A-43, Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi-24 (India) | 011-29830000, 011-29840000 | +91-989-111-44-44, +91-8468-000-000 | Email: [email protected]

LLR ONLINE – NOVEMBER 2017

REPORTED JUDGMENTS AT A GLANCE
Dismissal of a sleeping chowkidar on duty is justified.Gau. HC 1150
ESI contribution is payable on interim relief also.Supreme Court 1121
Merely common entrance of two independent establishments not to be treated one for ESI coverage.Mad. HC 1176
An Executive supervising one shift is not a ‘workman’.Cal. HC 1135
Loss of confidence in an employee has to be pleaded/ proved for denial of reinstatement.MP HC 1187
Conductor is not guilty for ticketless passengers travelling on bus roof.Raj. HC 1146
Legal proceedings can only be at the place of sexual harassment.Gau. HC 1148
Unexplained delay of five years for raising dispute is not justified.P&H HC 1138
Reinstatement is not a mechanical relief on all termination.P&H HC 1140
Junior Engineer granting leave and assignment is not a ‘workman’.Guj. HC 1191
No straightjacket formula for reinstatement in every illegal termination.MP HC 1187
Appropriate government is not like a post office to refer every dispute.Mad. HC 1158
No sympathy of court to an employer who delays the proceedings.Pat. HC 1153
Employees working in shops inside the hotel are not coverable underMad. HC 1180
Compensation is appropriate for raising dispute after three years of termination.P&H HC 1140
Interim relief to workman in a dispute for regularisation is not proper.Del. HC 1128
Writ court is not to interfere in show cause notice.Jhar. HC 1141
Employer is obliged to pay gratuity on retirement of employee.MP HC 1143
Compensation is appropriate on termination of a part-time sweeper.Del. HC 1129
Appellate authority may condone delay of 32 years, but the claim to be decided by Controlling Authority.MP HC 1143
Termination sans retrenchment compensation is illegal.MP HC 1187
Gratuity, leave salary or pension not to be attached in a decree.Mad. HC 1178
Clubbing of two independent establishments for coverage under ESI is not tenable.Mad. HC 1176
Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in conducting enquiries.Bom. HC 1132
TDS is not to be deducted on accident compensation.All. HC 1172
Dependents will get compensation on the death of contract workers in accident.Mad. HC 1167

EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS & MP ACT

Officer conducting enquiry under section 7A acts as a court.Supreme Court 1199
Employer obliged only to contribute up to prescribed wage ceiling.Bom. HC 1201
Independent franchisees would not be units for coverage of the Act.Ker. HC 1215
Inordinate delay justifies dismissal of appeal against order under section 7A and 14B of the Act.Cal. HC 1208
Insult of public servant is punishable offence under section 228 of IPC.Supreme Court 1199
Revocation of exemption on establishment can be on justifiable reasons.Bom. HC 1201
Attachment of bank account of employer can be lifted by the High Court.Cal. HC 1209
Applicability of the Act on establishment can’t be challenged along with order u/s 7A.Cal. HC 1210
Excess contribution of prescribed ceiling can be reduced by employer.Bom. HC 1201
Writ court can direct EPF authority to decide grievances within fixed time.P&H HC 1214
Proceedings under section 7A are judicial by fiction.Supreme Court 1199
Mere application for exemption would not confirm any benefit to establishment.Cal. HC 1210
Employees of franchises would not be treated as employees of the granter.Ker. HC 1215
Disposal of review application without hearing employer is to be set aside.Guj. HC 1224
EPF dues payable to the employees would get first priority.Supreme Court 1226
An order not challenged within prescribed limitation becomes final.Cal. HC 1210
No relief to an intentional non participator before the trial court.P&H HC 1212
Employer can opt more beneficial than EPF Scheme for employees.Bom. HC 1201
Delay of 60+60=120 days for filing appeal is not to be condoned.Cal. HC 1208
EPF Authority will pass reasoned order on review after hearing both sides.Guj. HC 1224
Interest is to be paid by the EPF on failing to refund the access amount.Bom. HC 1201
TABLE OF CASES

Judgments of Supreme Court & High Courts with page 1121 to 1232 — November, 2017 (Total Pages 168 with Cover)

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Amit Vashistha vs. Suresh and Another1199
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh1226
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation & Anr. vs. Mangalam Publications (I) Private Limited1121
Ram Gopal Dwivedi and Ors. vs. Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. through its General Manager1189
Surekha & Others vs. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd.1126
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Idea Cellular Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others1184
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Praveen W/O Late Shri Mohd. Ali Zaidi,and Others1172
BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shaikh Naseer Shaikh Kasim1132
Maharashtra Gramin Bank vs. Union of India and Others1201
Remio A. Rodrigues vs. Goa Glass Fibre Ltd.1170
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and Others vs. Kesoram Industries Limited and Another (SN)1229
ESS DEE Akuminium Ltd. vs. State of West Bengal & Others1135
Kohinoor Tea Co. Ltd. vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.1209
Port Shramik Co-operative Enterprise Ltd. vs. Employes  Provident Fund Organisation1208
Satirtha Mohanty & Others vs. State of West Bengal & Others1210
DELHI HIGH COURT
Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Ram Avtar (SN)1230
Mahender Pal vs. Delhi Transport Corporation1130
Manish Kumar vs. East Delhi Municipal Corporation1128
Manoj Kumar vs. M/s. Central Ayurvedic Drug Store & Anr.1129
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Biplab Kumar Das vs. IDBI Bank Ltd. and Others1148
Muchi Rai vs. Assam Roofing Ltd.1150
GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd. vs. Jayant Kumar Maganbhai Pachchigar1191
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ashokbhai Chaganbhai Gamit and Another1169
Waves Foods Ltd. vs. Assistant P.F. Commissioner1224
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Tayo Rolls Ltd. vs. Santosh Kumar Gupta1141
KERALA HIGH COURT
Professional Couriers vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Anr.1215
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
General Manager, South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. vs. Pritpal Singh1143
Kiran Pandey vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh1227
Mazid Khan vs. The Municipal Council, Gohad1187
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assistant Engineer, T.N. Electricity Board and Another vs. Tmt. Koman and Others1167
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. I.T.C. Ltd.1180
Employees State Insurance Corporation vs. V. Muthukrishnan and Anothers1176
Executive Director, Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court and Others1158
Management of MRF Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Chennai & Anr. (SN)1231
Muthuraja vs. M. Atheeswari and Another1173
R. Karunakaran vs. M/s. Hi-Tech Construction and Another1174
T. Rathikala vs. The Chief Engineer and Others1178
ORISSA HIGH COURT
Bishnu Charan Mohanty vs. UCO Bank and Others1154
Management of M/s. Chemflo Industries (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sahadev Pandav (SN)1230
PATNA HIGH COURT
Jhagaru Sah vs. State of Bihar and Others1152
Vijay Chaudhary / Vijay Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others1153
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mohan Lal vs. The Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal and Another1140
Om Parkash vs. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Other1214
Onkar Singh Lalit Kumar, Brick Klin vs. Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Chandigarh and Others1212
Pawan Kumar vs. Labour Commissioner, Haryana and Another (SN)1232
Satish Kumar vs. State of Punjab and Others1138
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Vinod Kumar Sharma vs. Chief Manager, Alwar Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation1146
SUBJECT INDEX

BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS WELFARE CESS RULES 1998 

……….Provisional Assessment – Not permissible – Held, no indication either in Cess Act or in Cess Rules for making any provisional assessment – Hence, impugned order is invalid……………………..1184 (All HC)

……….Territorial jurisdiction – Geographical limits – Held, notification dated 15.09.2010, issued under 1998 Cess Rules describes territorial jurisdiction of the Additional/Deputy/Assistant Labour Commissioners, clearly defining their geographical and territorial limits – Additional Labour Commissioner, Lucknow will not have the jurisdiction of entire U.P. – He will not be having authority in respect of Kanpur – Consequently the impugned orders passed by him is not sustainable and quashed – Petitions are allowed – Competent officer having territorial jurisdiction is to proceed in the matter serving notice upon the petitioners in accordance with law…………..1184 (All HC)

COMPENSATION

……….In lieu of reinstatement – Workman had worked as part time sweeper since 2003 – Trial Court awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 in lieu of reinstatement with 8% p.a. simple interest from the date of award till realization – Workman filed writ petition seeking reinstatement instead of lumpsum compensation – Held, workman, a part time sweeper, was terminated on 25.01.2010 when he was drawing a fixed salary of Rs. 1200 per month for 3 hours working per day – Management is not a commercial establishment – Management has no permanent post of sweeper – Hence, compensation of Rs. 50,000 is reasonable – Writ petition stands dismissed…………………………………….. 1129 (Del HC)

……….When justified – Workman was terminated after a period of about 1 year 8 months – Labour Court awarded reinstatement with back-wages holding the termination as illegal – Management challenged the award in writ petition – Writ Court modified the award to lumpsum compensation of Rs. 3.00 lacs – Workman challenged the judgement of the Learned Single Judge by filing writ appeal – Held, keeping in view short length of service, raising industrial dispute after about 3 years from the date of termination, lumpsum compensation is justified since as per settled law reinstatement is not automatic in each case – Monetary compensation is adequate to meet the ends of justice…………………………….. 1140 (P&H HC) 

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

……….Article 226 – Award is based upon cogent evidence – There is no perversity in the finding or error apparent on the face of record – Hence, interference under writ jurisdiction is not warranted. ……………………………………………..1230 (SN) (Ori HC)

DELAY AND LATCHES

……….Effect of delay of 5 years – Reference was claimed by the workman belatedly in 2003 whereas cause of action had accrued in his favour in 1998 – Plea of ignorance raised by workman is inconsequential, not acceptable since he was already in litigation sufficiently long time – Lack of knowledge as a ground to justify the inordinate delay of 5 years not justified………………………………………. 1138 (P&H HC) 

DISMISSAL

……….When illegal – Workman was Bus Conductor – Industrial Tribunal rejected the evidence of the driver and passengers only on the basis of a doubt raised regarding the boys travelling on the rooftop of the bus being students or not – It does not matter whether they were students or not since on that count, petitioner cannot be held guilty of allowing passengers travelling on the rooftop of the bus without tickets – They cannot be passengers travelling legally inside the bus – Conductor cannot be held guilty for such illegal act of persons travelling unauthorisedly on rooftop – Dismissal of the bus-conductor is illegal – Hence, the award is set aside – Writ petition is allowed…………………………………………… 1146 (Raj HC)

……….When justified – Workman was dismissed from service after conducting enquiry and proving guilt ‘found fast asleep during his night shift duty’ – Workman raised an industrial dispute – Labour Court awarded reinstatement with 30% back-wages holding the punishment of dismissal as disproportionate – Mangement challenged the award in writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the impugned award – Workman challenged the judgement of the Ld. Single Judge by filing writ appeal – Held, earlier on 2 occasions for similar negligence, the workman was issued strict warnings – In view of law settled by the Supreme Court of India in the case of ‘Bharat Forge Company Ltd. v. Uttam Manohar Nakate, 2005 (104) FLR 812 (SC) wherein the similar misconduct of sleeping on duty was involved, the punishment of dismissal from service, as held by learned Single Judge, is justified – Writ appeal stands dismissed………. 1150 (Gau HC) 

EMPLOYEE’S/ WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION ACT, 1923

……….Accident occurred in course of employment – Deceased/victim was employed as contract labourer in Appellant/Electricity Board appellant – Victim was travelling in the lorry, which collapsed due to rash and negligent driving of driver of lorry and victim died on spot – Deceased in course of employment met with accident and hence appellants-employer are liable to pay the compensation to legal heirs of the deceased – Court, finds no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the order passed by Tribunal – Which does not warrant any interference……1167 (Mad HC)

……….Payment of – Law settled – That the statutory liability under Workmen’s Compensation Act is on the employer – Unless a separate clause included for liability of interest – Insurance company is not liable to make payment of interest, especially in case where the accident is not related to a motor vehicle accident – Insurance company is not liable to make payment of interest – Accident in question arose not on account of any vehicular accident – Therefore insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of interest – Commissioner committed an error in fastening the liability of interest on Insurance Company……………………………………………. 1169 (Guj HC)

……….Section 4 – Amount of compensation should be based on an amount equal to 50% of the monthly wages of the deceased multiplied by relevant factor – Funeral expenses of 5000 also payable – Provisions mandatory – Monthly income of deceased held to be 6000 – High Court rightly applying factor of 197.06 and directing interest @12% – Compensation assessed at Rs. 5,96,180 with interest @ 12% per annum………………………………………….. 1126 (SC)

