:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
__________________________________________________ ______________________
A record of thoughts from Veenavee Prakaashana, Bangalore
October 2007
A PROBATIONER’S SERVICE CAN BE TERMINATED WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON
The Calcutta High Court has stated in its judgment that a probationer’s service can be terminated without giving any reason even before the expiry of the probation period.
The Court also has said that termination of a probationer without assigning any reasons would neither be stigmatic nor punitive.
Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Sudhin Kumar Ghosh Vs Damodar Valley Corporation and another
VALID DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING COMMENCES FROM THE ISSUE OF CHARGE-SHEET
Disciplinary proceeding is not initiated merely by issuance of show cause notice. It is initiated only when a charge- sheet is issued. The Supreme Court of India has reiterated this after referring top its earlier decisions in the case of Union of India etc Vs K V Jankiraman etc and Coal India Limited and others Vs Saroj Kumar Mishra.
Supreme Court of India in the case of UCO Bank and another Vs Rajinder Lal Capoor
TERMINATION FOR CONTINUED ILL-HEALTH IS NOT RETRENCHMENT
In this case an employee of M/s Oberoi met with a road accident, suffered injuries and started absenting from work on account of it. The management waited for a period of 16 months hoping that the employee would recover from the injuries he sustained. Management sent letters and in his reply the employee requested management to wait for another six months that was the period likely to take for his recovery.
Then, the management deputed a medical officer to personally see the employee and assess his medical fitness. The medical officer concluded that the employee would not be able to continue his work even after recovery. On that basis the management terminated the services of the employee on the ground of his continued ill health and medical unfitness to perform duties.
The employee challenged his termination by stating that it was a case of victimization for his involvement in union activities.
On perusal of the facts, first the Labour Court and then the High came to the conclusion that medical unfitness of a person for the post and continued ill health are valid grounds for termination of services in view of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and such termination does not amount to retrenchment.
Delhi High Court in the case of J B Kumar Vs Brijesh Sethi and another
STANDING ORDERS WOULD PREVAIL OVER AGREEMENT
In this case the workman was appointed as an electrician on probation for 6 months from the date of joining and it was liable to be extended or reduced. The appointment order also stated that the workman was not liable to be treated as confirmed unless a letter of confirmation is issued. However, the workman continued for a period beyond 12 months on probation. Later the management terminated the services of the workman treating him to be on probation.
While challenging the termination the workman stated that he has worked satisfactorily and completed the probation period that was never extended. He also stated that under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act the maximum period of probation provided is one year and on completion of the said period of probation the workman is deemed to be automatically confirmed and the Standing Orders being statutory in nature supersedes the terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment.
On hearing the matter the High Court upheld the arguments of the workman.
Allahabad High Court in the case of R P Garg Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another
A RETIRED PERSON IS NOT WORKMAN
In this case the retired employees raised a dispute regarding the revision of their pension.
The Court held that since the retired employees are not workmen the dispute raised by them could not be termed as `industrial dispute’.
If the words `any person’ in the definition of `workman’ under Industrial Disputes Act were intended to include a person who was employed at any point of time and subsequently retired then the latter part of the definition, which contemplates a discharged, dismissed or retrenched employee, would have become redundant and useless and hence a retired person was not intended to be included in the definition of workman- the Court said.
Calcutta High Court in the case Hindustan Lever Limited Vs Fourth Industrial Tribunal and others.
DEMAND FOR ESI CONTRIBUTIONS ON OUTSIDE JOB IS WITHHELD
Earlier during our April-2007 issue we have brought to your notice a copy of the circular issued by the ESI corporation that enabled it to demand ESI contributions from Principle Employer on the job work given to the outside establishments.
Similarly we have informed you about the Court decisions In the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Vs JMD Fashions, settled by the High Court of Karnataka, The Supreme Court of India’s dismissal of a petition of ESIC challenging the decision of Karnataka High Court and the case of National India Rubber Works Limited Vs Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, settled by Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein it has been held under Section 2(13) of the ESI Act the employees of the contractors would not come under the ambit and sweep of “employee” as defined under Section 2(9) of the ESI Act.
