services aimed at satisfying human needs (“Triple Test”). Eventually the dispute over the definition of “industry” was brought before a bench of nine judges who heard the matter in March 2026 and reserved its judgement on March 19, 2026. The Court examined and published the meaning of “industry” in its judgement on August 20, 2026. The SC assessed the following questions;
On the first question, the SC upheld the Triple Test as the correct legal standard for determining whether an entity is an "industry" under the IDA. While upholding the Triple Test, the majority of the nine-judge bench observed that certain aspects of the test could have been articulated differently. As a matter of its considered opinion, the majority offered a hypothetical reformulation of the Triple Test. Under this reformulated version, the third element — production or distribution of goods and services — requires the activity to bear a discernible "commercial character" that is analogous to trade or business. The bench made clear, however, that this reformulation is not intended to displace Bangalore Water Supply for pending proceedings; all pending matters under the IDA must continue to be decided on the basis of the Triple Test as originally formulated. The SC expressed concern in including lawyers, architects, doctors, chartered accountants within the definition of "industry" and stated that it acts as a hurdle for individual self-employment. Employment incidentally generated while carrying on a profession should not expose professionals to the full rigours of the IDA. On the second question, the SC held that neither the 1982 Amendment nor the IR Code has any legal bearing on the interpretation of "industry" under Section 2(j) of the IDA. On the 1982 Amendment, the Court noted that the amendment was never brought into force. In the absence of any notification effectuating its commencement, the amendment never acquired operative legal effect. On the other side, the Court declined to examine the definition of "industry" under Section 2(p) of the IR Code, finding it neither necessary nor appropriate to express any opinion on whether it reflects the Triple Test. On the third question, the SC held that welfare activities and social service schemes undertaken by government departments or public bodies can constitute "industrial activities" under the IDA, depending upon the nature of the activity. The mere fact that an activity is a welfare scheme or is undertaken by a government department does not, by itself, exclude it from the definition of "industry" under Section 2(j). As the bench re-affirmed from Bangalore Water Supply: sovereign functions, strictly understood, alone qualify for exemption; welfare activities or economic ventures undertaken by the government or statutory bodies may not. On the fourth question, the SC re-affirmed the "Dominant Nature Test" and the sovereign functions exception as formulated in Bangalore Water Supply. The Court held that the inquiry must focus on the dominant nature of the activity rather than its dominant purpose. The following principles continue to apply: Where a complex of activities exists, some qualifying for exemption, others not, the dominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be an "industry" even if certain personnel are not "workmen" within the IDA. Even within a department discharging sovereign functions, if there are substantially severable units that satisfy the criteria of an "industry," those units will fall within Section 2(j) of the IDA. Government functions that are regulated by a separate constitutional or statutory framework, fall outside the scope of the IDA by necessary implication. Constitutionally and competently enacted legislative provisions may expressly remove certain categories of activities from the scope of the IDA, even if they would otherwise fall within its definitional ambit. |
| 2. | The SC held that termination is not an automatic consequence of the mere existence of criminal antecedents. Knowledge of a fact is a necessary pre-requisite for its non-disclosure. Shatrughn Yadav vs. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. & Ors., SLP (Civil) No. 7197 of 2026.