……….Section 4(a) – Deduction of T.D.S. from the payment of compensation – Only issue raised by appellant in the instant appeal was whether the T.D.S. could be deducted from the payment given to the claimants – Held, whether T.D.S. could be deducted or not from the payment has been no longer res judicata in view of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala that TDS cannot be deducted by the employer – Appeal fails and Dismissed…………………………………1172 (All HC)

……….Sections 22 and 30 – Appellant claimed compensation under section 22 of the Act for injuries sustained in an accident that arose out of and in the course of his employment – Commissioner declined relief dismissing his application – Appellant has challenged the award of the Commissioner in appeal – Held, the case is riddled with discrepancies – Date, time and manner of accident do not tally with medical sheet – No corroborating evidence is recorded – Employer remained ex-parte – Nothing was on record to prove employment of the appellant – FIR was lodged belatedly – As per FIR claimant received simple injuries – Appellant has claimed to have suffered grievous injuries – Appellant’s version does not inspire confidence – No merits in appeal – It is dismissed…………………………………….1173 (Mad HC)

……….Section 30, 4(1)(b),4(1)(c) and 2(1)(l) – Enhancement of award – Due to accident the appellant- employee being a Carpenter lost all the five fingers in his right hand and sustained fractures in the fingers in left hand – Commissioner fixed loss of earning capacity at 65% awarding compensation of Rs. 5,97,843 as per section 4(1)(c) of the Act – Workman filed appeal in High Court for enhancement of compensation – Held, doctor has confirmed that appellant cannot continue to do the work of carpenter – Hence, injury is total disablement as defined under section 2(1)(l) of the Act – Employee is entitled to compensation under section 4(1)(b) of the Act and no under section 4(1)(c) of the Act – Accordingly amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 9,19,757 Appeal is partly allowed……1174 (Mad HC) EMPLOYEES’ PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952

……….Claim of provident fund from date of appointment with interest, penal interest and compensatory cost – Justification of – Held, reliefs claimed may be available as per Section 7-A of the Act which can be looked into by the EPF Authority under Section 7-A of the Act – Hence, petitioner is directed to represent his grievance before the EPF Authority within three weeks – EPF Authority is directed to pass appropriate final order after hearing the petitioner within a period of 4 months declaring the benefits to which the petitioner is entitled as per provisions of the Act – Petition stands disposed of………….. 1227 (MP HC)

……….Limitation for filing appeal – EPF Appellate Tribunal rejected the appeal against the order of the EPF Authority passed under Section 7-A and 14-B of the Act on the ground of inordinate delay -Held, limitation for filing appeal is 60 days which is extenable upto further 60 days subject to satisfaction of the Tribunal that it was prevented by sufficient cause – Since the delay is abnormal and even if the Tribunal wanted to condone the delay beyond 60 days, it could not be effective -Non-application of the Act to the cooperative Societies being a new plea is not tenable under writ jurisdiction since it was not there before the Tribunal – Hence, the writ petition is dismissed…………………………………………. 1208 (Cal HC)

……….Pention Scheme framed under the Act – Petitioner only sought direction to the EPF Authority to decide his representation regarding fixed of pension within a time bound period – Writ Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the EPF department to take a conscious decision in view of clarification sought with regard to pension of higher wages within a period of 3 months in accordance with the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Pension Scheme 1995……………………………… 1214 (P&H HC)

……….Section 2(e), (f), 7-A – Whether independent franchise of granter of franchise – employer would be employees or branches or units of granter – No – Appellant, in Kerala, is granter of franchisee of a Company at Mumbai – Granter engaged independent franchises to effectively carry out courier business – Franchise further engaged workforce for the purpose -Franchise gets fixed commission – EPF Authority covered the granter under the Act by conducting enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act, holding that it had employed more than 20 persons treating the franchise as its branches, directing the grantor to remit the EPF contributions – Granter challenged the order of the EPF Authority in appeal – Appeal was dismissed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal – Writ petition, challenging the order of the EPF Appellate Authority, filed by the granter, failed – Writ appeal was filed by the granter challenging the impugned orders of the lower authorities – Held, evidence reveals that granter dictates its terms to franchise but not to the employees engaged by the franchise – Service contract with granter and franchise can be terminated by one month’s notice – Conditions in contract cannot be taken as measures of overweening administrative control of the granter over the employees engaged through franchise – Granter cannot operate the franchise’s account -No functional integrality is there between granter and the franchise -For a courier service geographical proximity cannot be a determining factor – No unity of ownership is there in between granter and franchises – Granter has no control over the franchise’s establishments – Granter has no power to transfer the franchise’s employees – Granter and franchise do not have unity of finance – Franchise has shown commission as expenditure – It has shown employees’ salary separately – Hence, franchise of granter cannot be treated as branches or units of granter – Writ appeal is allowed-Impugned orders of Writ Court, Appellate Authority and EPF Authority are set aside…………………… 1215 (Kar HC)

……….Section 7A – Lifting the attachment of bank account of the petitioner – Justification of – Petitioner’s submission is that it cannot even make the contributions towards the current EPF dues is the attachment of his bank account is not lifted – Held, in view of such a submission, attachment of bank account of the petitioner be lifted for a period of two weeks subject to company’s filing a sworn undertaking that it shall not siphon off any amount from its account except for payment of EPF dues – Petitioner is also directed to deposit Rs.1.70 crores admittedly unpaid amount as determined under Section A of the Act which shall be adjusted in short term fixed deposit – Petitioner shall submit sufficient proof – In case any such intimation is provided by the petitioner to the respondents, attachment of bank account shall not be re-imposed by the respondent till disposal of the writ petition, if the petitioner continues to pay current EPF dues regularly………………………… 1209 (Cal HC)

……….Section 7A – Notice was issued to the employer/petitioner – Petitioner did not participated in the proceedings conducted under Section 7A by the EPF Authority – However, petitioner deposited Rs. 22,000 as per verbal instructions of an official of the Department – EPF Authority passed order under Section 7A of the Act determining the EPF dues, directing the petitioner to remit the same with interest and damages – Petitioner challenged the order of the EPF Authority in writ petition – Petitioner claims to be having seasonal work which is to be proved by evidence – Held, impugned orders are set aside – Matter is remanded back to the EPF Authority to pass a speaking order after hearing the parties in accordance with law – Amount already deposited by the petitioner as per order of the Writ Court shall be adjusted against the amount to be recovered from the petitioner – Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly ……………………………………..  1212 (P&H HC)