Now, on receipt of large number of representations from the employers and their associations the ESI Corporation has decided to refer the questions regarding the claims for ESI contributions on outsourced jobs to a group of Senior Officers to make a thorough study of all aspects concerned and submit its report.
The ESI corporation has decided to withhold further actions in this regard till 30 September 2007.
All the employers are requested to take care while seeking dates for personal hearings or while forwarding their arguments or while taking any decision in this regard.
The ESI Corporation also has felt that Insurance Inspectors are not giving full particulars in their reports and Branch offices are issuing C-18, 45-A order and C-19 for claiming substantial amount.
ENGLISH CONTINUES TO BE THE LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT
Article 348(1) of the Constitution of India provides that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court shall be in English language until Parliament by law otherwise provides.
No law has since been made in this regard by the Parliament. Therefore English continues to be the language for all the proceedings of the Supreme Court.
The Department of Official Language in consultation with the Registry of the Supreme Court has examined the matter of use of Hindi in the proceedings of the Supreme Court. With respect to a reference made by Department of Official Language, the Registrar, Supreme Court of India intimated that the point of introduction of optional use of Hindi in the hearing and proceedings in the Supreme Court has been considered by the full court twice i.e. on 10.4.1990 and 26.9.1996. However, after ascertaining the views of the Bar Council of India, Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Records Association, it was unanimously resolved that it was not practically feasible to introduce Hindi in the proceedings of the Supreme Court on the ground that matters in this court are filed from all parts of the country and Hindi Language is used only in Northern India. If introduced, it will cause great difficulties to the litigants, Judges as well as bar members, particularly to those who hail from Southern region of the country.
Under Article 348(2), the Governor of the State may with the previous consent of the President, authorize the use of the Hindi language or any other language used for any official purpose of the State, in the proceedings of the High Court having its principal seat in that state.
In four states namely Bihar, Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan the use of Hindi language has been authorised for the proceedings of the High Courts.
INCREASING STRENGTH OF JUDGES IN HIGH COURTS
As a result of a triennial review in the year 2006, 106 posts of Judges, subject to concurrence of the respective State Governments, had been approved in various High Courts as per details given below:
Allahabad-65, Andhra Pradesh-27, Calcutta-08, Delhi-01, Karnataka-01, Kerala-01, Punjab & Haryana-02, Madhya Pradesh-02
On the acceptance of the recommendation from the State Governments, 65 posts of Judges in the Allahabad High Court, 1 post in Karnataka and 1 post in Madhya Pradesh have already been created.
MEASURES TO CHECK PENDENCY OF CASES
With a view to check the increasing number of pending cases, the Government has taken the following measures, inter-alia, to facilitate speedy disposal of cases in the courts:
Review of the Judge strength in High Courts from time to time and prompt action for filling the vacancies.
The term of 1562 Fast Track Courts, which were functional in the States as on March 31, 2005, has been extended for another five years i.e. up to March 31, 2010.
With a view to ensuring expeditious disposal of civil cases, the Civil Procedure Code has been amended which, inter-alia, limits the number of adjournments that can be granted to a party to three.
With a view to ensuring speedy disposal of criminal cases, appropriate changes have been made in the Code of Criminal Procedure through Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, inter-alia, introducing the concept of plea-bargaining.
Modernization of the judicial infrastructure through computerization of courts.
Further, with a view to make quick and less expensive justice accessible to the common man at the grass root level, Government has introduced a Bill to establish Gram Nyayalalyas in the rural areas.
A large number of disputes have already been settled and are being settled regularly through Lok Adalat system. The people in general are being made aware of the utility and advantage of resolution of disputes through Lok Adalats.