| The Appellant was appointed as a Technician (Process) on May 5, 2021 and declared in his attestation form that no criminal case was pending against him. A Non-Cognizable Report ("NCR") registered against him under Sections 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, subsequently came to the employer's notice through antecedent verification. A show-cause notice was issued. The Appellant contended that he was unaware of the NCR. He also produced a police character certificate issued after the NCR, and a certificate confirming deletion of his name from the NCR after investigation. However, the employer terminated his services. The High Court upheld the termination; the Appellant approached the SC. The SC allowed the appeal and held that:
The SC set aside the termination, directed reinstatement with all consequential benefits, and restricted back wages to 50%. |
| HIGH COURTS | ||
| 1. | The Delhi High Court ("Delhi HC") held that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to restoration to the post she held immediately prior to proceeding on leave. Where that post is genuinely unavailable for bona fide organisational reasons, the employer must offer an equivalent position and provide a reasoned written communication before the employee resumes work. Rakhi Bisht vs. Union of India and Anr., W.P.(C) 14785/2024 | Rakhi Bisht ("Petitioner"), a Chartered Accountant was appointed as Manager, Accounting, by HashiCorp (India) Private Limited ("HashiCorp"). In May 2023, the Petitioner informed HashiCorp of her pregnancy. Shortly thereafter, HashiCorp transferred her to a different team and the Petitioner proceeded on maternity leave. Upon return, HashiCorp assigned her a new role which was traditionally performed by staff approximately three levels below her designation. Prior to her leave, five employees had reported to her; upon return, she had no reporting staff and was excluded from managerial meetings for a considerable period. HashiCorp also failed to provide a crèche facility, required under Section 11-A of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“MBA”) for every establishment employing fifty or more employees. It also failed to inform the Petitioner of her maternity entitlements at the time of her appointment. After a failed complaint at HashiCorp, the Petitioner subsequently resigned and filed a writ petition before the Delhi HC. The Court held that a woman returning from maternity leave is ordinarily entitled to reinstatement to the post she held immediately before her leave. Where that post is genuinely unavailable due to bona fide organisational reasons, the employer must, before she resumes work, provide a reasoned written communication and offer an equivalent position in terms of pay, grade, status, role, responsibilities, managerial authority, and prospects for advancement. The Court further held that if a woman herself, post-return, requests adjusted duties or hours for personal reasons, such a request shall not be treated as consent to any diminution in service conditions, nor shall it be held against her in appraisals or for increments and promotions. The Court also found that HashiCorp filled the Petitioner's post during her maternity leave without her knowledge. The Petitioner was not consulted at any stage, nor were any reasons furnished to her. Further, the Court found HashiCorp to be in contravention of Section 11-A of the MBA for failing to provide a crèche facility to the Petitioner. The Court also rejected the objection to maintainability as the alternative-remedy rule under the Code on Social Security, 2020 was held inapplicable as no implementation rules had yet been framed. Accordingly, the Court awarded compensation of INR 10,00,000 to the Petitioner and costs of INR 1,50,000, payable within 8 weeks, carrying interest at 9% per annum on default. |
| 2. | The Bombay High Court (the “Bombay HC”) reaffirms that the power asymmetry between an employer and an employee, combined with the professional setting, is a material consideration in evaluating evidence of workplace sexual assault. The State of Goa v. Tarunjit Tejpal, Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 2022. | The Respondent was the Editor-in-Chief and owner of Tehelka, a national news magazine. The victim was employed at Tehelka as a Principal Correspondent and was also a close friend of the Respondent's daughter and her father's close acquaintance. In November 2013, both the Respondent and the victim attended the Tehelka THiNK Fest in Goa where the Respondent allegedly sexually assaulted the victim on two separate occasions in a hotel lift, manipulating the panel to keep the doors closed. The victim did not immediately file a police complaint, citing fear of retaliation and the Respondent's political connections and power over her career. She instead sent a formal e-mail complaint to the Managing Editor of Tehelka, requesting a written apology and the constitution of an Internal Committee under the Visakha Guidelines. The IC was never constituted. The Respondent sent two apology e-mails; one formal, one personal, acknowledging the sexual encounter and the victim's non-consent and stepped down as Editor-in-Chief for six months. An FIR was registered and charges were framed under various provisions under the Indian Penal Code. Subsequently, the Additional Sessions Judge, acquitted the Respondent, relying on alleged inconsistencies in the victim's testimony, her post-incident conduct at the festival, and her personal chat messages and photographs to characterise her as a woman of loose moral character. The State of Goa appealed before the Bombay HC. The Court set aside the acquittal and convicted the Respondent of all charges. It held that the victim's testimony was of sterling quality, corroborated by seven independent witnesses, and found the Respondent's written apologies to be clear admissions. The Court held that the Respondent's position as the victim's employer, mentor, and family acquaintance constituted a clear position of dominance, attracting aggravated liability. Therefore, the Court sentenced the Respondent to rigorous imprisonment of 10 years, and a fine of INR 5,00,000 was imposed and directed to be paid entirely to the victim. As of today, an appeal against the Bombay HC’s decision is pending before the SC. |
| 3. | The Telangana High Court (“Telangana HC”) held that the Telangana State Human Rights Commission ("Commission") lacks jurisdiction under Section 12 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 ("PHRA") to entertain complaints of workplace harassment against a private company. Wells Fargo International Solutions Private Limited v. Telangana State Human Rights Commission, W.P. Nos. 36488 and 36486 of 2025.