……….Section 7A – Whether EPF Authority under Section 7A of the Act is a judicial court? Yes – EPF Authority under Section 7A of the Act filed a complaint before judicial Magistrate First Class under section 228 Indian Penal Code (IPC) that the respondent obstructed and interfered with the proceedings by abusing the Presiding Officer who was saved by the office staff – Magistrate convicted the respondent till rising of the Court imposing fine of Rs. 500 with default stipulation – Sessions Judge maintained the conviction releasing the respondent under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on undertaking of good behavious for one year – Respondent challenged the orders of the Sessions Judge and Magistrate in revision petition before High Court which was allowed holding that complaint itself was not maintainable under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Appellant challenged the order of High Court in appeal – Held, proceeding under Section 7A of the Act can well be equated for the purpose with a court under Section 195(1)(b)(i) of CrPC since the same are judicial proceedings – Even Section 195 of CrPC refers to a proceeding in any court, it does not say a judicial proceeding in any court – Hence, order of High Court is set aside – Appeal is allowed………………………………… 1199 (SC)

……….Section 7A and 7Q – Paschim Banga Sarva Siksha Mission was covered under the Act from 22.09.1997 after holding enquiry under section 7A of the Act which was attended by the employer on the complaint of workmen – Employer was directed to deposit the both the shares of employer and employees with interest from the period from September 2007 to May 2014 within 15 days – Remittance was not made within 15 days – Workmen filed writ petition seeking direction to EPF Authority to recover the amount – Held, employer cannot challenge the applicability of the Act in writ petition – Order of the EPF Authority has become final since the employer has not challenged the order of the EPF Authority by filing statutory appeal – EPF Authority has passed the order after considering various issues as raised by the employer – EPF Authority is directed to determine the amount within eight weeks without granting any adjournment to any of the parties unless of course the same is absolutely unavoidable – EPF Authority will not treat the establishment differently from other establishments – Writ petition is disposed of accordingly……………………………….. 1210 (Cal HC)

……….Sections 7-B and 7-A – Review application – Rejected without granting opportunity of hearing to petitioner and without dealing with contentions raised by the petitioner – Hence impugned order is set aside – Review application is remanded to present respondent for fresh decision…….. 1224 (Guj HC)

……….Sections 10 and 12 – As per Scheme under the statute, the Bank was remitting EPF contributions of employer and employees @ 10% of the salary/wages being paid to the employees – Later on the Bank removed the statutory ceiling of 10% by introducing a Scheme ‘matching contribution’ with the permission of the EPF Authority since it was more beneficial to the employees – EPF Authority revoked the exemption later on – Bank decided to rever to make compliance of provisions of the Act – Employees disputed it since it was causing loss to them – Industrial dispute was referred to Tribunal which disapproved the action of the Bank – Bank challenged the award in writ petition which was allowed by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the impugned award – Division Bank upheld the judgment of the Learned Single Judge – Supreme Court also upheld both the judgements of the Division Bench and that of the Learned Single Judge – Bank claimed refund of the excess contribution paid with interest from the EPF Authority – The EPF Authority refused to refund the same – Bank challenged the refusal order of the Bank in writ petition – Held, EPF Authority is liable to return the employer’s contribution that was paid over and above the ceiling prescribed by clause 2(f) of the Scheme – Plea of the EPF Authority that as per section 10 of the Act, the EPF Authority is not entitled to attach the amount standing to the credit of the employees – When notice of change given by the Bank is held valid and legal, there is no question of construing provisions of Industrial Disputes Act and EPF&MP Act, liberally……………. 1201 (Bom HC)

……….Section 11 – A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964 – Section 12 and 12-A (9) – Dues – Payable to workman – Conjoint reading of section 12A(9)(ii) of Co¬-operative Socieites Act, 1964 and section 11(2) of E.P.F. Act, 1952, makes it clear – That the due payable to workmen and employees towards Provident Fund would get first priority – Interpretation made by High Court is appropriate – And there is no other way in which the provisions can be harmonized – Provident fund as mentioned in section 12-A(9)(ii)(c) has to be taken to be part of section 12-A(9)(ii)(a) – Thus section 12-A(9)(ii)(c) has to be redundant and such due has to be taken to be covered under section 12-A (9)(ii)(a) of Act – Item at serial No. 12A (9)(i) is not a debt………………. 1226 (SC)

……….Who is franchisee – Statutory definition of the term ‘franchisee’ is absent in India – Finance Act, 1999 in chapter 5 defines ‘franchise’ as “an agreement by which a franchisee is granted representational right to sell or manufacture goods or to provide service or undertakes any process identified with the franchiser, whether or not a trade mark, trade name or logo or any such symbol, as the case may be, is involved – Franchising is a relatively new business phenomenon still statutorily unoccupied, at least in India – Gone are the days of conventional business – Time and technology has given new impetus to commerce – It is borderless, amorphous and protean – Business is as much real as it is virtual – Specialisation is the Mantra – Various stage of franchising are governed by Indian Contract Act, Specific Relief Act, laws of Taxation, Labour and Insurance laws, the Intellectual Property laws besides governmental regulations…………………………. 1215 (Kar HC)

EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948

……….Respondent No. 1 was a retailer in readymade garments from 1994 at first floor in a rented building – ESI Inspector inspected his establishment as well as M/s. Veeralakshmana Stores at the ground floor which belonged to his father – Appellant clubbed the shop of the respondent No. 1 and Store of his father for coverage under the Act – Respondent No. 1 gave reply that two shops are independent having no functional integrity – ESI Authority being not satisfied with the reply of the respondent No. 1 passed order under Section 45A of the Act thereby clubbing the both shops – Order of the ESI Authority was challenged before Employees Insurance Court – El Court allowed the petition setting aside the order of the ESI Authority – Appellant has challenged order of the El Court in appeal – Held, employees of respondent No. 1 and that of the shop of his father were not examined – Respondent No. 1 has issued bills independently of his shop at first floor – Second respondent is maintaining independent assessment registers for his shop – Merely that father was carrying on textile shop in the ground floor is no justification for clubbing the establishments – Common entrance is no ground to prove functional integrality in both shops – Hence, appeal is dismissed……………………….1176 (Mad HC)

