i) the jurisdiction of the forum court is a limited one; ii) the order of discharge or dismissal, as passed, is liable to be challenged before the Industrial Tribunal under the Act; iii) dismissal from service of a driver is justified if he caused the accident due to rash and negligent driving, resulting in the death of 1 person and injuries to 9 persons; iv) when damage caused on account of the accident itself proved that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the workman-driver, not examining an eyewitness or not cross-examining the defence witnesses, are not grounds to vitiate the enquiry; v) while justifying a dismissal order, the past record, indicative of similar departmental actions on several occasions, is an appropriate form of supporting evidence; vi) If material placed on record by the management in a departmental enquiry indicates (prima facie) that the fatal accident took place, the burden of disproving the accident would shift upon the delinquent driver, by proving that the accident took place due to some cause other than his own negligence.
Employees’ State Insurance (Central) Amendment Rules, 2016, proposes to include the following changes: i) The definition of ‘insured woman’; ii) The number of weeks for maternity benefit is to be increased from 12 to 26 weeks.
The Central Government has fixed the INR 350/- per day as the minimum wages that has to be paid to lowest category of workers in the central sphere.
(1) Increase of penalty for contravention of Act from present INR 5000/- to INR 50,000/- which may extend to INR 1,00,000/-. (2) Impose penalty for failure to display provisions of Employee’s. Compensation Act.
(1) Increase the maximum period of maternity benefit from the existing twelve weeks to twenty-six weeks, in case of women who have less than two surviving children and in other cases, the existing period of twelve weeks maternity benefit shall continue. (2) To extend the maternity benefits to a “commissioning mother” and “adopting mother” and they shall be entitled to twelve weeks maternity benefit from the date of child is handed over…
When misconduct of misappropriation stands proved against the delinquent employee, reinstatement cannot be ordered. An employee holding a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, the matter should be dealt with iron hands and not leniently. When an employee is dealing with public money, highest integrity is expected out of the employee.
The Child Labour (Prohibition & Regulation) Act, 1986 has been amended to prohibit employment of children below 14 years of age in all occupations and processes. This prohibition shall not be applicable to those children: (i) who help their family/family enterprise after school hours; and (ii) who work as an artist in an audio-visual entertainment industry, including advertisements, films, television serials or any such other entertainment or sports activities except the circus. Further, the amendment also prohibits employment of adolescents in hazardous occupations and processes. For the point of clarity, the term “adolescents” means persons who have completed their fourteenth year of age, but have not completed their eighteenth year, and “child” means persons who have not completed their fourteenth year of age.
The Supreme Court of India has held that payment of lump sum compensation to workers by the employer is the only appropriate justice, when litigation between the workers and employer has continued for several years in one court or another. Furthermore, in this case, the workers had successfully contested the dispute and since the company had closed, reinstatement was not a possibility.
The Union Cabinet has cleared the Model Shops and Establishment 2016. Some of the main features of the Bill are as follows: (a) It is applicable to establishments employing ten or more workers except manufacturing units; (b) It provides the freedom to establishments to operate 24*7 and 365 days per year; and (c) women can be employed during night shifts, provided, that there are provisions of shelter, restrooms for ladies, adequate protection of their dignity and transportation, etc.
i) er receiving compensation under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS), if the workers want to challenge the same by raising an industrial dispute, they will have to deposit the amount received towards VRS. ii) Non-provision of proper facilities under the Factories Act for the workers is an offence attracting the penalty and imprisonment under the said Act. Further, the employer would still be held liable by a court for his previous acts/omissions, even if the employer starts following the applicable laws during the pendency of the litigation.