| An employee of Wells Fargo International Solutions Private Limited ("Wells Fargo") filed two complaints before the Commission alleging workplace harassment and inaction by the company. Wells Fargo conducted two independent inquiries, both of which concluded the allegations were unsubstantiated. Wells Fargo objected to the Commission's jurisdiction, contending that it was a private company and its employees were private individuals; neither answering the description of "public servants" under the applicable law. The Commission rejected the preliminary objection, holding that the complaints concerned harassment affecting a woman's dignity and gender equality, and therefore fell within its jurisdiction. Wells Fargo challenged this order before the Telangana HC. The Court allowed the writ petitions and held:
The impugned order of the Commission was accordingly quashed. |
| 4. | The Bombay HC held that, a communication by an IC concluding that a complaint does not contain any sexual element, even without holding a formal inquiry under POSH Act, constitutes a "recommendation" under Section 13(2) of the POSH Act. Accordingly, an appeal against such communication is maintainable under Section 18 of the POSH Act. Mr. Anup Vikal v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., W.P. Nos. 7430, 7434 and 8418 of 2026. | An employee filed a complaint before the IC of her employer, Maple Infra InvIT Investment Manager Private Limited ("Maple Infra"). Subsequently, the external IC member communicated that the allegations did not contain any sexual element, and therefore the IC would not entertain the complaint. The employee filed an appeal under the POSH Act before the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court held the appeal as maintainable and, without separately hearing the parties on merits, set aside the IC's communication and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry. The petitioners challenged the findings before the Bombay HC, due to over-reach of the Industrial Court in deciding the merit of the case when the issue was merely regarding the “maintainability” under Section 18 of the POSH Act. The Bombay HC held: An appeal under the POSH Act lies only against the enumerated "recommendations", not against every action or decision of the IC. The statute creates a statutory right of appeal, and it must be exercised within those limits. However, when the IC upon receiving a complaint concludes that it does not involve a sexual element, such a decision is a "recommendation" under the POSH Act and is, accordingly, appealable. To hold otherwise would allow employers to evade statutory compliance by summarily rejecting complaints at the threshold. The Industrial Court erred in deciding the appeal on merits and remanding the matter for a fresh inquiry without hearing the parties. Accordingly, the remand order was set aside. |
| 5. | The employer cannot constitute an internal "Appellate Authority" of its own choice to hear appeals under Section 18 of the POSH Act. The appellate forum under Section 18 read with Rule 11 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 ("POSH Rules") does not confer jurisdiction on an employer to constitute a parallel internal “Appellate Authority”. Ashok Upadhyay v. Union Bank of India & Ors., W.P. No. 2385 of 2024. | A complaint of sexual harassment was filed against a bank officer (“Petitioner”) at Union Bank of India (the “Bank”). The IC, after inquiry, exonerated the Petitioner. The complainant filed an appeal before an Appellate Authority constituted by the Bank. Without notice to the Petitioner, the Appellate Authority directed re-investigation by a new IC committee. The new committee found the Petitioner guilty. A show-cause notice was issued and a major penalty of reduction in grade was imposed. The Petitioner's departmental appeal against the penalty was also rejected. The Bombay HC quashed the impugned orders and held:
The complainant's remedies before the appropriate appellate forum were kept open, subject to a six-week limitation period from the date of the judgment. |
| 6. | The Bombay HC held that the Community Health Volunteers ("CHVs") engaged by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("Municipal") on a part-time basis are "employees" within the meaning of Section 2(i) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 (“MWA”) and are entitled to minimum wages corresponding to the number of hours of duty performed by them. Labelling a wage as an "honorarium" does not deny a person the status of "employee" under the MWA. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Sangeeta Devdas Salvi and Others, W.P. 1156 of 2021.