……….Section 2(a)(b) – ESI (General] Regulations, 1950 – Working on paid holidays – Definition of overtime- Remains confined to payments received for working beyond normal working hours by the employees during the day or in a week per the Factories Act – Working for extra-hours beyond normal working hours on paid holidays- Would come within the meaning of sub-section (a), clause (b) of section 2 of the Act – Impugned judgment of the Writ Court upheld – APO dismissed – Connected applications disposed of accordingly…………… 1229 (SN) (Cal HC)

……….Section 2(22) – Milk allowance – Paid to workers as a reward for their hard work – Comes within meaning of special expenses – Therefore does not come within meaning of wages. ……………………………………………. 1229 (SN) (Cal HC)

……….Section 2(22) – Wages – Whether interim relief paid to employees is ‘wages’? – Yes – On the basis of notification dated 24.09.1996 as per recommendations of the Wage Board in respect of working journalists and non-working journalists and newspaper employees, rates of wages were increased – Employees were paid the same by the respondent as interim relief for the period from 01.04.1996 to 31.03.2000, but on the interim relief, ESI contributions were not paid – Subsequently, a memorandum dated 19.08.1998 was issued by the Ministry of Industry inter-alia stating therein that interim relief paid to employees of Central Public Sector Enter  prises will not be termed as ‘pay’ or ‘allowances’ or ‘wages’ etc. ESI Authority directed the respondent for remitting the same – Respondent challenged the order of the ESI Authority by filing a petition before  Employees Insurance (El) Court under Section 75 of the Act which was dismissed – Respondent filed appeal against the order of the El Court – High Court allowed the appeal, holding the amounts paid as ‘interim relief as ex-gratia – Appellant challenged the judgement of the High Court in civil appeal – Held, interim relief is to be treated as a part of wages as per provisions of the Act which is a welfare legislation – Where there may be two or more ways to interpret a statutory provision, the spirits of this legislation warrants a construction that benefits the working class – Departmental memorandum dated 19.08.1998 is applicable in respect of Central Public Sector Enterprises whereas respondent is a private sector company – Interim relief as paid is not a ‘gift’ or ‘inam’ but a part of wages – Hence, appeal is allowed – Appellant is entitled to recover the ESI contributions from the respondent as per demand notice dated 02.11.2000………………………………… 1121 (SC)

……….Sections 82(2), 75(1), 45-A, 2(9) – ESI Authority served a notice upon respondent demanding ESI contributions from 01.09.1975 to 3/89 in respect of employees working at various shops located in the premises of respondent – Notice was followed with an order under section” 45-A of the Act holding that shops are functioning after obtaining license from the respondent that means employees working in shops as employees of the respondent – Respondent challenged the order of the ESI Authority before the Employees Insurance Court on the grounds that (i) shops are being run by separate owners who are licensed by the respondent, (ii) Workers in these shops are not employees of respondent, (iii) Shops are not patronized exclusively by the guests of respondent, (iv) All shops are open to public – Employees of shops can’t be treated as employees of respondent – Respondent is not liable to pay ESI contributions in respect of those employees – Claim for ESI contributions from 1975 cannot be sustained since respondent came under coverage of the Act only from 16.01.1977 – Held, for coverage of a worker definition of ‘employee’ under Section 2(9) of the Act, it should be shown that worker works under direct supervision of management, there was ‘consistency of vigil’ by principal employer – Shops are open to general public – Hence, employees working in shops cannot be treated employees of the respondent – Order of the ESI Authority is illegal as confirmed by the El Court – Appeal is dismissed. …………………………………………………..1180 (Mad HC)

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP

……….When existing – Stand of management is that the employee was engaged on commission basis to collect credit from different dealers – Whereas the assertion of the workman is that he was not only to collect credit but was performing clerical work by getting monthly wages – He remained under medical treatment as he had met with an accident for about two months – After having discharged from hospital when he reported for duty, he was not allowed – He raised an industrial dispute – Industrial Tribunal held the termination as illegal holding that Director of the Company had issued two times service certificates to the employee showing him as employee of the company, proving existence of relationship of employer-employee – Management filed writ challenging the award – Held, salary certificate is the basis of evidence establishing the relationship of employer-employee since such certificates prove that the workman was working under the direct control of the management…………….1230 (SN) (Ori HC)

ENQUIRY

……….When liable to be vitiated – Workman was Assistant Mechanic – He was issued charge-sheet for misconduct of causing assault/injuries to Senior Service Manager – Enquiry was held – Charges were proved against him – He was issued show cause notice which he did not accept – He was dismissed from service – He filed complaint before the Labour Court – Enquiry was held illegal – Dismissal order was set aside – Revision Petition failed – Management filed writ petition challenging the award passed by the Labour Court – Held, authorities below have misinterpreted the law – Enquiry Officer is required to record summary of evidence led by either side – Strict rules of evidence are not applicable in enquiry – Written statement duly signed by witness would be capable of being ‘evidence’ as per Order 25(4) of Schedule I to Act, 1946 – Impugned judgement and orders are perverse since the enquiry finding has been vitiated for not following the procedure under Order 25(4) of Schedule I to Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, whereas the model standing order does not provide for any consequence of such failure – Workman has neither placed any material before the Enquiry Officer and even did not plead any case of prejudice occurred to him – Hence, finding of the Labour Court that nonfollowing the procedure has caused prejudice to the workman is a perverse finding – Hence, judgement and orders are set aside – Matter is remanded back to the Labour Court for consideration as to whether the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse in accordance with law………………………… 1132 (Bom HC)

……….When to be fair and proper – Charge-sheet was issued – Reply to charge-sheet was filed – Enquiry was conducted – Notice of enquiry was sent under UPC – Address on the cover was not disputed – Evidence of witnesses of the management was recorded in the absence of petitioner – Petitioner appeared on the next date but did not file any application seeking permission to cross-examine management witnesses – Unchallenged evidence of witnesses of management became correct and final – Later on petitioner’s version that he was not given opportunity to cross-examine the management witnesses is not sustainable – Non-calling the passengers in the enquiry as witnesses is not fatal causing any prejudice to the petitioner – Such an enquiry has been rightly held to be fair and proper……………….. 1130 (Del HC)

