Part A: Supreme court judgments
1. Disputes Falling Exclusively Within the Jurisdiction of Statutory Authorities are not Arbitrable
Title: Dushyant Janbandhu v. M/S Hyundai AutoEver India Pvt. Ltd.
Brief Facts
The petitioner, employed as an assistant manager with the respondent from 2019, was asked to resume office work in August 2020 after working remotely due to COVID-19. When the employee refused, the employer issued a show-cause notice, followed by an inquiry and a charge memo for absenteeism and non-cooperation. The employee was ultimately terminated on January 21, 2021. During the disciplinary process, the employee's salary was withheld, leading the employee to file a petition under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, for the disbursement of wages. In retaliation, the employer sought to resolve the dispute through arbitration, invoking the employment agreement. However, the authority dismissed the employer's application, citing that the arbitration clause could not block the employee's statutory claim under the Wages Act. Meanwhile, the employee also challenged his termination before the Industrial Tribunal. The employer, in turn, filed a petition before the Madras High Court under the Arbitration Act, adding a new claim about the employee violating non-disclosure obligations. The High Court appointed an arbitrator, prompting the employee to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court examined the issues and found that the employer's claim about non-disclosure obligations was an afterthought, not part of the original dispute related to termination. It emphasized that the employee's salary withholding dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Authority under the Wages Act, and disputes about the validity of termination were to be adjudicated by the Industrial Tribunal, not through arbitration. Citing the principle of subject-matter arbitrability from its judgment in Vidya Drolia vs. Durga Trading Corporation, the Court ruled that these matters were non-arbitrable, as they were expressly barred by law. The Supreme Court concluded that the employer's attempt to invoke arbitration was an attempt to intimidate the employee from exercising his legal rights, setting aside the Madras High Court's order and awarding the employee INR 5 lakhs in costs.
2. PoSH Inquiry Report Copy Must be Given to the Complainant
Title: Ms. X v. Union of India & Ors. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 284/2020 Order dated December 4, 2024
Brief Facts
The case involves a writ petition filed by Ms. X, a former constable in the Border Security Force (BSF), alleging sexual harassment by a senior officer. She contended that the BSF failed to act on her complaint, compelling her to approach the Supreme Court. The BSF, in its counter-affidavit, stated that two inquiries were conducted: (i) Under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013 ("Sexual Harassment Act"): This inquiry found no substantive evidence against the accused officer, leading to his discharge. (ii) Under the Border Security Force Act, 1968 ("BSF Act"): A fresh inquiry resulted in the accused being punished with 89 days of rigorous imprisonment, forfeiture of five years of service for promotion purposes, and forfeiture of five years of past service for pension calculations. The penalties were imposed, and the accused did not appeal the decision. Ms. X argued that the punishment was insufficient and that the BSF violated Section 13(1) of the Sexual Harassment Act by failing to provide her with a copy of the inquiry report.
Observations of the Court
The Court noted that under Section 13(1) of the Sexual Harassment Act, an inquiry report must be provided to all "concerned parties" within ten days of its completion. The BSF admitted that it did not supply the inquiry report to Ms. X, arguing that she was not the accused and that the inquiry had found no evidence against the officer. However, the Court emphasized that Ms. X, as the complainant and victim, qualified as a "concerned party". Denying her the report constituted a clear violation of the Sexual Harassment Act. The Court imposed a penalty of ₹25,000 on the BSF, payable to Ms. X, for this lapse. The Court observed that the accused officer had already been subjected to significant penalties under the BSF Act, including imprisonment and forfeiture of service benefits. Since the accused chose not to appeal these punishments, the Court deemed them sufficient to address the allegations and maintain discipline within the organization. The Court declined to reopen the issue of punishment severity, highlighting that the BSF had followed its disciplinary procedures under the BSF Act after the initial inquiry under the Sexual Harassment Act. Further, the Sexual Harassment Act does not mandate specific punishments but requires employers to act based on inquiry findings. In this case, the BSF had fulfilled its obligations by conducting a second inquiry and imposing penalties. The Supreme Court upheld the BSF's disciplinary actions as meeting the ends of justice. It acknowledged the procedural violation under Section 13(1) of the Sexual Harassment Act and imposed a penalty of ₹25,000, payable to Ms. X, as compensation for the oversight. With these directions, the writ petition was disposed of, and no further actions were deemed necessary.
