Try for one year for free for up to 49 employees per month.
After the free trial, subscribe at a cost almost equivalent to the paper/distribution cost incurred in Wage Slip distribution & Maintenance.
Call +91 80000 00048 for activating your free trial.
The court addressed the case filed by the Jharkhand Small Industries Association, challenging the Act that mandates 75 percent of jobs with monthly salaries up to ₹40,000 be reserved for local candidates in establishments with 10 or more employees. The court noted, “Prima facie, the State of Jharkhand could not have enacted the impugned law and restrict the right of a private employer to recruit from the open market employees who would receive less than ₹40,000 per month.”
Addressing the legal implications, the court observed, “The State of Jharkhand cannot be permitted to virtually build a wall around its territory and prevent private employers who have a fundamental right to carry on business anywhere in the territory of India from employing persons of their choice skilled to do particular work.”
The court highlighted the potential societal impact of such a law, stating, “If the impugned law is implemented, prima facie, the concept of one citizenship for all citizens who have a domicile in the territory of India, envisaged by Article 5 of the Constitution, and the concept of ‘Fraternity’ mentioned in the Preamble to the Constitution of India, would be defeated.”
Referring to previous judicial precedents, the court emphasized that citizens cannot be discriminated against based on their place of residence. The bench cited the Supreme Court’s observations that “talent is not the monopoly of the residents of any particular State” and that equality of opportunity cannot be dependent on where a citizen resides.
In response to the petition, the court stayed the implementation of the Act, concluding, “For all the aforesaid reasons, it appears that the Act is prima facie manifestly unjust and discriminatory, violates Part III of the Constitution of India, and its implementation is not in public interest.”
Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) members may soon be able to withdraw their Provident Fund (PF) directly via ATMs. Labour Secretary Sumita Dawra made this announcement in an interview with ANI. The Ministry of Labour and Employment is currently upgrading its IT systems to improve services for India’s workforce.
According to Labour Secretary Sumita Dawra, EPFO members, beneficiaries, or nominees will be able to withdraw PF claims conveniently through ATMs. However, reports suggest that withdrawals will be limited to 50% of the total PF balance.
In case of a member’s demise, beneficiaries can also access this feature. To enable this, beneficiaries may need to link their bank accounts with the deceased member’s EPF account. Official confirmation regarding the exact mechanism is awaited.
It was observed by the Bench that the legality of the order of termination is within the jurisdiction of Industrial Tribunal under Section 2(A) of the ID Act as the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court is also to the exclusion of the civil courts and is not arbitrable. As per the Bench, remedies under these statutes were invoked much prior to the
filing of petition under Section 11(6) by the respondent. Reference was also made to the judgment in Vidya Drolia v. Durga Trading Corporation where the principle of subject-matter arbitrability is enunciated. The relevant extracts are as below:
“Having considered the factual background in which the Section 11(6) petition has been filed, we are of the opinion that it is an abuse of process. It was clearly intended to threaten the appellant for having approached the statutory authorities under the PW Act and the ID Act.
The Section 11(6) petition has two facets:
The first relates to disputes that were anyway pending before the statutory authorities, and they related to non-payment of wages and legality and propriety of termination which are non-arbitrable.
The second facet relates to the alleged violation of clause 19 relating to nondisclosure obligation, which was not raised in the show cause notice, inquiry report, chargesheet and termination order and as such is non-existent.
In this lesson you will be introduced to the concept of ‘Natural Justice’. Natural Justice in simple terms means the minimum standards or principles which the
administrative authorities should follow in deciding matters which have the civil consequences. There are mainly two Principles of Natural Justice which every
administrative authority should follow whether or not these are specifically provided in the relevant Acts or rules. Principles are:
Immediate bystander intervention from employees who witness incidents of workplace harassment is vital. Organisations should encourage and train bystanders, starting with these simple tips.