SUPREME COURT BENCH IN OTHER PARTS OF COUNTRY
The matter of setting up of a Bench of Supreme Court in other parts of the country was taken up again with the Supreme Court for its reconsideration. The Supreme Court informed that after reconsideration of the matter, the Full Court, in its meeting held on August 7, 2007 found no justification for deviating from its earlier resolution on the subject and did not favour setting up of Benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi. The Government does not propose to bring an amendment to the Constitution
AMENDMENT TO PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936
The Parliament of India widened the scope of the Payment of Wages Act, which would cover those drawing wages up to Rs 10,000/- a month against Rs 6,500/- earlier.
A copy of the notification is attached for further reference.
AMENDMENT TO PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965
The Government of India has decided to make amendments to the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and that the amendment would bring the industrial workers drawing wages up to Rs.10,000/- eligible for statutory bonus. However, this would become only after the necessary amendments are carried out as per law.
It may be noted that The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 provides for payment of bonus to persons employed in an establishment or industry employing 20 or more persons, to do any skilled, unskilled, manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work. The bonus is paid on the basis of profits or production or productivity and for matters connected therein. The Act provides for payment of a minimum bonus of 8.33%. The Act is not, however, applicable to government employees who are covered under the Ad-hoc Bonus Scheme administered by the Department of Expenditure.
Eligibility
The Act provides for two types of ceilings known as eligibility ceiling and calculation ceiling for payment of bonus. In 1965 the eligibility limit was Rs. 1600/- per month and the calculation limit was Rs. 750/- per month. This was revised in 1985 making eligibility limit Rs. 2500/- per month and calculation limit Rs. 1600/- per month and subsequently in 1993 it was raised to Rs. 3500/- per month and Rs. 2500/- per month respectively. The last revision was made through an amendment in Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995 and was made effective from April 1, 1993. As such, an ‘employee’ employed in any industry on a salary or wage not exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month is eligible to receive bonus calculated at Rs.2500 per month limit. However, according to Section 12 of the Act, the bonus payable to an employee whose salary or wage exceeds Rs. 3500/- per month, the bonus payable to such employee shall be calculated as if his salary or wages were Rs. 2500/- per month.
Demand for Revision
The Second National Commission on Labour has recommended that the eligibility limit should be increased to Rs. 7500/- per month from the existing Rs. 3500/- per month and the calculation ceiling should be hiked to Rs. 3500/- per month from the existing Rs 2500/- per month. The trade unions have been demanding for abolishing/hiking of the ceilings.
Seized of the matter, the Ministry sought the comments/views of all stake holders, as well as the financial implications on account of proposed hike in the eligibility ceiling to Rs. 7500/- per month from Rs. 3500/- per month and calculation ceiling from Rs. 2500/- per month to Rs. 3500/- per month as recommended by the Second National Commission on Labour (NCL).
The Employers want payment of bonus linked strictly to profits so that loss-making establishments should not be made to pay bonus. The Employees’ unions are for abolishing the ceilings altogether. While not agreeing to the demands of the employees and also in view of the huge financial burden on the establishments in the private as well as in the public sector, the Labour Ministry sent a proposal, as recommended by the Second NCL, to the Ministry of Finance for their comments. This was done since the proposal would also have an impact on the Ad-hoc Bonus Scheme on account of the proposed increase in calculation
Ceiling to Rs. 3500/- per month. The Ministry of Finance agreed to the proposal soon after the Prime Minister discussed the issue during his meeting with Trade Union leaders in August 2006. The Finance Ministry asked the Labour Ministry to take necessary action for amending the Act to hike the ceilings. Now that consultations with all stakeholders have been completed, the proposal was under active consideration of the Ministry.
