Posted by & filed under Employee Compensation.

Loading and Unloading Workers Recognized as Employees Under MV Act: Kerala  HC - Law Insider India

Case Summary: Abdul Razaque O.V., a loading and unloading worker for a tipper lorry owned by United India Insurance Company Limited, suffered injuries when a coconut tree being loaded fell on him. Seeking compensation, he filed an application under the Employees Compensation Act, 1923.

Insurance Dispute: The insurance company, while admitting the policy, contested liability, asserting that the policy didn’t cover risks associated with loading and unloading workers in the tipper lorry. The Employees Compensation Commissioner awarded compensation, prompting the insurance company to appeal under Section 30 of the Act.

Legal Question Raised: The appeal raised a legal question – whether loading and unloading workers of a tipper lorry owner are covered under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, specifically under clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147(1).

Legal Arguments:The insurance company argued that the policy didn’t cover the worker’s risk, as he wasn’t the driver, conductor, or cleaner.Abdul Razaque argued that clause (c) of Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act covered loading and unloading workers.

Court’s Analysis:

  1. The court considered precedents and the wording of the Motor Vehicles Act, emphasizing the importance of the loading and unloading process in the purpose of a goods carriage.

2. It rejected the insurer’s argument that the worker wasn’t traveling in the goods carriage, stating that loading and unloading are integral to a goods carriage’s purpose.

3. The court noted that the Employees Compensation Act is a welfare legislation aimed at compensating employees for work-related injuries.

Verdict: The court concluded that loading and unloading workers, including Abdul Razaque, fall under the coverage of clause (c) of the first proviso to Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Finding no irregularity in the Commissioner’s order, the court dismissed the appeal, affirming the entitlement of loading and unloading workers to compensation under the Employees Compensation Act.

Posted by & filed under Maternity Benefit Act.

Surrogate mothers have right to maternity leave: Rajasthan High Court

From the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, related to a civil writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7853/2020). The petitioner, Smt. Chanda Keswani, is seeking maternity leave after having twins through the surrogacy process.

The key points highlighted in the order are:

Background and Quote: The document begins with a quote emphasizing the special bond between a mother and a child, highlighting the significance of motherhood in society.

Legal Issue: The main legal issue addressed in the petition is whether a distinction can be made by the State Government regarding maternity leave for a natural mother, a biological mother, and a mother who has obtained a child through surrogacy.

Factual Matrix: After the surrogacy process, the petitioner applied for maternity leave, but the State refused, stating that there is no provision for maternity leave for mothers who have children through surrogacy in the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.

Petitioner’s Arguments: The petitioner argues that with advancements in medical science and the recognition of surrogacy, the rules should be interpreted to include maternity leave for mothers who have children through surrogacy. The petitioner cites judgments from other High Courts in similar cases.

Respondent’s Arguments: The State argues that there is no provision in the Rules of 1951 for granting maternity leave to surrogate mothers, and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to it.

Legal Analysis: The court reviews Rule 103 of the Rules of 1951, which deals with maternity leave, and emphasizes the need for a broad and beneficial interpretation of maternity leave provisions.

Interpretation of Maternity Leave: The court discusses the concept of maternity leave and how it aims to protect the dignity of motherhood, considering the health of both the mother and the child.

Surrogacy Recognition: The court acknowledges the recognition of surrogacy in recent legislation, including the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.

Judicial Precedents: The court refers to judgments from other High Courts (Delhi, Chhattisgarh, Bombay, and Himachal Pradesh) that granted maternity leave to commissioning mothers in surrogacy cases.

Conclusion: The court concludes that a female can become a mother through surrogacy, and she cannot be denied maternity leave. The court directs the respondents to grant maternity leave to the petitioner.

In essence, the court recognizes the evolving landscape of reproductive technology and surrogacy and interprets existing rules to ensure that commissioning mothers through surrogacy are entitled to maternity leave.

Posted by & filed under Grautity.

Background of the Case:

This judgment pertains to a case involving an individual named Jyotirmay Ray, who was working as a Senior Manager in the Punjab National Bank (referred to as the “Bank”). Ray was compulsorily retired by the Bank, citing irregularities related to loans and cash credit facilities provided under the Credit Guarantee Fund Trust Scheme for Micro & Small Enterprises (CGTMSE).

Chronology of Events:

The sequence of events in this case is crucial to understanding the context of the judgment:

On October 16, 2009, Jyotirmay Ray was charge-sheeted by the Bank.

On November 20, 2009, a supplementary charge-sheet was issued.

A departmental inquiry was conducted, and the inquiry report was submitted on January 11, 2010.

The disciplinary authority found Ray guilty and ordered his compulsory retirement on January 29, 2010.

Ray’s appeal against the penalty was dismissed on July 28, 2010.