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947

……….Section 2(s) – ‘Workman’ – Scope of –Employee was appointed as Junior Engineer – Subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Superintendent – His services were terminated on account of unauthorized absence from duty – He raised an industrial dispute – Labour Court rejected his claim, holding him not to be a workman on the ground that he was Shift In-charge, 50 persons were working under him, he had the powers to sanction leave, assign duties to the workmen and his wages were more than Rs.1600 He himself has admitted in his cross-examination that he was working as Shift Engineer – The respondent challenged the award in writ petition – Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition holding him to be a workman since he had no power to take disciplinary action – Management challenged the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in writ appeal – Held, absence of vesting of disciplinary powers with the respondent would not take him out from the purview of ‘workman’ as defined under clause (iv) of Section 2(s) of the Act – Hence, appeal is allowed – Judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside – Award passed by the Labour Court is restored……………………………………….. 1191 (Guj HC)

……….Section 2(s) – Workman – Employee was appointed in Supervisory Grade as probationer – Later on he was designated as Junior Executive in Grade ‘A’ – He was member of Supervisory Staff Association – His employment was determined when the manpower was restructured – He raised an industrial dispute – Labour Court awarded reinstatement and continuity of service with 50% back-wages – Management challenged the award in writ petition – Held, statement that he was to supervise one shift of duty, receiving salary and allowances as an Executive remained unchallenged – Cross-examination of the employee leads to the supervisory activity being discharged by him – He was drawing salary exceeding Rs. 1600 per month which excludes the ‘employee’ from the category of workman – He cannot be classed as a workman under Section 2(s) of the Act – Hence, the impugned award being without jurisdiction is set aside…………………………….. 1135 (Cal HC)

……….Section 9A – Notice of change – Effect of – When the exemption was revoked by the EPF Authority, notice of change under Section 9-A was given by the Bank – Employees raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication – Tribunal decided in favour of the workmen – Bank continued to pay EPF contributions during pendency of the litigation as per its Scheme i.e., in excess of statutory limit of 10% – Bank challenged the award of the Tribunal in writ petition which was allowed and confirmed upto Supreme Court…………… 1201 (Bom HC)

……….Section 10 – Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 – Section 10 – Reference – Maintainability – Dispute raised by the contract labourers that they were direct employees of the principal employer – Industrial Tribunal has to decide whether the contract between principal employer and the contractor is sham and nominal and merely a camouflage – From materials made available to the Central Government at the time of seeking reference – Not clear whether there exists a dispute regarding employer and employee relationship between petitioner and second respondent – Central Government Industrial Tribunal required to decide whether there exists a dispute regarding existence of employer-employee relationship – Tribunal also required to go into issue whether second respondent can be permitted to raise such issue for the first time before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal even though existence of dispute is prima facie not made out –Central Government Industrial Tribunal failed to consider these two important issues relevant for deciding the preliminary issue – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted to Central Government industrial Tribunal to decide the preliminary issue – Petition allowed……………………1158 (Mad HC)

……….Section 10(1) & (4) – Grant of interim relief – Whether prospectively from the date of order or retrospectively from the date of raising of dispute or making of reference or moving of application? – Held, grant of interim relief is only to help the employees to tide over their financial crisis during adjudication of the dispute – In all fairness, such a relief be granted from the date of application. ………………………………………….. 1231 (SN) (Mad HC)

……….Section 10(1) & (4) – Interim relief – Maintainability – An industrial dispute regarding demand of wage revision was referred by the appropriate government for adjudication – Workmen filed an application seeking interim relief before the Industrial Adjudcator – Industrial Tribunal allowed the application – Both parties challenged the order of the Tribunal in writ petition – Union sought increase in amount of interim relief whereas Management challenged maintainability of the application – Learned Single Judge rejected both the applications – Both parties filed writ appeals challenged the order of the Learned Single Judge and that of the Tribunal – Held, under Section 10(4) of the Act, the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court have power to decide the question incidential to the terms of reference – Grant of interim relief is only incidental to the main issue “wage revision and other aspects” – In view of increase in price index, interim relief as granted by the Tribunal is increased from Rs. 4000 to Rs.7500 per month……………………………. 1231 (SN) (Mad HC)

……….Sections 10 and 33(2)(b) – Scope of – Labour Court held the enquiry fair and proper while deciding application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act – Industrial dispute raised by the workman was referred under Section 10 of the Act – Industrial Tribunal answered the reference against the workman relying upon the finding of Court in application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act – Petitioner-workman filed writ petition challenging the award – Held, proceedings under section 10-A of the Act are referred, merely because there is a verdict under section 33(2)(b) of the Act, the same would not influence proceedings which are independent and based on evidence – Hence, impugned award is set aside………………………………………. 1146 (Raj HC)

……….Section 11(3) – Power under – Of Industrial tribunal – To order recall of witness of crossexamination – Tribunal has same towers as are vested in Civil Court – It has power to recall a witness………………………………………. 1170 (Bom HC)

……….Section 25-F – Consequences, if violated – Management did not allow the workman to perform duty – He raised an industrial dispute – Industrial Tribunal held that denial of duty to workman without making compliance of provisions of Section 25F of the Act amounts to retrenchment i.e., illegal termination, entitling the workman to compensation of Rs. 1.50 lacs in spite of reinstatement – Management challenged the award in writ petition – Held, since employer-employee relationship has been established, non-compliance of section 25-F of the Act, makes the termination as illegal – There is no infirmity in the impugned award – Writ petition stands dismissed……………………..1230 (SN) (Ori HC)

……….Section 25-H – When not enforceable – Employee was engaged as Pump Operator on daily wages – His services were dispensed with in 1996 – He raised an industrial dispute in 1997 which did not succeed upto Division Bench of the High Court – Workman again raised industrial dispute claiming relief under Section 25-H of the Act – Labour Court accepted his claim – But the learned Single Judge negated the same on the ground that petitioner’s entry into service was not in accordance with the accepted public mode of employment whereas employees engaged later on were requisitioned through employment exchange – Workman challenged the judgement of the learned Single Judge in writ appeal – Held, version of the Learned Single Judge that no party could be drawn in petitioner and the workmen through employment exchange is correct – Petitioner was daily wager – He was not appointed to the cadre of Pump Operator – Writ appeal stands dismissed……………………………………….. 1138 (P&H HC)