RETURNS TO BE FILED DURING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2007
Return/Form Under To be Filed on or before To be sent to
Half-Yearly Return ending September [APP-2]
The Apprenticeship Act, 1961 15-10-2007 The concerned department of Employment & Training
Quarterly Return [ER-1] The Employment Exchange (CNV) Act, 1959 15-10-2007 The concerned Employment Exchange
Application for renewal of licence The Factories Act, 1948 30-10-2007 The concerned inspectorate of Factories
Application for renewal of licence The Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970. 31-10-2007 The concerned ALC
Half-Yearly Return ending September The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 12-11-2007 The concerned Local Office Manager
ALL-INDIA AVERAGE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX NUMBERS FOR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS
(BASE 2001=100)
General Index
Year Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2007 127 128 127 128 129 130 132 133
Important Cities
Place Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sept-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07
Bangalore 121 121 132 133 134 135 138 138
Chennai 118 116 121 122 123 125 126 126
Delhi 116 117 125 128 128 128 130 131
Hyderabad 113 113 120 121 122 123 124 124
Kolkata 117 115 128 130 130 130 133 135
Mumbai 122 121 130 132 132 134 136 135
Pune 120 120 132 133 135 136 138 137
LINKING FACTOR WITH PREVIOUS SERIES BASE 1982=100
Important Cities
Place Linking Factor
All India 4.63
Bangalore 4.51
Chennai 4.95
Delhi 5.60
Hyderabad 4.79
Kolkata 5.12
Mumbai 5.18
Pune 4.96
From India, Coimbatore
733__________________________________________________ ______________________
A record of thoughts from Veenavee Prakaashana, Bangalore
October 2007
A PROBATIONER’S SERVICE CAN BE TERMINATED WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON
The Calcutta High Court has stated in its judgment that a probationer’s service can be terminated without giving any reason even before the expiry of the probation period.
The Court also has said that termination of a probationer without assigning any reasons would neither be stigmatic nor punitive.
Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the case of Sudhin Kumar Ghosh Vs Damodar Valley Corporation and another
VALID DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING COMMENCES FROM THE ISSUE OF CHARGE-SHEET
Disciplinary proceeding is not initiated merely by issuance of show cause notice. It is initiated only when a charge- sheet is issued. The Supreme Court of India has reiterated this after referring top its earlier decisions in the case of Union of India etc Vs K V Jankiraman etc and Coal India Limited and others Vs Saroj Kumar Mishra.
Supreme Court of India in the case of UCO Bank and another Vs Rajinder Lal Capoor
TERMINATION FOR CONTINUED ILL-HEALTH IS NOT RETRENCHMENT
In this case an employee of M/s Oberoi met with a road accident, suffered injuries and started absenting from work on account of it. The management waited for a period of 16 months hoping that the employee would recover from the injuries he sustained. Management sent letters and in his reply the employee requested management to wait for another six months that was the period likely to take for his recovery.
Then, the management deputed a medical officer to personally see the employee and assess his medical fitness. The medical officer concluded that the employee would not be able to continue his work even after recovery. On that basis the management terminated the services of the employee on the ground of his continued ill health and medical unfitness to perform duties.
The employee challenged his termination by stating that it was a case of victimization for his involvement in union activities.
On perusal of the facts, first the Labour Court and then the High came to the conclusion that medical unfitness of a person for the post and continued ill health are valid grounds for termination of services in view of Section 2 (oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and such termination does not amount to retrenchment.
Delhi High Court in the case of J B Kumar Vs Brijesh Sethi and another
STANDING ORDERS WOULD PREVAIL OVER AGREEMENT
In this case the workman was appointed as an electrician on probation for 6 months from the date of joining and it was liable to be extended or reduced. The appointment order also stated that the workman was not liable to be treated as confirmed unless a letter of confirmation is issued. However, the workman continued for a period beyond 12 months on probation. Later the management terminated the services of the workman treating him to be on probation.
While challenging the termination the workman stated that he has worked satisfactorily and completed the probation period that was never extended. He also stated that under the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act the maximum period of probation provided is one year and on completion of the said period of probation the workman is deemed to be automatically confirmed and the Standing Orders being statutory in nature supersedes the terms and conditions contained in the letter of appointment.
On hearing the matter the High Court upheld the arguments of the workman.
Allahabad High Court in the case of R P Garg Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited and another
A RETIRED PERSON IS NOT WORKMAN
In this case the retired employees raised a dispute regarding the revision of their pension.
The Court held that since the retired employees are not workmen the dispute raised by them could not be termed as `industrial dispute’.