While the writ petition was pending in the High Court, the Bank’s Board of Directors refused to release the employer’s contribution to the provident fund.

A Single Judge of the High Court partially allowed the writ petition, directing the Bank to release the employer’s contribution to the provident fund, gratuity, and leave encashment.

Key Issue:

The primary issue addressed in this judgment is whether the denial of the employer’s contribution to the provident fund and the non-payment of gratuity to Jyotirmay Ray, as directed by the impugned order, is justified.

Arguments Presented:

The arguments presented in this case are vital in understanding the legal points raised:Jyotirmay Ray’s counsel contended that the Bank failed to prove any loss caused by Ray’s actions. Moreover, it was argued that the Board of Directors passed a resolution without giving Ray an opportunity to respond to the allegations.The counsel also emphasized that the denial of gratuity affects an employee’s civil rights and cannot be directed without following the principles of natural justice.

Legal Analysis:

The judgment delves into the relevant rules and regulations governing the Bank’s provident fund and gratuity payments:It highlights Regulation 45(1) of the 1979 Regulations, which mandates every officer’s membership in the Provident Fund.The judgment discusses Rule 13 of the Provident Fund Trust Rules, which allows the Bank to recover losses from an officer’s contributions in cases of dishonest acts or misconduct.

Decision:

The crux of the judgment lies in the conclusions drawn by Justice J.K. Maheshwari:The judgment rules that the Board of Directors’ unilateral resolution, which alleged a loss of Rs. 77.59 lakhs due to Ray’s actions, could not be relied upon to deny the payment of the employer’s contribution to the provident fund. It pointed out that no quantification of the loss was provided in the charge-sheet or inquiry report, and an opportunity to be heard was not given before passing the resolution.Regarding gratuity, the judgment relies on the Gratuity Act and the Bank’s Circular No. 1563 to conclude that Ray was entitled to gratuity. It found that no valid reason for its forfeiture was established.

In summary, this detailed description of the legal judgment illustrates that the case revolved around the denial of certain benefits to an employee, Jyotirmay Ray, who was compulsorily retired by Punjab National Bank. The judgment meticulously analyzes the bank’s actions and regulations and ultimately rules in favor of the employee’s entitlement to the benefits in question, specifically the employer’s contribution to the provident fund and gratuity.

Posted by & filed under Andhra-Shop & Establishment.

Diwali Calendar 2023 - Deepavali 2023 Festival Dates

The document issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh announces a change in the holiday date for the festival of DEEPAVALI (Diwali) in the year 2023. Originally, November 12, 2023, was designated as a holiday to celebrate DEEPAVALI. However, after careful consideration, the government has decided to shift the holiday to November 13, 2023, which falls on a Monday.

This change in the holiday schedule is a notable adjustment that affects government offices and institutions in Andhra Pradesh. The decision to modify the holiday date is officially documented, and the document is signed by Dr. K.S. JAWAHAR REDDY, who serves as the CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT in Andhra Pradesh.

The government’s decision aims to ensure that the holiday aligns more conveniently with the celebration of DEEPAVALI, allowing for a day off on the day the festival is traditionally observed.

Posted by & filed under EPS -Pension Judgement.

WP No. 405/23 karnataka HC | Useful judgement for all pensioners - YouTube

Facts of the Case:

The Petitioner’s Background: H. Nagabhushana Rao, the petitioner, was a 102-year-old individual at the time of the case. He had been receiving the Swatantra Sainik Samman Gaurava Dhana pension as a freedom fighter from the Government of India since 1974. This pension was granted to him by both the Central and State Governments.

Pension Disruption: The central issue of the case was that the petitioner’s pension was abruptly disrupted. The reason given for the discontinuation of his pension was his failure to submit his Life Certificate for the year 2017-2018.

Life Certificate Submission: The petitioner did eventually submit his Life Certificate, but it was submitted on December 24, 2018. After this submission, the government issued a sanction letter, releasing the pension from December 24, 2018, to October 5, 2020.

Unpaid Arrears: The crux of the matter was that the arrears of pension for the period from November 1, 2017, to December 24, 2018, were not paid to the petitioner, and this amounted to Rs. 3,71,280. Therefore, the petitioner approached the court seeking the release of these unpaid arrears.

Judgment Details:The judgment delivered by the Karnataka High Court, presided over by Honorable Justice M Nagaprasanna, contains several key points:

Pension as a Right, Not a Privilege: The court emphasized that pension is not merely a privilege but a fundamental right, particularly for elderly individuals. It recognized the essential purpose of pension programs, which is to provide support to individuals in their old age when they may be physically or mentally incapable of providing for themselves.