……….Section 33(2)(b) – Issue of fairness of enquiry upon management – Petitioner with other Office bearer of the Union applied for registration of Union – Petitioner was subject to enquiry on certain allegations – On the basis of find of the enquiry petitioner was terminated from his services – Management filed application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act before the Labour Commissioner for approval – Labour Commissioner inter alia framed issue “Whether the enquiry conducted by the management is fair and proper? If not, to what effect? OPR” – Workman challenged the framing of this issue with regard to onus of proof, stating that onus of proof is to be upon management and not upon the workman – Writ Court directed the Labour Commissioner to reconsider the framing of issue -Again Labour Commissioner passed order that onus has rightly been put on the workman – Workman again challenged the order of the Labour Commissioner in writ petition – Held, since the management is required to prove the misconduct against the workman, hence the burden of proof shall be upon the management – Burden of proof lies on the person who approaches the Court seeking relief – Authority is directed to decide the application of the management within 4 months – Writ petition stands allowed…… 1232 (SN) (P&H HC)

INTERIM RELIEF

……….When not justified – Petitioner have rendered 7 years of service on the post of Assistant Malaria Inspector – He had filed claim for his regularization – Management advertised for 400 such posts in January 2017 -Interview of candidates have been conducted – Result is awaited shortly – Petitioner by moving an application sought interim relief from the Industrial Tribunal that his case of regularization be decided within a month or so and till then status quo regarding employment of petitioners be maintained and management be directed to keep two posts vacant for petitioners which was dismissed – Petitioner challenged the order of the Tribunal in writ petition – Held, no doubt an interim award can be made – Since regular appointments to the posts cannot be forestalled, the Court is not inclined to give any interim award in a case of regularization of service – Even petitioner can be adequately compensated by fresh absorption on the posts which fall vacant in future or can be compensated – Let the Tribunal make all the endeavours to decide the pending case for regularization within a month or so….. 1128 (Del HC)

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES

……….Where there may be two or more ways to interpret a statutory provision, the spirits of ESI Act, being a welfare legislation, warrants a construction that benefits the working class…………………….. 1121 (SC)

MINIMUM WAGES

……….Order by which the petitioner has been ordered to pay Rs. 1,08,000 to private respondent Nos. 4 and 5 as minimum wages and damages, etc. – However failure to record reasons make the order non transparent – Impugned order cannot be sustained – Orders are quashed……………………. 1152 (Pat HC)

……….Payment of – Authority vide order dated 12.7.2012 passed an order directing the petitioner to pay Rs. 34,650 to respondent No. 6 – Appellate Authority vide impugned :order dismissed the appeal and directed petitioners to pay the same – No question of law is involved in the case – No error of law pointed out by petitioner apparent on face of record – Hence writ petition is dismissed – Minimum Wages Act, 1948……………………………………… 1153 (Pat HC)

MISCONDUCT

……….When grave and serious in nature – Sleeping on duty by an employee, a chowkidar – Despite strict warnings 2 times for the same misconduct, there was no improvement in the habit of the chowkidar – Such an incorrigible employee is always danger to create any problem for the management, causing any irreparable loss – Hence, sleeping on duty is a grave and serious misconduct……….. 1150 (Gau HC)

PAYMENT OF GRATUITY ACT, 1972

……….Sections 4 and 6 – Gratuity – Payment of – Delinquent died on 7.3.1982 but the petitioner employer had withheld the payment of gratuity – Though obliged to release the same to the deceased employee at the time of retirement – Failed to discharge their statutory obligation as contained under sections 4 and 6 of Act – Respondent No. 1 shall file a proper application before Controlling Authority as regard to payment of gratuity payable to deceased employee………………………. 1143 (MP HC)

……….Denied to petitioner by order – On ground of gross misconduct – Which constitutes moral turpitude as per clause (ii) of Rule 8(1) of Gratuity Rules – However provisions relied upon are not applicable to petitioner in view of fact that the Bipartitle Settlement are applicable to him – Impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law and liable to be quashed – Payment of Gratuity (Central) Rules, 1972 – Rule 8(1)(ii) – Bipartite Settlements – Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972………………. 1154 (Ori HC)

……….Exempted from attachment – Petitioner is wife of deceased who was Junior Assistant in the office of respondents – Deceased had obtained loan of Rs. 1.00 lac from TALCO Bank which he failed to pay despite notice by bank – Bank had filed a complaint against the deceased under Negotiable Instruments Act – Criminal case filed was dismissed by the Magistrate – Petitioner’s demand for gratuity, provident fund, pension and other monetary benefits was orally refused – Petitioner filed writ petition seeking direction to the respondents to release all benefits of her husband – Held, law is well settled that gratuity, leave salary, family benefit fund are all immuned from attachment – Wife and children are legal heirs of the deceased employee, entitled to all such monetary benefits – Respondent is directed to pay all dues to the petitioner within four weeks – Writ petition is allowed……………………………….1178 (Mad HC)

PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936 

……….Section 15(2) – Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937 – Form E – Provisions of – Does not make any distinction between the application made for wrongful deduction of wages and the delayed payment of wages…………………………1141 (Jhar HC) 

REINSTATEMENT

……….Justification of – Workman was driver engaged against vacant post from October 2008 to 10.04.2012 when his services were orally terminated without assigning any reason, without any notice and without affording opportunity of hearing – Workman raised an industrial dispute – Labour Court dismissed the claim even though holding that workman had rendered service for more than 240 days in each of calendar year and termination was in violation of Section 25(F) of the Act, on the ground that workman was daily wager, not appointed against permanent post and awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000 in lieu of reinstatement – Workman challenged the award in writ petition – Held, employer has not pleaded that there was no requirement of service of the workman -Employer has no case that he has lost confidence upon the workman –Workman is ready to waive the back-wages if the employer is agree to give him reinstatement – Under the facts of the case, workman is awarded reinstatement without back-wages – Petition stands allowed accordingly. …………………………………………………… 1187 (MP HC)

……….Scope of – When termination is illegal, reinstatement is not applied mechanically in all cases – When termination of a daily wager is found illegal because of violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, adequate lumpsum compensation is justified instead of reinstatement with back-wages or without back-wages………………………………… 1140 (P&H HC)

……….When not proper – Case is 24 years old – It is settled law that none of the parties should be made to suffer on account of pendency of the case before the Court – Instead of directing reinstatement with continuity of service, it is directed that pay fixation etc. shall be notional – If petitioner has attained superannuation, the fixation shall be treated as actual for the purpose of pension and retiral benefits, gratuity on last pay on the basis of notional fixation of pay and allowances – Writ petition is allowed accordingly…………………………………… 1146 (Raj HC) 

