The Employee State Insurance Corporation issued a circular whereby the contribution in respect of any employee by the employer shall be due within 15 days of the last day of the calendar month in which the contributions fall due.
One of the highlights of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017 (the “Disability Law”) is the extension of their applicability to private establishments. A private establishment includes a company, firm, cooperative or other society, association, trust, agency, institution, organization, union, factory or such other establishments as the appropriate Government may, from time to time, notify.
The Government had notified the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 on March 28, 2017 and the provisions of the Amendment Act came into force from April 1, 2017. Keeping in view queries received from various quarters, the Ministry of Labour & Employment, on April 12, 2017, had issued certain clarifications on various provisions of Amendment Act.
An appeal filed by an employee against his employer was disposed of, by holding that the employer cannot claim the benefits of an Ex Gratia scheme introduced by the employer, without complying with the conditions incorporated under the said scheme.
The changes proposed through the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 will have a major impact on the health, well-being and growth of the future generation in the country. It will have a positive impact on women’s participation in the labour force and will improve the worklife balance of female workers. The Maternity Benefits (Amendment) Act, 2016 will come into effect as soon as it receives the President’s assent.
This is a welcome step from the Government as not only would we save paper from the perspective of the environment, India would be viewed as a country where compliance of laws is manageable and not cumbersome, therefore, having a direct impact on the ease of doing business in the country.
The Supreme Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings conducted by the employer are liable to be quashed on account of violation of principles of natural justice, which may involve non-application of mind, non-recording reasons in support of finding, non-giving of fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence to the delinquent employee by the enquiry officer of the disciplinary authority.
The Supreme Court ruled that the High/Writ Court can alter the quantum of punishment or the punishment of dismissal of an employee, set by the disciplinary authority, only in exceptional circumstances where punishment awarded is wholly disproportionate, shaking the conscience of the High/Writ Court, such that interference by the High/Writ Court is to take place on the basis of the doctrine of proportionality.
The judgement of the Delhi High Court is specific to the nature of the inquiry reports of the Internal Complaints Committee (“ICC”), set up under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“Act”) to deal with complaints alleging sexual harassment.
Recent rulings: i) It is not sufficient that the alleged misconduct of the employee constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude as per the report of the domestic inquiry. There must be termination on account of the alleged misconduct, which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude, for the gratuity to be denied to such an employee; ii) The High Court cannot interfere with the decision of the disciplinary authority under each and every circumstance, unless it is found that the punishment/penalty awarded by the disciplinary authority/employer is wholly disproportionate – to an extent that it shakes the conscience of the High Court – and compels it to interfere and alter the punishment.