3. Absent Employee not Informing Whereabouts to Employer, it can be Treated as Abandonment of Service
Title: Life Insurance Corporation Of India & Ors. v. Om Parkash
Brief Facts
Om Parkash, an employee of Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), was terminated on June 25, 1996, for alleged abandonment of duty under LIC Staff Regulation 39(4)(iii). He had been absent from work without informing his employer since September 25, 1995, and failed to respond to notices sent to his recorded address. LIC issued multiple notices and a chargesheet, but no response was received. The respondent was later found to have joined the Food Corporation of India (FCI) on April 14, 1997. However, this fact was concealed by him when filing a writ petition challenging the termination. The High Court ruled in favour of Om Parkash, stating that the termination was invalid due to the absence of a proper inquiry and granted consequential benefits. LIC appealed to the Supreme Court.
Observations of the Court
The Supreme Court found that LIC's termination of Om Parkash for abandonment of service was justified under Regulation 39(4)(iii) since he had been absent for over 90 days without providing any intimation. The Court examined the provision under Regulation 39(4)(iii), which allows the employer to terminate an employee on the grounds of abandonment if the employee is absent for over 90 consecutive days without prior leave or intimation. The regulation includes an explanation stating that an employee is deemed to have abandoned their service in such cases, and proper notice sent to the last known address or affixed on the office notice board is considered valid service of communication. LIC complied with these provisions by issuing multiple notices and ultimately treating Om Parkash's extended absence as abandonment. The SC further noted that, The High Court had faulted LIC for failing to conduct a departmental inquiry before terminating the respondent. The Supreme Court, however, highlighted that the prolonged absence and lack of communication made holding an inquiry practically impossible. The Court emphasized that the respondent's failure to disclose his employment with FCI in his writ petition amounted to suppression of material facts. Consequently, the High Court's decision to grant relief was deemed erroneous. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's ruling, upheld LIC's termination order, and ruled that Om Parkash was not entitled to equitable relief due to his misconduct and lack of transparency. The appeal by LIC was allowed.
4. Disciplinary Proceedings Proposing to Impose Penalty Must be Supported by Evidence
Title: Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Brief Facts
The Appellant serving as Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax in Ghaziabad, faced disciplinary proceedings following a charge sheet. An inquiry was conducted, and a report was submitted and the Disciplinary Authority ("DA") issued a show-cause notice, to which the Appellant responded. The DA imposed a penalty, including censure and stoppage of two grade increments. The Appellant challenged the penalty before the State Public Services Tribunal, which quashed the penalty, finding the inquiry proceedings flawed. The State of Uttar Pradesh filed a writ petition in which the Allahabad High Court restored the penalty. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court's decision.
Observations of the Court
The SC found that the penalty imposed on the appellant violated Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, which mandates the recording of oral evidence in major penalty cases. The Inquiry Officer failed to examine witnesses and relied solely on documentary evidence, contravening legal precedents. The Court emphasized that charges in disciplinary proceedings must be supported by oral evidence, not just documents, and that an ex-parte inquiry must still ensure proper examination of evidence. The Court held the disciplinary proceedings void and restored the Tribunal's order, quashing the penalty. It further directed payment of the Appellant's monetary benefits with interest if delayed. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's judgment was set aside.
5. Workplace Decisions Do Not Amount to Abetment of Suicide
Title: Nipun Aneja & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Brief Facts
The Appellants were charged with the abetment of suicide of an employee of Hindustan Lever Limited ("HLL"). His brother filed an FIR alleging that the deceased was harassed and coerced by senior HLL officers to accept a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), perceived as a Compulsory Retirement Scheme (CRS). Witnesses stated that during a meeting on the day of his death, convened by the accused officers, the deceased was publicly humiliated and assigned to merchandising duties, a perceived demotion. Following the meeting, the deceased was found dead in his hotel room. The police charged the accused under Section 306 IPC, citing abetment of suicide. The High Court had refused to quash the proceedings, citing a direct link between the alleged humiliation and the death of the deceased. The Appellants contested the proceedings, arguing their actions did not meet the legal threshold for abetment.
Observations of the Court
The SC held that abetment under Section 306 IPC requires a direct or proximate act of instigation, incitement, or aiding, coupled with clear intent. It found no evidence that the Appellant's actions were intended to provoke suicide, noting that workplace decisions and reassignment alone do not constitute abetment. Concluding that no prima facie case was made out, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the proceedings.