SEXUAL HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT WORKPLACE (PREVENTION, PROHIBITION AND REDRESSAL) ACT, 2013

……….Section 2(o)(v) – Workplace – Any place visited by employee arising out of or during the course of employment including transportation provided by the employer for undertaking such journey – Facts involved establish that incident took place at Kolkata while appellant and complainant were there on duty to attend training programme – Hence, the incident would be taken as at the ‘workplace’ covered under the Act………………………………………… 1148 (Gau HC) 

TERMINATION

……….Apprentice – Justification of – Appellants were Trade Apprentices under Apprentices Act, 1961 for 3 years training in trade of Boiler Attendant/Cable Jointer – After expiry of 3 years training period, their services were terminated – They raised an industrial dispute – Labour Court answered the reference in favour of the appellants – Management challenged the award in writ petition – The High Court allowed the writ petition – Appellant have challenged the judgment of the High Court in appeal – Held, in view of law laid down in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board v. Shiv Mohan Singh & Anr., 2004 (4) LLN 806 (SC), an apprentice cannot be declared to be a worker under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 nor he can claim benefit under section 25-F or under Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 – Reasoning and conclusion given by the High Court is upheld – Appeal dismissed……….. 1189 (SC)

……….When justified – Petitioner a Bus Conductor was found having not issued tickets to 5 passengers by the Checking Team – After holding enquiry he was removed from service – He challenged termination order by raising an industrial dispute – Trial Court confirmed the enquiry fair and proper by passing the award rejecting the claim of the petitioner – Petitioner challenged the award in writ petition – Held, petitioner had not filed any application before the Enquiry Officer seeking permission to cross-examine the management witnesses, hence it cannot be held that he was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses – Notice sent under UPC would be presumed to be served unless it is shown that the address on the cover is incorrect – Evidence on record reveals that petitioner was found sitting with ticketless passengers which has not been disputed by the petitioner – Passengers informed the Checking Team that petitioner had not issued tickets to them – Petitioner admitted his fault – Then petitioner issued unpunched tickets to passengers through Checking Team – Non-calling the passengers in the enquiry is not fatal causing any prejudice to the petitioner – Hence, award does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of record – Writ petition stands dismissed…………………………………….. 1130 (Del HC)

……….When not illegal – Driving Licence (HMV) was not renewed by the Licensing Authority since he was involved in a fatal accident case – Condition of continuation in service was that a driver after or before having attained the age of 55 years, he has to submit a medical certificate of his fitness, failing which he was to be retired without any notice –Since the workman did not submit the medical certificate after the age of 55 years – He also was issued show cause notices repeatedly to produce HMV valid license but he failed since the same was not renewed by the concerned authority – Resultantly he was compulsorily retired – He raised an industrial dispute – Labour Court awarded reinstatement with continuity in service, consequential benefits and 50% back-wages – Management challengted the award in writ petition – Held, as per circulars of the Management, drivers not having HMV valid driving licenses at the age of 55 years are to be retired – Since the workman could not produce renewed licence, may be due to refusal of the Transport authority giving sufficient reason thereto, despite show cause notices, termination of his services is not illegal – Impugned award is set aside – However, workman would be entitled to all retirement banefits. ……………………………………………. 1230 (SN) (Del HC)

TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION

……….Place of incident or a part of it – Appellant and complainant both were on duty for attending a training programme at Kolkata where incident took place – Sending SMS from mobile phone to mobile phone took place at Kolkata – Complaint was lodged in Kolkata – Report was sent by Internal Complaint Committee from Kolkata – Show cause notice was issued to appellant from Kolkata when he was posted in Bihar – Appellant challenged the show cause notice in writ petition filed before Gauhati High Court which was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge holding that the Courts at Kolkata lacks territorial jurisdiction – Appellant filed writ appeal – Held, Gauhati High Court would not have jurisdiction, merely because both appellant and complainant were residing in Assam since the cause of action or any part thereof did not arise in the territorial jurisdiction of Gauhati High Court – Appellant should approach Calcutta High Court………………………………………….. 1148 (Gau HC)

UNBELIEVABLE BUT TRUE
  • That India will send three lakh youths to Japan for on-job training for 3-5 years as part of the government’s skill development programme, Union Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has stated.
  • That only 24.6 per cent of the children have access to higher education in India whereas in United States it is 86 per cent, in Russia 80 per cent and in China 48 per cent children have access to higher education.
  • That India needs to create 13,000 jobs every day.
  • That Indian Railways, already one of the biggest employer in India would generate one million jobs as stated by Union Minister of Railways.
  • That the $154 billion Indian IT services industry employs 3.9 million people in India.
  • That between 2004 and 2011 when the economy grew at about 7%, the female participation in the county labour force declined from over 35% to 25%.
  • That South Korea is amongst the hardest working countries in the world hence 2015, more than 20 per cent of its population spent over 60 hours a week in office, while only 9 per cent of Japanese people did so.
  • That the HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar has stated that over 11 lakh untrained teachers in schools under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan – 6 lakh in government schools and 5 lakh in private ones will be trained.
  • That the Department of Factories in State of Bihar has announced that the grant or renewal of factory licence shall remains 10 years.
  • That 50 per cent of all workers engaged in the air transport sector are on contract, with 80 per cent of these serving for up to three years, says a Labour Bureau Survey.
  • That the placement season for lIT-Bombay has resulted in 1,114 job offers by 305 recruiters with an average salary of Rs.11.41Iakh per annum.
  • That over 38 per cent of companies listed on the National Stock Exchange would have to appoint at least one independent women director if the recommendation of a high-level panel on corporate governance.
  • That spread over 337 acres, Infosys campus at Mysuru has 10,000 residential rooms with all facilities and can train 15,000 people at a time.
  • That Britain’s Indian-origin population tends to be among the most highly skilled in comparison to the country’s other ethnic minority categories.
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE FOR THE MONTH

STATUTE (Central) :  Employees’ Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952  
COMPLIANCE        :  Remittance of contributions (5 day grace period is withdrawn)
LAST DATE            :  15th


STATUTE (Central) :  Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948  
COMPLIANCE        :  Remittance of ESI contributions
LAST DATE            :  15th

print
Close Menu
×

Basket