Responsibility of the Bank: The court criticized the bank for failing to collect the petitioner’s Life Certificate. It stressed that the bank should have visited the petitioner, a centenarian, to obtain the necessary documentation and ensure the timely release of his pension. The judgment highlighted that in some cases, the bank is obligated to take this step, especially when pensioners face genuine challenges due to their advanced age.

Obligation to Avoid Unnecessary Litigation: The court pointed out that the responsibility of the bank officers and relevant authorities is to adhere to guidelines and policies to prevent unnecessary litigation. The case had generated multiple litigations, which the court found avoidable if the bank had fulfilled its duties properly.

Respect for Age-Related Limitations: The court acknowledged that elderly pensioners like the petitioner may face difficulties related to their age, including physical and mental limitations. These limitations can make it challenging for them to meet administrative requirements, such as submitting a Life Certificate.

Protection of Pensioners’ Rights: The judgment underscored that the right to receive a pension should not be taken away lightly. Any actions affecting an individual’s pension rights must be in accordance with the law, and special consideration should be given to the unique circumstances and challenges faced by elderly pensioners.

In summary, the judgment in H. Nagabhushana Rao’s case serves as a reminder of the importance of recognizing pension as a fundamental right, especially for elderly individuals, and emphasizes the responsibility of banks and authorities to support pensioners and ensure that they receive their pensions in a timely and respectful manner, taking into account the challenges associated with old age.

Posted by & filed under Minimum Wages-Jharkhand.

The Government of Jharkhand on October 19, 2023, revised minimum rates of wages for contract workers.The following has been stated: –

Worker Categories: The notification would typically specify different categories of workers based on their skill levels. These categories often include skilled, semi-skilled, highly skilled, and unskilled workers.

Revised Wage Rates: The document would provide the revised minimum wage rates for each category of workers.

The rates are as follows:

Semi-skilled workers: Rs. 11,512.71

Highly skilled workers: Rs. 17,537.58

Unskilled workers: Rs. 10,992.45

Skilled workers: Rs. 15,305.52

Effective Date: The notification would specify the date from which these revised rates become applicable. In your information, it’s mentioned as October 01, 2023.

Legal Authority: The document should cite the relevant legal provisions or acts under which these changes are being made, ensuring that the revised rates comply with labor laws and regulations.

Compliance and Enforcement: The notification may also include information about how employers should comply with these revised rates, the consequences of non-compliance, and any mechanisms for dispute resolution.

Posted by & filed under Election Haryana.

SEC | Haryana:: Orders & Notifications

Notification on Holiday with Wages for Voting in Haryana Date of Notification: October 30, 2023

Date of Designated Holiday: November 5, 2023 (Sunday) Applicable Districts and Wards:

District Sohna:Ward No. 15 of Municipal Council, Sohna, District Gurugram.

District Narnaul:Ward No. 16 of Municipal Council, Narnaul,

District Mahendergarh.District Mahendergarh:Ward No. 01 of Municipal Council, Kaithal.

District Kaithal:Ward No. 05 of Municipal Committee, Rajound.Ward No. 01 of Municipal Council, Kaithal.

District Rewari:Ward No. 11 of Municipal Committee, Bawal, District Rewari.

Purpose: The notification has been issued to provide a “holiday with wages” to all workers and employees who are enrolled as voters in the specified wards of the mentioned districts. This special holiday is granted to enable these individuals to exercise their voting rights in the upcoming elections.

Eligible Workers and Employees: All workers and employees who are enrolled as voters in the specified wards are eligible to benefit from this designated holiday with wages.

Scope: The holiday with wages applies to all shops and commercial establishments within the State of Haryana that employ workers and employees from the mentioned wards.

Date of the Designated Holiday: The holiday with wages will be observed on November 5, 2023, which falls on a Sunday. This choice of day ensures that as many eligible voters as possible can participate in the democratic process without affecting their employment.

Rationale: The purpose of this notification is to encourage and facilitate the participation of eligible voters in the democratic process by ensuring they have the opportunity to cast their votes without any concerns about their work commitments.

Impact: By designating November 5, 2023, as a holiday with wages for these specific wards, the Government of Haryana is taking a step to support and promote democratic participation. Workers and employees in these areas will have the freedom to exercise their right to vote and make their voices heard in the upcoming elections without worrying about their work-related obligations.

The notification reflects the government’s commitment to ensuring that all eligible voters in these wards can play an active role in the electoral process, which is fundamental to a healthy democracy.

Posted by & filed under Compliance -Calendar.

Every month, businesses across India must ensure that they comply with a variety of statutory regulations and requirements, beyond just taxes. These statutory compliances play a crucial role in maintaining the smooth operation of a business, safeguarding employee rights, and adhering to legal and ethical standards.

In this blog, we’ll focus on the key statutory compliances to keep in mind for the month of November 2023.

