Blog

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

The claim in the Arbitration Petition relates to confidential information that the Petitioners say the 1st Respondent an erstwhile employee bound by an employment contract that had confidentiality, non-disclosure and non-compete provisions, set up a competiting business in the name of the 2nd Respondent. She is alleged to have provided the Petitioner’s confidential and proprietary information to her own company.

The Hon’ble High Court granted time limited interim relief to the Petitioner.

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Transmission case, decided on 12th May 2021 has held that no cess would be payable under the BOCW Act for a supply contract. The Supreme Court made the following observations:

“Cess under the Cess Act read with BOCW Act is leviable in respect of building and other construction works. The condition precedent for imposition of cess under the Cess Act is the construction, repair,
demolition or maintenance of and/or in relation to a building or any other work of construction, transmission towers, in relation inter alia to generation, transmission and distribution of power, electric lines, pipelines etc. Mere installation and/or erection of pipelines, equipments for generation or transmission or distribution of power, electric wires,
transmission towers etc. which do not involve construction work are not amenable to Cess under the Cess Act. No information was given or any return filed with the Assessing Officer under the Cess Act or the Inspector under the BOCW Act in respect of the First and Second Contracts, either by UPPTCL or by the Respondent No.1.

54. A contractor who enters into a pure Supply Contract is statutorily exempted from levy under the BOCW Act……”

Copy of the judgement

In a Writ Petition filed by the Retailers Association of India the Bombay High Court made the following observations and issued consequent directions;

“3. One of the major grievance of the petitioner is that though under various SOPs issued by the State of Maharashtra including last SOP dated 13th April, 2021 and more particularly in clause 16, E-commerce is permitted only for supply of essential goods and services, various suppliers are supplying non-essential services also in gross violation of the said SOP dated 13th April, 2021. It is the case of the petitioner that though this violation is brought to the notice of the State Government, no action has been taken till date to stop this ongoing violation.

4. State Government is directed to file affidavit within two weeks from today and to indicate as to whether any incentives which were offered to the hawkers due to their sufferings during pandemic can be offered to the retail traders.

5. The State Government will also indicate the steps already taken or would be taken against those dealers, for supplying various non-essential items in violation of clause 16 of the SOP dated 13th April, 2021, if any. We direct that if the State Government finds any such violation, an action shall be immediately taken against those dealers and to stop such violation. ”

Copy of the order