Part B: High Court Judgements
1. Stigmatic Termination Without Due Process of Law Declared Illegal
Title: Dr. Prabhanshu Shrivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was appointed as a Dental Surgeon in the Department of Medical Health and Child Welfare, Uttar Pradesh, following a recruitment process. Prior to this, he had joined an MDS course at Government Dental College. After receiving the appointment, the Petitioner sought study leave, which was denied due to his probationary status. On December 20, 2021, he was informed of his termination, effective November 30, 2021, for unauthorized absence since October 11, 2020. The termination was issued under the Uttar Pradesh Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 ("the Rules"), citing abscondence from duty. The Petitioner challenged the termination, stating that he was appointed to a permanent post, not a temporary one, and that the termination rules were inapplicable and further argued that the termination order was issued without notice or a hearing.
Observations of the Court
The HC of Allahabad held that the termination of the Petitioner was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It found that the Petitioner was substantively appointed to a permanent post after following due selection procedures, and hence, the invocation of the Rules was inapplicable. The Court also observed that the termination order was stigmatic in nature, as it alleged unauthorized absence and absconding from duty, thereby adversely affecting the Petitioner's reputation and future employment prospects. As such orders require prior notice and an opportunity for hearing under principles of natural justice, which were not afforded in this case, the termination was held to be unsustainable. The termination order was quashed by the Court.
2. Proper Constitution of ICC and Preventive Measures for PoSH Act Compliance is Mandatory
Title: Dr. Supraja, Dr. Reshmi M. Nair and L.C. Vanitha v. State and Central Government Authorities
Brief Facts
Three Petitioners raised issues related to sexual harassment at their respective workplaces and the institutional failures in addressing such complaints. The first Petitioner, reported multiple instances of sexual harassment involving students and interns and alleged that the principal of the institution engaged in retaliatory measures, leading to her suspension on fabricated charges. Her suspension was later revoked following an inquiry, which revealed inconsistencies in the principal's claims. The second Petitioner lodged a formal complaint against her superior for inappropriate conduct, asserting that the institution failed to follow the mandatory provisions of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013 ("PoSH Act"), as no Internal Complaints Committee ("ICC") was constituted to investigate her case. The third Petitioner, was subjected to disciplinary action for allegedly filing a false complaint of harassment. She contended that the ICC investigating her case was improperly constituted, lacking the external member mandated by the PoSH Act, thereby rendering its findings invalid. The Petitioners argued that institutional mechanisms failed to provide effective redressal, shielded the alleged perpetrators, and subjected complainants to secondary victimization through retaliatory actions and punitive measures.
Observations of the Court
The Madras HC held that the institutions involved failed to adhere to the statutory requirements under the PoSH Act, including the proper constitution and functioning of ICC. It noted that ICCs were either improperly constituted, biased, or entirely absent, violating the complainants' right to a fair inquiry. The Court criticized the institutional insensitivity towards the complainants, including retaliatory measures such as suspension, false accusations, and disciplinary actions. It emphasized the importance of providing a safe working environment and ensuring that complaints of harassment are addressed in a timely, impartial, and transparent manner. It further directed that all workplaces, including those under government and private ownership, ensure the proper constitution of ICCs with mandatory external members, conduct regular training programs on the PoSH Act, and take preventive measures against retaliation towards complainants and their supporters. The Court stressed the need for strict compliance with the PoSH Act to prevent secondary victimization and ensure justice for victims of harassment.
3. Termination of Employee for Unauthorized Absences Confirmed
Title: Bikramjit Debbarma v. The State of Tripura & Ors.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner was employed as the Deputy Secretary at the Tripura Board of Secondary Education (TBSE). The Petitioner's employment was marred by three separate periods of absence. The Respondents (TBSE) considered these absences as unauthorized and initiated disciplinary action against him. The Petitioner was issued a memorandum regarding his absences and was asked to submit an explanation. The Petitioner provided his explanation for the unauthorized absences, but the authorities deemed it unsatisfactory, leading to the matter being referred to the disciplinary committee for further review. The disciplinary committee, after considering the Petitioner's explanation, found that the Petitioner had committed serious irregularities due to his prolonged and unauthorized absences. Based on this finding, the committee recommended his termination. The competent authority, acting on this recommendation, passed a termination order.