Conclusion:

Compliance with statutory obligations is essential for businesses to maintain legal and ethical operations in India. Failing to meet these requirements can result in penalties, legal issues, and damage to your reputation. Hence, it’s crucial to have a well-organized compliance calendar that ensures you meet all your obligations. Make sure to stay informed about the latest updates and changes in the legal landscape to adapt your compliance strategies accordingly. With a proactive approach, businesses can navigate the complex web of statutory compliance and continue to thrive while operating within the bounds of the law

Posted by & filed under Labour Welfare -Harayana.

Karma Management Global

It’s great to hear that the Government of Haryana has increased financial assistance in the schemes run by the Haryana Labour Welfare Board. This step aims to provide better support to the labor force in the state. The specific changes mentioned in the notification are as follows:-

Increase in Financial Assistance: The notification announces an increase in the financial assistance provided under various schemes run by the Haryana Labour Welfare Board. Specifically, the financial aid for the Sewing Machine Scheme has been raised from Rs 3000 to Rs 5000. This increase is meant to benefit the labor force in the state.

Occasion of Vishwakarma Jayanti: The decision to increase financial assistance under the Sewing Machine Scheme was made on the occasion of Vishwakarma Jayanti. This is a significant day in the Hindu calendar, celebrated in honor of Lord Vishwakarma, the divine architect and craftsman.

Amendments to Scholarship Scheme: The notification mentions that amendments have been made to the scholarship scheme. It is essential to refer to the attached document or official sources for comprehensive information on the changes made to the scholarship scheme.

State Level Labor Day: The announcement of these changes was made during the State Level Labor Day, which suggests that it was a special occasion to recognize and celebrate the contributions of the labor force in Haryana.The notification reflects the government’s commitment to improving the welfare and support for laborers in the state by increasing financial aid in the Sewing Machine Scheme and making amendments to the scholarship scheme.

To obtain more specific and detailed information, it is advisable to access the complete notification document.

Posted by & filed under Maternity Benefit Act.

Case Background: Dr. Kavita Yadav, a Senior Resident (Pathology), worked at Janakpuri Super Speciality Hospital in Delhi. Her employment was temporary and extendable on a yearly basis, with a maximum tenure of three years. In 2017, she applied for maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act.

Her employer, citing the termination of her contract on June 11, 2017, granted her only 11 days of maternity benefits. Dr. Yadav contested this decision in the Central Administrative Tribunal and later in the High Court but was unsuccessful. The High Court argued that, since her contractual employment was time-bound and ended during her maternity leave, there was no “absence” to warrant full maternity benefits. Extending her leave, according to the High Court, would mean unintentionally extending her contract.

Supreme Court’s Decision:

The Supreme Court provided a detailed explanation of its judgment:

Interpretation of Maternity Benefit Act: The Supreme Court interpreted the Maternity Benefit Act, which is intended to provide maternity benefits to women. It emphasized that the Act uses the term “maternity benefits” and not “maternity leave.” This distinction is crucial.

Eligibility for Maternity Benefits: The Act, specifically in Section 5(2), sets conditions for eligibility for maternity benefits. These include a woman having worked for a certain number of days in the 12 months before her expected delivery. Dr. Yadav met these conditions.

Maximum Duration of Maternity Benefits: The Act also specifies the maximum duration of maternity benefits in Section 5(3), which is 26 weeks. However, there’s no requirement in the Act that maternity benefits must be co-terminus with the employment tenure.

Prohibition on Dismissal During Pregnancy: The Act, under Section 12(2)(a), prohibits an employer from dismissing or discharging a woman during her pregnancy or maternity leave. This means that once a woman fulfills the eligibility criteria, she’s entitled to maternity benefits even if her contract ends during this period.

Legal Precedents: The Supreme Court referred to previous cases, including one involving female muster roll workers, where it was ruled that the Maternity Benefit Act applied to workers employed on a casual basis or daily wages. The Court noted that the Act is in line with constitutional principles and international obligations.

Overriding Effect of the Maternity Benefit Act: Section 27 of the Act states that it prevails over any other law, award, agreement, or contract of service. This reinforces that the Act’s provisions should be followed.

Court’s Decision:Given the above interpretation and the legal precedents, the Supreme Court ruled that Dr. Kavita Yadav was entitled to full maternity benefits under the Maternity Benefit Act, even though her contract had ended.

The Court instructed the employer to provide these benefits within three months from the date of the judgment, and the earlier decisions by the employer rejecting her claim were invalidated.This judgment, delivered by a panel of three judges, was dated August 17, 2023. It clarifies the rights of female employees to maternity benefits and ensures that these benefits are not curtailed due to the termination of their employment contracts during maternity leave