Considering the principles laid down in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden is on the employee to come out with a case that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period
Copy of judgement
Considering the principles laid down in Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden is on the employee to come out with a case that he was not gainfully employed during the relevant period
Copy of judgement
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, while extending the date for mandatory E-Seeding of Aadhar number with UAN has issued the following interim directions”
Subject to adjudication of the legal issues which have been raised in this petition, the following interim directions are issued:
a) Insofar as the employees qua whom Aadhaar numbers have already been provided to the EPFO are concerned, the provident fund shall be permitted to be deposited by the employers without awaiting verification from the Unique Identification Authority of India. The process of verification shall however continue;
b) Insofar as those persons for whom the Aadhaar number seeding is yet to take place are concerned, the date for completing the seeding and verification shall stand extended till 30th November, 2021. In the meantime, employers shall be permitted to deposit the provident funds in respect of employees for whom seeding has not taken place and no coercive measures shall be taken against them for non-seeding of Aadhaar numbers with UANs. During this period, the EPFO would appoint a Grievance Redressal Officer who can be contacted by the Petitioner’s members or any other employer, to ensure that the deposits are not delayed and are made in a timely manner, in terms of the provisions of the Act and the Scheme.
c) Insofar as the difficulties which were faced by the employers during the period from 1st June, 2021 to 15th June, 2021 during which period the software was amended, are concerned, no coercive measures shall be taken against the employers for the time being in respect of such belated payments until final decision in the present writ petition.
Kindly refer to the judgment
A caretaker/servant, acquires no interest in the subject property irrespective of his long possession.
HIMALAYA VINTRADE PVT. LTD. V Md ZAHID
Copy of the judgement
The Supreme Court in the case of Ranbir Singh v Executive Engineer, PWD has held that in a case where it is found that, though the appellant had worked for 240 days, appellant’s service was terminated, violating the mandatory provisions of Section 25F of the Act and where the employer is a public authority reinstatement cannot be automatic, and the transgression of Section 25F being established, suitable compensation would be the appropriate remedy.
Copy of the judgement
In the case of Somesh Thapliyal v HNB Garhwal University the Supreme Court held that bargaining power is vested with the employer itself and the employee is left with no option but to accept the conditions dictated by the authority. If that being the reason, it is open for the employee to challenge the conditions if it is not being in conformity with the statutory requirement under the law and he is not estopped from questioning at a stage where he finds himself aggrieved.
Copy of the judgement
After Considering it’s earlier decisions on the subject, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of summarised the law on change of date of birth as under:
(i) application for change of date of birth can only be as per the relevant provisions/regulations applicable;
(ii) even if there is cogent evidence, the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right;
(iii) application can be rejected on the ground of delay and latches also more particularly when it is made at the fag end of service and/or when the employee is about to retire on attaining the age of superannuation.
Copy of the judgement
In ESIC v Texamo Industries, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that conveyance allowance paid to employees would not be a wage aa defined under Section 2(22) of the ESIC Act.
The Apex court however added a Caveat that If an employee does not have to incur any expenditure on travel, in that case conveyance allowance would be a wage.
“23. Conveyance Allowance may or may not be payable to every employee. For that matter, House Rent Allowance may also not be paid to all employees. It is immaterial whether an allowance is paid regularly or intermittently depending on exigencies. It is the nature and purpose of the allowance which is relevant.
24. House Rent Allowance cannot possibly be equated to Conveyance Allowance, since House Rent Allowance is not necessarily connected with the employment of an employee. Irrespective of whether a person is employed or not and irrespective of the nature of his employment, he needs shelter.
25. Conveyance Allowance, on the other hand, compensates expenses that might be incurred by an employee for reporting to his usual place of work or to any other place of work, where he may have to report. If an employer were to provide the employee with accommodation within walking distance from his place of work and that employee were not required to go to any other place in connection with his duties under his contract of employment, the employee may not have to incur any expenditure in connection with his employment. In such a case, Conveyance Allowance would be redundant and might be construed as part of allowance consisting wages. In this case, it is not the case of the Corporation that the employees concerned did not need to avail any conveyance expenditure to report for duty to their place of work, or otherwise in connection with their duties under their contracts of employment. Nor is there any such finding. We see no reason why Conveyance Allowance should not be excluded from the definition of wages. ”
Copy of the judgement is attached
In the case of Shabbir Hussain v State of Madhya Pradesh, the Hon’ble Supreme court held that in order to bring a case within the provison of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 IPC
Copy of the judgment is attached
In the case of Birbal v State of Chattisgarh the Supreme Court of India stated that “It is well established that in cases like the present one, the name of the victim is not to be mentioned in any proceeding. We are of the view that all the subordinate courts shall be careful in future while dealing with such cases.”
Copy of the order
In a Suo Motu Writ Petition, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued a slew of directions to the States/UTs to ameliorate the hardships faced by the migrant/unorganised workers. In so far as the Inter-State Migrant Workers Act is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows:
“46………A legislation which has been enacted by the Parliament as a welfare measure for the migrant workers needs to be strictly implemented. The affidavits filed on behalf of different States and Union Territories does not give any facts and figures pertaining to implementation of the Act. Non Implementation of the Act adversely affects the rights of migrant workers. We, thus, are of the view that a direction needs to be issued to the States/Union Territories to register all establishments and license all contractors under the Act and ensure that statutory duty imposed on the contractors to give particulars of the migrant workers is fully complied with. The competent authority while registering the establishments and granting license to the contractors may also impose conditions pertaining service condition, journey allowance and other facilities as set out in Chapter V of the Act. ”
Members are requested to make note of the above and other directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and ensure that the Contractors engaged by them and who have employed Inter-State Migrant Workers comply with the provisions of the Inter State Migrant Workers Act, 1979.
Copy of the judgment
It is a long established fact that a reader will be distracted by the readable content of a page when lookin