Observations of the Court
The Hon'ble High Court of Tripura ("HC") found that the Petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities to explain his absences and that the show-cause notices and personal hearing were in line with the principles of natural justice. The HC stated that while unauthorized absence could be excused in certain situations, the Petitioner had failed to provide corroborative evidence to support his claim. Additionally, the Court confirmed that the termination was issued by the competent authority under the appropriate rules, and there was no violation of the relevant procedural provisions.
The HC held that the termination order was lawful, as the Petitioner had been adequately informed of the charges and given a fair chance to defend himself. The Court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision to terminate the petitioner, affirming that the actions taken were consistent with the TBSE rules and the principles of natural justice. The writ petition was dismissed, and the termination order was upheld.
4. During Suspension Employer-Employee Relationship Remains Intact
Title: Dr. Gyanvati Dixit v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Brief Facts
The Petitioner, after her previous suspension was quashed by the Court challenged her new suspension order. The Petitioner argued that the second suspension is invalid because it was issued without her formal reinstatement following the quashing of the first order. She contended that once the suspension was quashed, the employer-employee relationship was restored, and she could not be suspended again without reinstatement. She challenged the second suspension on the grounds that it was issued under Section 16G(5)(b) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, which applies only when disciplinary proceedings have been initiated, but no such proceedings were initiated in her case.
Observations of the Court
The Allahabad HC held that during the period of suspension, the employer-employee relationship does not terminate but is merely suspended. Suspension does not end the employment relationship; rather, it prohibits the employee from discharging duties. The Court also stated that once the earlier suspension order was quashed, the employer-employee relationship remained intact, and there was no requirement for a formal reinstatement order before issuing a fresh suspension order. Therefore, the lack of a formal reinstatement order did not vitiate the legality of the subsequent suspension order.
The Court further held that the suspension order was validly passed under both Section 16G(5)(a) and (b) under the Act of 1921, and the serious charges against the Petitioner justified the suspension under these provisions. The Court, therefore, dismissed the writ petition, holding that the second suspension order was in accordance with the law.
5. Pending Criminal Case Unrelated to Official Duty is Not Sufficient Ground for Withholding of Employee's Retiral Benefits
Title: Sunita Dixit v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors.
Brief Facts
The petitioner ("Employee") was appointed as a librarian by the respondent ("Employer") in 1985. The Employee was convicted of abetment of suicide and was sentenced to six years of rigorous imprisonment in the year 2000. The Employee preferred an appeal against this conviction which was pending for final adjudication. The Employee retired from service in 2022, however, all the retiral benefit accruable to the Employee were withheld stating that the same would be subject to the final outcome of the criminal appeal filed by her. The Employee requested the Employer to grant provisional pension and other retiral benefits accruable to her in accordance with law, but no heed was paid to her request. Aggrieved by this, the Employee reached out to the Hon'ble HC in the present writ petition.
Observations of the Court
The Hon'ble High Court, referencing earlier judgments like Mahesh Chandra Soni vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and H.R. Choudhary vs. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors., reaffirmed that pension and gratuity are earned rights of an employee and cannot be withheld for matters unrelated to official duties. It emphasized that a retired employee, dependent on superannuation benefits for livelihood, faces severe hardship if deprived of these rights arbitrarily. Withholding full pension and gratuity due to personal legal matters unrelated to the employee's professional responsibilities is thus deemed both arbitrary and illegal. Examining Rule 90, which provides for provisional pension during pending proceedings, the Court clarified that the term 'judicial proceedings' applies only to matters related to the employee's official duties. In this case, the employee's conviction under Section 306 IPC arose from a family dispute, unrelated to her office duties. The Court noted her 37 years of unblemished service and ruled that withholding her retirement benefits for unrelated criminal proceedings violates her fundamental right to life, deeming such action unjustified.
