Need Not Choose Between Motherhood And Employment

Posted on January 5, 2019 by Team asklabour

Recently in the matter of Rasitha C.H. vs State of Kerala and Ors. WP. (C) No. 5507/2018, the Hon’ble Kerela High Court has reiterated that benefits of maternity cannot be refused merely on the nature of employment. In the present case in hand, the writ petitioner was working an Assistant Professor in Medical Microbiology on contract basis at the School of Health Sciences, in Calicut University. She had been working with the said institute since…

APPREHENSION OF FUTURE AILMENT – NOT A VALID GROUND TO REFUSE EMPLOYMENT

Posted on November 20, 2018 by Team asklabour

CASE Union of India and Ors. vs. Nenavath Suresh (31.08.2018 – HYHC): MANU/AP/0425/2018 RATIO Mere apprehension about future medical complications cannot be a ground for regarding a candidate as unfit for present employment. BREIF FACTS OF THE CASE The respondent applied for the position of Work Assistant in the Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India; He was appointed in ad hoc service to a position of Work Assistant which was reserved to Scheduled Tribes;…

YET ANOTHER WHIP – FOR A REASONED ORDER

Posted on November 20, 2018November 20, 2018 by Team asklabour

CASE Central Board of Trustees vs Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. – {2018 (8) SCC 443} RATIO In case of the absence of any application of judicial mind to the factual and legal controversy involved and without there being any discussion, appreciation, reasoning and categorical findings on the issue, a writ petition does not deserve to be upheld or reversed. BREIF FACTS OF THE CASE Appellant issued summons u/s 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and…

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK

Posted on November 20, 2018November 20, 2018 by Team asklabour

An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. This was the view laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the matter of State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. The Apex Court observed that India being a Welfare State, it would be nothing but demeaning to deprive any temporary worker here of his/her right to equal pay for…

Impleading of Immediate employers (Contractors) in proceedings under section 45A of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948. (“ESI Act”)

Posted on July 19, 2018January 10, 2019 by Team asklabour

In today’s competitive world employers engaging services of contractors is very common. However, ESIC acts as recovery agents in sending the employers notice u/s 45A of the ESI Act to recover the ESI contributions. ESIC targets outsourcing of service and attempts to recover the ESI Contributions from the principal employer without impleading contractors as a party. Many a times, ESIC contributions are paid by the principal employer, but the record may not be available with…

RETROSPECTIVE RECOVERY POST-RETIREMENT/ SUPERANNUATION BAD IN LAW

Posted on June 14, 2018 by Team asklabour

Petitioner: Grace George Pampoorickal Respondents: Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai and Ors. Court: Bombay High Court Date of Order: 20.04.2018 Citation: WP No. 1010 of 2015 FACTS OF THE CASE: In the present matter, the Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Trained Teacher by the Municipal Corporation in Mumbai in the year 1970. In February 2010 when the Petitioner reached the age of Superannuation, her last drawn salary amounted to Rs. 9200/- (INR). Thereafter…

MATERNITY BENEFITS UNDER THE EMPLOYEES’ STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 AND THE MATERNITY BENEFIT ACT 1961

Posted on June 14, 2018June 14, 2018 by Team asklabour

Who is entitled to Maternity Benefit under the Maternity Benefit Act 1961? Every pregnant woman shall be entitled to, and her employer shall be liable for the payment of maternity benefit at the rate of the average daily wage for the period immediately preceding the day of her delivery, the day of her delivery and any period immediately following that. For claiming maternity benefit though, the woman must have worked for 80 days or more…

MERE FILING OF AN APPEAL SHALL NOT RESULT IN TERMINATION

Posted on May 8, 2018 by Team asklabour

Petitioner: Unnamed Court: Bombay High Court Respondents: Headmistress, Noorul Islam Primary School & Ors. Date of Order: 23.04.2018 Citation: Writ Petition No. 13708 of 2017 Facts The Petitioner in this case was a teacher in a primary school. At the initiative of Respondents No. 1 and 2, the service of the Petitioner was terminated claiming that she had indulged in an extra-marital affair. Aggrieved by this decision of the Respondents, the Petitioner approached the…

REINSTATEMENT WITH FULL BACK WAGES NOT TO BE A MECHANICAL PROCEDURE

Posted on April 11, 2018 by Team asklabour

In cases relating to termination of labour, where such termination is evidently illegal, awarding of reinstatement with full back wages by Courts should not be a merely mechanical exercise and the same shall be done considering the circumstances of the case. The same was held by the Supreme Court in District Development Officer & Anr. vs. Satish Kantilal Amrelia.[1] In the order dated 28.11.2017, the court reasoned that same by considering daily wage workers, who…

EXTENSION OF EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT – NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT

Posted on April 11, 2018 by Team asklabour

The Calcutta High Court was confronted with an important question as to whether ‘extension of an employment contract can be asked as a matter of right’? The Calcutta High Court in this regard has upheld the cardinal principle of service jurisprudence, “an employee holding a post, be it contractual or tenure has no right to ask for automatic extension unless nothing repugnant appears from the letter of appointment”. The above-mentioned contention came before the High…

« 1 2 3 4 … 9 »