List of Current Affairs

Source: Gujarat High Court 

Why in News?

A division bench of Justice Bhargav D. Karia and Justice L.S. Pirzada of the Gujarat High Court, in Umeshwar Akshaywar Dubey v. Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Seva Mandal Trust & Anr. (2026) dismissed an appeal filed by a temple pujari whose services were terminated in 2012, holding that he did not qualify as a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that the respondent Trust managing Shri Saibaba Temple could not be treated as an 'industry' under Section 2(j) of the Act. The court upheld the Labour Court's rejection of the reference for want of jurisdiction.

What was the Background of Umeshwar Akshaywar Dubey v. Shree Sainath Sarvajanik Seva Mandal Trust & Anr. (2026) Case? 

• The appellant had been working as a Pujari at the Shri Saibaba Temple run by the respondent Trust since 10.03.1999, performing Pooja and Aarti and receiving an initial remuneration of ₹1,200 per month. 
• The Trust also employed a manager, donation collectors, general administrative staff, cooks, and workers for preparing Bundi Laddus and cleaning the premises — totalling approximately 35 to 40 persons, according to the appellant. 
• The appellant's services were terminated on 30.11.2012 by a Trust resolution, without notice, notice pay, retrenchment compensation, or adherence to principles of natural justice. 
• He raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer on 09.10.2014, which was referred to the Labour Court. He sought reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages, contending that the Trust was an 'industry' since it engaged in commercial activity by selling Bundi Laddus, coconuts, and other pooja articles. 
• The Labour Court rejected the reference on 03.09.2016, holding that the appellant was not a 'workman' under Section 2(s) of the Act, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction. A single judge upheld this finding, prompting the present appeal.

What were the Court's Observations? 

On whether the Trust qualifies as an 'Industry': 

• The court referred to the Supreme Court's order dated 29.01.2026 in Indravadan N. Adhvaryu Pipala Fali Modhvada v. Laxmi Narayan Dev Trust, which confirmed that a temple trust does not qualify as an "industry," and noted that the Apex Court in that case had only addressed the aspect of compensation while affirming this position. 
• The court also relied on the Andhra Pradesh High Court's decision in Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam v. Commissioner of Labour (1979), which held that the Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam cannot be considered an industry under Section 2(j) of the Act or under the Trade Unions Act. 
• Applying the Supreme Court's test from Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa (1978) — that one must examine the predominant character of the institution and that stray wage-earning employees do not transform an institution into an industry — the court concluded that the primary and substantive activity of the Trust was religious worship, and the incidental preparation and distribution of laddus to devotees could not alter this character. 

On whether the Pujari qualifies as a 'Workman': 

• The court held that the work of a Pujari — applying knowledge of religious hymns, bhajans, and aartis — falls outside every category enumerated in Section 2(s), namely manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work. Incidentally assisting other temple activities did not bring the role within the statutory definition.

What is the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947? 

Industrial Dispute: 

• Industrial disputes are conflicts that arise between employers and employees, often due to differences in interests, opinions, or perceived violations of rights.  
• These disputes can have far-reaching implications for both the parties involved and the overall functioning of the economy.  
• Industrial disputes can result in legal actions, such as lawsuits and court orders. 
  • This can lead to additional costs and complexities for all parties involved.  
• These disputes are governed under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 and are adjudged by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal. 
• Section 2(k) of the Act defines Industrial Dispute.

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: 

• The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, enacted on 11th March 1947, serves to address industrial disputes and related matters. 
• It encompasses the entire territory of India and applies to all industries, unless exempted by the government.

Workman:

• Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, a "workman" is any person employed in an industry to do manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical, or supervisory work for hire or reward, including dismissed or retrenched employees. It excludes those in managerial/administrative roles or specialized services like the armed forces.  

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R. Mahadevan of the Supreme Court, in Union of India and Others v. Rohith Nathan and Another (2026), dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Union of India, granting relief to several UPSC candidates who had been wrongly denied OBC reservation benefits by being classified as falling within the creamy layer solely on the basis of their parents' salary income. 

• The Court held that creamy layer determination must primarily be guided by the status and category of the post held by the candidate's parents, as laid down in the 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) issued pursuant to the landmark Indira Sawhney judgment, and that a 2004 clarificatory letter could not be read so as to make income alone the determinative criterion.

What was the Background of Union of India v. Rohith Nathan (2026) Case? 

• The dispute arose from Civil Services Examination candidates who claimed reservation under the OBC Non-Creamy Layer category. 
• During eligibility verification, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) classified them as belonging to the creamy layer by considering only their parents' salary income. 
• Many of the parents in question were employees of public sector undertakings (PSUs), banks, or similar organisations. 
• The government relied on a clarificatory letter dated 14 October 2004, which provided that where equivalence between PSU posts and government posts had not been determined, salary income could be separately considered under the income/wealth test. 
• Candidates whose parents earned above the prescribed income threshold were consequently denied OBC reservation benefits. 
• Several candidates challenged these decisions before the Central Administrative Tribunal and various High Courts including the Madras, Delhi, and Kerala High Courts, all of which ruled in their favour. 
• The Union of India appealed those rulings before the Supreme Court.

What were the Court's Observations? 

• On the 1993 Office Memorandum and the Primacy of Status: The Court held that the 1993 OM, formulated pursuant to Indira Sawhney, treats the status and category of parental post as the primary indicator of social advancement. Salary income and agricultural income were consciously excluded from the common pool while determining exclusion under the Income/Wealth Test. The Court observed that income from salaries, agriculture, or other sources cannot be clubbed for the purpose of applying the income/wealth test. 
• On the 2004 Clarification: The Court found the 2004 clarification legally unsustainable to the extent it made salary income alone determinative of creamy layer status. It held that a clarificatory instruction cannot introduce a substantive condition that does not exist in the parent policy. Accordingly, the 2004 letter could not override or dilute the structural framework established under the 1993 OM. 
• On Hostile Discrimination Between Government and PSU Employees: The Court noted that Group C and Group D government employees whose salaries increase over time are not automatically excluded from reservation. Under the government's interpretation, however, children of PSU employees could be excluded solely because parental salary exceeded the income threshold, even where the posts were equivalent to lower government service categories. The Court held that such differential treatment violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, amounting to equals being treated unequally. 
• On Relief: The Court directed DoPT to consider the claims of the respondent candidates and intervenors within six months, applying the creamy layer test without including salary income from parental employment. Noting the government's earlier indication before a Parliamentary Committee regarding supernumerary posts, the Court also directed that such posts be created wherever necessary to accommodate affected candidates.

What is the Creamy Layer Concept and How is it Defined and Applied?  

Definition and Purpose: 

• The creamy layer concept sets a threshold within which OBC reservation benefits are applicable.  
• It aims to exclude relatively well-off individuals from the OBC category from availing reservation benefits.  
• The concept was introduced by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case (1992) to ensure that reservation benefits reach the truly disadvantaged. 

Income Criteria: 

• The current income threshold for the creamy layer is Rs 8 lakh per year.  
• This limit applies to income from sources other than salary and agricultural income.  
• The income threshold is supposed to be revised every three years but was last updated in 2017. 

Other Criteria: 

• For children of government employees, the creamy layer is determined by their parents' rank rather than income.  
• Children of parents in constitutional posts, directly recruited Group-A officers, or both parents in Group-B services fall under the creamy layer.  
• Children of high-ranking military officers (Colonel and above or equivalent) are also considered part of the creamy layer.