If the words `any person’ in the definition of `workman’ under Industrial Disputes Act were intended to include a person who was employed at any point of time and subsequently retired then the latter part of the definition, which contemplates a discharged, dismissed or retrenched employee, would have become redundant and useless and hence a retired person was not intended to be included in the definition of workman- the Court said.
Calcutta High Court in the case Hindustan Lever Limited Vs Fourth Industrial Tribunal and others.
DEMAND FOR ESI CONTRIBUTIONS ON OUTSIDE JOB IS WITHHELD
Earlier during our April-2007 issue we have brought to your notice a copy of the circular issued by the ESI corporation that enabled it to demand ESI contributions from Principle Employer on the job work given to the outside establishments.
Similarly we have informed you about the Court decisions In the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Vs JMD Fashions, settled by the High Court of Karnataka, The Supreme Court of India’s dismissal of a petition of ESIC challenging the decision of Karnataka High Court and the case of National India Rubber Works Limited Vs Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, settled by Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein it has been held under Section 2(13) of the ESI Act the employees of the contractors would not come under the ambit and sweep of “employee” as defined under Section 2(9) of the ESI Act.
Now, on receipt of large number of representations from the employers and their associations the ESI Corporation has decided to refer the questions regarding the claims for ESI contributions on outsourced jobs to a group of Senior Officers to make a thorough study of all aspects concerned and submit its report.
The ESI corporation has decided to withhold further actions in this regard till 30 September 2007.
All the employers are requested to take care while seeking dates for personal hearings or while forwarding their arguments or while taking any decision in this regard.
The ESI Corporation also has felt that Insurance Inspectors are not giving full particulars in their reports and Branch offices are issuing C-18, 45-A order and C-19 for claiming substantial amount.
ENGLISH CONTINUES TO BE THE LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS IN SUPREME COURT
Article 348(1) of the Constitution of India provides that all proceedings in the Supreme Court and in every High Court shall be in English language until Parliament by law otherwise provides.
No law has since been made in this regard by the Parliament. Therefore English continues to be the language for all the proceedings of the Supreme Court.
The Department of Official Language in consultation with the Registry of the Supreme Court has examined the matter of use of Hindi in the proceedings of the Supreme Court. With respect to a reference made by Department of Official Language, the Registrar, Supreme Court of India intimated that the point of introduction of optional use of Hindi in the hearing and proceedings in the Supreme Court has been considered by the full court twice i.e. on 10.4.1990 and 26.9.1996. However, after ascertaining the views of the Bar Council of India, Supreme Court Bar Association and the Supreme Court Advocates-on-Records Association, it was unanimously resolved that it was not practically feasible to introduce Hindi in the proceedings of the Supreme Court on the ground that matters in this court are filed from all parts of the country and Hindi Language is used only in Northern India. If introduced, it will cause great difficulties to the litigants, Judges as well as bar members, particularly to those who hail from Southern region of the country.
Under Article 348(2), the Governor of the State may with the previous consent of the President, authorize the use of the Hindi language or any other language used for any official purpose of the State, in the proceedings of the High Court having its principal seat in that state.
In four states namely Bihar, Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan the use of Hindi language has been authorised for the proceedings of the High Courts.
INCREASING STRENGTH OF JUDGES IN HIGH COURTS
As a result of a triennial review in the year 2006, 106 posts of Judges, subject to concurrence of the respective State Governments, had been approved in various High Courts as per details given below:
Allahabad-65, Andhra Pradesh-27, Calcutta-08, Delhi-01, Karnataka-01, Kerala-01, Punjab & Haryana-02, Madhya Pradesh-02
On the acceptance of the recommendation from the State Governments, 65 posts of Judges in the Allahabad High Court, 1 post in Karnataka and 1 post in Madhya Pradesh have already been created.
MEASURES TO CHECK PENDENCY OF CASES
With a view to check the increasing number of pending cases, the Government has taken the following measures, inter-alia, to facilitate speedy disposal of cases in the courts:
Review of the Judge strength in High Courts from time to time and prompt action for filling the vacancies.