| The CHVs are part-time women health workers engaged by the Municipal for years. The Municipal paid them a fixed honorarium but denied them statutory minimum wages. The CHVs filed applications under the MWA, before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour, which upheld their entitlement and directed the Municipal to pay the differential amount. Eventually, the Municipal challenged the order before the Bombay HC, contending that CHVs are volunteers and not "employees." The Bombay HC dismissed the petitions and held:
|
| 7. | The Telangana HC held that the female government servant whose first pregnancy resulted in the birth of twins is entitled to maternity leave for her second delivery. The twins born during the first pregnancy constitute a single delivery event and mechanically counting them as two separate children to deny leave for the second pregnancy violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Jadi Swarupa Rani v. State of Telangana & Ors., W.P. No. 7640 of 2026.
| The Petitioner, a Junior Lecturer employed by the Telangana Social Welfare Residential Educational Institutions Society, delivered twins during her first pregnancy and was granted 180 days of maternity leave. She subsequently became pregnant for the second time and applied for maternity leave. The respondents rejected her application, mechanically applying the "less than two surviving children" condition under the Telangana Fundamental Rules treating the twins as two separate children. The Telangana HC allowed the petition and held:
The Telangana HC held that the Petitioner is entitled to maternity leave for her second delivery and directed the respondents to pay her full pay and allowances during that period. |
| 8. | The Delhi HC has held that a workman's designation (e.g. “Supervisor”) is not conclusive of whether he is an “employee” under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923; what matters is the nature of duties actually performed. A temporary lunch break at the worksite does not sever the nexus between the accident and employment. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yashpal & Ors., FAO 493/2016 | The claimant, employed as a Supervisor with respondent No.3, was injured at a construction site when an iron rod being carried by a mobile crane (owned by respondent No.1 and insured by the appellant) fell on him during his lunch break at the worksite, resulting in amputation of his left leg. The Commissioner, Employees' Compensation, awarded him compensation of Rs. 7,86,492/- with 12% interest, based on wages of Rs. 6,000/- per month and 75% loss of earning capacity, with liability fastened on the insurer. On appeal under Section 30 of the Act, the insurer argued that: (i) there was no employer-employee relationship between the claimant and the crane owner; (ii) the Commissioner failed to record a finding on whether the accident arose out of and during the course of employment; (iii) a Supervisor performing managerial duties falls outside the definition of “employee” under Section 2(dd); (iv) the accident occurred during a lunch break unconnected to employment; and (v) the 75% disability assessment and wage computation were unproved. The Delhi HC dismissed the appeal, holding that mere designation as “Supervisor” does not exclude an employee from the Act absent proof of managerial/administrative functions; that a temporary break for meals at the worksite does not sever the employment nexus; that the claim itself established the employer–employee–insurer relationship, with no breach of policy conditions shown; and that the disability certificate supported the 75% loss of earning capacity. |
| 9. | The Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining former employees from using a confidential/proprietary report retained after their resignation, holding that a prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury were made out — while clarifying that employees remain free to use general skill, knowledge or expertise acquired during employment. JK Paper Limited v. Mr. Subhendu Kesh & Ors., CS(COMM) 719/2026 | The plaintiff company alleged that defendant Nos. 1 to 5, all former employees of its IT department, resigned en masse and set up a competing business (defendant No. 6, Intelvations LLP), taking with them proprietary data, software, source code, and confidential business information. The plaintiff relied on Clause 6(c) of the employment letters, which barred disclosure of financial, technical, and organisational information during or after employment, and on a forensic report by Grant Thornton Bharat LLP indicating unlawful retention of confidential material, including a proprietary “Purta/Purtha” report. It was also alleged that some defendants had not returned company-owned electronic devices. The plaintiff sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from infringing its copyrights, using or disseminating its confidential information/proprietary systems, and directing delivery-up of all such material and devices. The Court, while noting that the forensic report (being an expert opinion) would require scrutiny and proof at trial, held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury specifically in relation to the use of the Purta/Purtha report. It accordingly restrained the defendants, by way of ad-interim relief, from using or employing the Purta/Purtha report until the next hearing, while expressly clarifying that the defendants were not barred from using any skill, knowledge or technical expertise acquired during their employment with the plaintiff. |
This alert is for information purposes only. Nothing contained herein is, purports to be, or is intended as legal advice and you should seek legal advice before you act on any information or view expressed herein. Although we have endeavored to accurately reflect the subject matter of this alert, we make no representation or warranty, express or implied, in any manner whatsoever in connection with the contents of this alert. No recipient of this alert should construe this alert as an attempt to solicit business in any manner whatsoever.