6. Employees Earning Much More Than Minimum Wages Cannot Claim Overtime
Title: Surat Municipal Corporation v. The Secretary Sudhrai Majdoor Union (Lal Vatva)
Brief Facts:
The employees in the present case were working in different roles with the fire fighting and emergency department of the Appellant-Municipal Corporation ("Corporation") in a 24-hour shift. In the year 1989, the Respondent-Trade Union ("Union") demanded overtime pay for these 24-hour shifts, in response to which the Corporation offered other benefits to the employees such as special longer duty allowances, risk allowances, rent-free housing, and electricity allowances. Such allowances and amenities which have extended to the workers or employees of the Fire Department have not been extended to any other employee of any other Department. In the year 1993, after various demands from the Union, the employees were given an option to continue with the 24-hour shift working along with all the benefits or a new 8-hour shift without the captioned benefits. However, none of the employees opted for the 8-hour working shift. In the year 1999, the Union demanded 8 hours of work shift, and finally, a consensus was reached between Union and the Corporation for a 12-hour work shift, effective from 2001. In 2002 the Union changed its stance and demanded overtime for any hours worked beyond the standard 8 hour a day shift under the provision of Section 14 of the Act. A settlement was reached between the parties, and 12-hour shift was altered to 8 hour shift with effect from 2017, but no consensus was reached on the issue of overtime.
Observations of the Court
Upon deposition of witnesses, it was observed that for the shift of 12 hours, none of the employees were working continuously for 12 hours, and in fact, none of the employees of the Fire Brigade Department were working for more than 8 hours a day. To answer the question of overtime, the Hon'ble HC relied upon a Supreme Court ("Hon'ble SC") ruling titled Municipal Council, Hatta Vs. Bhagat Singh and Ors. In this case, the employees demanded overtime under Section 14 of the Act, despite receiving wages above the applicable minimum wages. The Hon'ble SC broke down Section 14 of the Act, holding that to claim overtime, two essential requirements must be fulfilled by the employees: firstly, their wages must be fixed at the prescribed minimum wages under the Act, and secondly, such an employee must work on any day in excess of the number of hours constituting a normal working day. The Hon'ble SC ultimately held that the employees cannot be described as employees receiving a minimum rate of wages fixed under the Act since they are receiving much more, and therefore, Section 14 has no application to them.
Relying upon the Municipal Council Hatta (Supra), the Hon'ble HC held that in the present case also, the employees are being paid more than the minimum wages as stipulated under the Act, and further, there is no proof on record to show that the employee was actually working more than 8 hours a day. Therefore, the Hon'ble HC concluded that the provision to Section 14, which expressly directs payment of overtime to the employees who are getting the minimum rate of wages under the Act, does not apply to the present case, and the employees are not eligible to receive any wages for overtime.
7. Determining Principal Employer's Liability for Payment of Gratuity in Contract Labour Arrangements
Title: Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay v. Tanaji Babaji Lad and Ors.
Brief Facts
IIT Bombay filed various writ petitions in the Bombay High Court ("Hon'ble HC") challenging the orders of the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai, ("Controlling Authority") which directed IIT Bombay to pay gratuity to several contract labourers. The Appellate Authority and the Deputy Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai upheld these orders, which have also been challenged in this case. IIT Bombay, which is a premier research and educational institute, had employed regular staff and engaged contractors to supply additional manpower for various projects. The respondents, Tanaji Babaji Lad, Dadarao Tanaji Ingle, and Raman Sukar Garase, were contract labourers provided by different contractors. They claimed gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 ("PG Act") from IIT Bombay, asserting long-term employment through multiple contractors. IIT Bombay denied any employer-employee relationship, stating the respondents were employees of the contractors.
Observations of the Court
The Hon'ble High Court examined the respondents' employment at IIT Bombay, noting their long-term, continuous service at the institute despite changes in contractors. Unlike the contractors' employees in Cummins (I) Ltd. v. Industrial Cleaning Services and Others , ("Cummins (I) Ltd") who were supervised by the contractor, the respondents in this case were directly supervised by IIT Bombay officials and did not travel with contractors to other organizations. The Court emphasized that this consistent employment and oversight by IIT Bombay established the institute as the de facto employer under the PG Act, distinguishing the facts from Cummins (I) Ltd. where the contractor was deemed the employer.
The Court also addressed the jurisdiction of the Controlling Authority under the PG Act, affirming its power to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the existence of an employer-employee relationship, as supported by judgments like State of Punjab v. Labour Court, Jullundur and Ors. . Furthermore, it observed that IIT Bombay's work orders to contractors did not explicitly assign gratuity payment responsibilities to them, unlike provident fund and ESI contributions. Considering the respondents' uninterrupted employment for 20 to 39 years and the lack of explicit contractor responsibility for gratuity, the Court concluded that IIT Bombay was the real employer responsible for gratuity payments under the PG Act.
8. Cash Canteen Subsidy Forms Part of Dearness Allowance
Title: IPCL Employee Association (Bhartiya Majdoor Sangh) v. Reliance Industries Ltd.
Brief Facts
A dispute arose between the appellant, IPCL Employees Association ("Association"), and the respondent Company, regarding the EPF contribution for the canteen subsidy paid to the members of the Association at a rate of INR 475 per month. In 1995, a settlement was reached under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act"), which included a clause increasing the canteen subsidy from INR 300 to INR 475. However, it did not specify whether the canteen subsidy would be classified as part of basic wages or dearness allowance. Subsequently, the dispute was brought before the Employees Provident Fund ("EPF") authorities. After hearing both parties, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ("RPFC") concluded that the cash canteen subsidy should be considered as part of the dearness allowance and therefore subject to EPF contributions. Consequently, the Company was held liable for contributing the relevant amount under the EPF Act.
The Company then filed a review application challenging the RPFC's order, but the application was rejected. Following this, the Company appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal. The matter then went to the single judge bench of Hon'ble HC, who allowed the petition filed by the Company and set aside all the previous orders. Aggrieved by this decision, the Association approached the division bench of the Hon'ble HC to redress the matter.
Observations of the Court
The Hon'ble High Court analyzed the Bombay High Court's decision in Tata Power Company Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to clarify the scope of the term "cash value of any food concession." It noted that the provision of subsidized food is a prerequisite to calculating the cash value of the concession. Unlike in the Tata Power case, where no food was provided, the present case involved the supply of subsidized food through canteens, making the cash canteen subsidy fall within the ambit of "cash value of any food concession." The Court also highlighted that the company's revision of food rates was linked to the cost of living, making the subsidy an interconnected component of dearness allowance under the deeming fiction created by the legislature.
The Court further observed that the subsidy was not universally available to employees, as it was forfeited during leave and relied on employees' choice to avail it, disqualifying it as an "emolument" or part of basic wages under Section 2(b) of the EPF Act. The Court held that the cash canteen subsidy qualifies as "cash value of any food concession" under Explanation 1 to Section 6 of the EPF Act and forms part of dearness allowance, making it subject to provident fund deductions. The Court quashed the Single Judge's judgment and directed the company to comply with the order within three months.
Part C: Recent Developments In Labour & Employment Law In India
1. The Government of West Bengal, has issued Notification regarding Online and Compliance Dashboard in West Bengal
On October 1, 2024, the Government of West Bengal issued a notification regarding the establishment of an Online and Compliance Dashboard. This initiative aims to enhance transparency and streamline the process of compliance with various labour laws in the state. It serves as a centralized platform for businesses, workers, and regulatory authorities, offering real-time tracking and information on applications and compliance status. It covers areas such as registration, renewal of licenses, and timely updates on statutory dues.
The dashboard is part of the state's efforts to improve governance under the framework of the Business Reform Action Plan 2024. It facilitates easier access to relevant labour law information for all stakeholders, ensuring that businesses can remain compliant with labour regulations while promoting a more efficient and transparent environment. The dashboard will also help track the approval timelines of applications, the number of received applications, and statutory fee payments.
2. The Employees Provident Fund Organization has issued a Circular regarding the utilization of Reserves and Surplus for crediting interests to the existing trust beneficiaries
On October 7, 2024, the Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) issued a circular providing guidance on the utilization of reserves and surplus funds held by exempted establishments entities that manage their own provident fund trusts under EPFO guidelines. The notification addressed the specific scenario where these establishments sought to use such funds to credit interest to beneficiaries at rates exceeding those declared by the EPFO. The circular clarifies that while exempted establishments maintain reserves and surplus funds to ensure financial stability and fulfil future liabilities, these funds cannot be distributed among current beneficiaries. This decision comes after detailed deliberations by the EPFO, emphasizing the principle that such reserves are intended for the long-term sustainability of the provident fund trust rather than for immediate distribution. Allowing such usage, as per the EPFO, could undermine the financial soundness of the trust, potentially jeopardizing the interests of future beneficiaries.
3. The Government of Haryana has issued Order regarding EODB online dashboard.
On October 15, 2024, the Government of Haryana issued an office order introducing an online dashboard to enhance transparency in applications filed under various labor laws. This initiative, part of the Business Reform Action Plan 2024, aims to improve the ease of doing business by providing real-time updates on applications, anticipated timelines for approvals, registrations, renewals, and statutory fees payable. It covers labor laws such as the Contract Labor (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1958, Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996, Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1979, and the Factories Act, 1948. The dashboard will be accessible in the public domain and is designed to promote transparency and accountability in labor law compliance. The initiative also aligns with the nationwide rollout of the new labor codes.
4. The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment has issued Notification of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Amendment) Rules, 2024.
On October 16, 2024, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment introduced amendments to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, introducing a colour-coded Unique Disability Identity (UDID) Card system. The new system categorizes disabilities into three bands based on severity:
a) White Band Cards for disabilities below 40%
b) Yellow Band Cards for disabilities ranging between 40%-79%
c) Blue Band Cards for disabilities of 80% or above. This classification aims to improve recognition, support, and service delivery for individuals with varying levels of disability.
The amendments also enhance the application process for disability certification and UDID cards by allowing Aadhaar to serve as proof of identity and address. Further, the issuance of disability certificates and UDID cards must now occur within three months of diagnosis, ensuring timely documentation. To address delays in the application process, the revised rules specify that any application pending for over two years, for reasons not attributable to the medical authority, will be deemed inactive. Applicants in such cases must either submit a fresh application via the UDID portal or request the medical authority to reactivate the pending application.
5. The Government of Haryana, has released Letter regarding submission of Annual Report under Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013
The Government of Haryana has issued a letter dated 4th November 2024) outlining the submission process for the annual report under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition, and Redressal) Act, 2013. According to the letter, all organizations (both government and private) are required to submit their annual report, which must cover details of complaints, actions taken, and the number of cases of sexual harassment reported at their workplaces. The submission is required by February 28, 2025.
The report must follow the guidelines outlined by the government and be submitted via email to the designated email address. It is important for organizations to adhere to the deadlines and submit accurate reports to avoid non-compliance penalty of Rs. 50,000.
6. The Employees Provident Fund Organization, has issued Circular regarding UAN Activation and Seeding of Bank Account with Aadhaar for availing the benefits under ELI Scheme.
The Employees' Provident Fund Organization (EPFO), via a circular on November 22, 2024, has mandated the activation of Universal Account Numbers (UAN) and seeding of Aadhaar with bank accounts for employees eligible under the Employment Linked Incentive (ELI) Scheme, introduced in the 2024 Union Budget. This directive aims to ensure the smooth disbursement of benefits under the scheme through the Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) mechanism. The ELI Scheme has been introduced with the objective of fostering employment generation within the formal sector of the workforce. It primarily targets first-time employees, aiming to provide them with opportunities for professional growth and integration into the workforce.
Under the circular, all employees covered by the EPFO, particularly those joining in the current financial year, must have their UAN activated and linked with Aadhaar by December 15, 2024 (an extension from the original deadline of November 30, 2024, through a circular published on 4th December, 2024). Further, by way of a circular dated 20 December 2024, the EPFO has extended the earlier deadline of 15 December 2024 for UAN activation and linking Aadhaar numbers with employees' bank accounts to 15 January 2025 to provide additional time for compliance. This activation enables employees to access multiple EPFO services, such as viewing provident fund passbooks, filing online claims, and updating personal details.
7. Kerala extends the validity period of factory licenses to 10 years
Through a notification dated November 23, 2024, published in the Official Gazette, the Government of Kerala has amended Rule 7(5) (pertaining to the renewal of factory license) of the Kerala Factories Rules, 1957 (Kerala Rules), extending the validity period of factory licenses to a maximum of 10 years. Previously, under Rule 7(5) of the Kerala Rules, the validity period for factory licenses was limited to a maximum period of 5 years.
8. The Government of Kerala, has issued Notification of the Kerala Factories (Amendment) Rules, 2024.
The Government of Kerala, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 112 of the Factories Act, 1948, has promulgated the Kerala Factories (Amendment) Rules, 2024, through notification on November 27, 2024. These amendments, which come into force immediately, are intended to enhance administrative efficiency and provide relief to factories experiencing financial or operational difficulties.
An amendment pertaining to Rule 8(3), regarding the requirement for payment of transfer fees for factory licenses has been revised. Under the amended rules, the reference to Appendix II has been substituted with Appendix III, and a new proviso has been introduced. This proviso exempts factories from paying transfer fees in cases where they are closed and subsequently taken over by another entity due to specific reasons such as financial crises, insufficiency of raw materials, unsold products rendering operations non-profitable, labor shortages, industrial disputes, or environmental constraints. This exemption is applicable only upon certification by a competent authority, and only a nominal amendment fee will be applicable.
9. The Government of Karnataka, has released Notification of the Unorganized Workers Social Security (Karnataka) (Amendment) Rules, 2024.
The Government of Karnataka, through a notification on December 3, 2024, has amended the Unorganized Workers Social Security (Karnataka) (Amendment) Rules, 2024. This amendment introduces modifications to the existing regulatory framework governing social security measures for unorganized workers within the state. The enhances compliance with the broader mandates of the Unorganized Workers' Social Security Act, 2008, and addresses gaps and challenges in the implementation of social security schemes. The amended rules outline the procedures for identification, registration, and inclusion of unorganized workers within the ambit of social security schemes. They establish updated criteria for eligibility, the modalities for availing benefits, and the respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders, including workers, employers, and governmental agencies. Additionally, the notification incorporates mechanisms to streamline administrative processes, ensuring better monitoring and delivery of benefits such as health insurance, old-age pensions, maternity benefits, and other welfare provisions.
Emphasis has been placed on leveraging technology to create a unified digital registry for unorganized workers, facilitating real-time updates and transparency. The amendments also propose grievance redressal mechanisms to address disputes or complaints regarding the administration of these benefits.
Part D: Foreign Developments
Singapore: Legislation for Platform Workers Set to Take Effect
The Platform Workers Act 2024, set to take effect in January 2025, will regulate platform services such as on-demand delivery and ride-hailing. The Act introduces a new category of workers, known as Platform Workers, specifically for those employed by platform service providers. It aims to enhance protections for Platform Workers in three key areas: ensuring housing and retirement adequacy through Central Provident Fund contributions from both platform operators and workers; providing financial compensation for work-related injuries; and establishing a legal framework for platform worker representation.
This legislation marks a significant milestone in Singapore, creating a distinct labour category for ride-hailing drivers and delivery workers. By offering strengthened protections, it seeks to address the unique challenges faced by Platform Workers and improve their overall welfare and security.
Brazil: Constitutional amendment proposal to end the 6 days per week work schedule
A Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC) seeking to replace the 6x1 work schedule with a 4x3 model has been proposed in Brazil. This new schedule would consist of four workdays followed by three days off, capping work hours at eight per day and 36 per week. Currently, the Constitution permits a 44-hour workweek with up to eight hours per day, allowing flexibility through individual or collective agreements. Hilton's proposal aligns with a global movement to reduce working hours, aiming to promote a better balance between professional and personal life, while enhancing workers' health and quality of life.
The 6x1 schedule, commonly used in industries such as hospitality, pharmacies, and restaurants, is supported by existing laws that allow for a 44-hour workweek. If approved, the proposed PEC could bring significant changes to these sectors, altering work schedules and labour practices to adapt to the new 4x3 structure.
Ireland: Enhanced Protections for Pregnant Employees and Those on Maternity Leave with Serious Medical Conditions
November 20, 2024, onwards, pregnant employees or employees on maternity leave who are diagnosed with a serious medical condition will have the option to defer all or part of their maternity leave for up to 52 weeks. This applies to conditions that pose a substantial risk to their life or health, including mental health issues, and require extended medical treatment. This change aims to provide greater flexibility and support for employees facing significant health challenges during or after pregnancy. Employers must take proactive steps to align their workplace policies with this new regulation.
Costa Rica: Recognition of Bereavement Leave
Costa Rica has strengthened employee rights with the approval of the "Law to Create Paid Leave for the Death of Workers' Relatives, to Protect the Right to Bereavement." This amendment requires employers to grant paid leave in the event of the death of close relatives. Employees are entitled to three paid days off for the death of parents, spouses, or children, and one paid day off for the death of extended family members such as siblings, grandparents, or in-laws. The law ensures employees' right to mourn while providing a clear framework for employers to follow.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