The term of 1562 Fast Track Courts, which were functional in the States as on March 31, 2005, has been extended for another five years i.e. up to March 31, 2010.
With a view to ensuring expeditious disposal of civil cases, the Civil Procedure Code has been amended which, inter-alia, limits the number of adjournments that can be granted to a party to three.
With a view to ensuring speedy disposal of criminal cases, appropriate changes have been made in the Code of Criminal Procedure through Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, inter-alia, introducing the concept of plea-bargaining.
Modernization of the judicial infrastructure through computerization of courts.
Further, with a view to make quick and less expensive justice accessible to the common man at the grass root level, Government has introduced a Bill to establish Gram Nyayalalyas in the rural areas.
A large number of disputes have already been settled and are being settled regularly through Lok Adalat system. The people in general are being made aware of the utility and advantage of resolution of disputes through Lok Adalats.
SUPREME COURT BENCH IN OTHER PARTS OF COUNTRY
The matter of setting up of a Bench of Supreme Court in other parts of the country was taken up again with the Supreme Court for its reconsideration. The Supreme Court informed that after reconsideration of the matter, the Full Court, in its meeting held on August 7, 2007 found no justification for deviating from its earlier resolution on the subject and did not favour setting up of Benches of the Supreme Court outside Delhi. The Government does not propose to bring an amendment to the Constitution
AMENDMENT TO PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 1936
The Parliament of India widened the scope of the Payment of Wages Act, which would cover those drawing wages up to Rs 10,000/- a month against Rs 6,500/- earlier.
A copy of the notification is attached for further reference.
AMENDMENT TO PAYMENT OF BONUS ACT, 1965
The Government of India has decided to make amendments to the payment of Bonus Act, 1965 and that the amendment would bring the industrial workers drawing wages up to Rs.10,000/- eligible for statutory bonus. However, this would become only after the necessary amendments are carried out as per law.
It may be noted that The Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 provides for payment of bonus to persons employed in an establishment or industry employing 20 or more persons, to do any skilled, unskilled, manual, supervisory, managerial, administrative, technical or clerical work. The bonus is paid on the basis of profits or production or productivity and for matters connected therein. The Act provides for payment of a minimum bonus of 8.33%. The Act is not, however, applicable to government employees who are covered under the Ad-hoc Bonus Scheme administered by the Department of Expenditure.
Eligibility
The Act provides for two types of ceilings known as eligibility ceiling and calculation ceiling for payment of bonus. In 1965 the eligibility limit was Rs. 1600/- per month and the calculation limit was Rs. 750/- per month. This was revised in 1985 making eligibility limit Rs. 2500/- per month and calculation limit Rs. 1600/- per month and subsequently in 1993 it was raised to Rs. 3500/- per month and Rs. 2500/- per month respectively. The last revision was made through an amendment in Payment of Bonus (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995 and was made effective from April 1, 1993. As such, an ‘employee’ employed in any industry on a salary or wage not exceeding Rs. 3500/- per month is eligible to receive bonus calculated at Rs.2500 per month limit. However, according to Section 12 of the Act, the bonus payable to an employee whose salary or wage exceeds Rs. 3500/- per month, the bonus payable to such employee shall be calculated as if his salary or wages were Rs. 2500/- per month.
Demand for Revision
The Second National Commission on Labour has recommended that the eligibility limit should be increased to Rs. 7500/- per month from the existing Rs. 3500/- per month and the calculation ceiling should be hiked to Rs. 3500/- per month from the existing Rs 2500/- per month. The trade unions have been demanding for abolishing/hiking of the ceilings.
Seized of the matter, the Ministry sought the comments/views of all stake holders, as well as the financial implications on account of proposed hike in the eligibility ceiling to Rs. 7500/- per month from Rs. 3500/- per month and calculation ceiling from Rs. 2500/- per month to Rs. 3500/- per month as recommended by the Second National Commission on Labour (NCL).
The Employers want payment of bonus linked strictly to profits so that loss-making establishments should not be made to pay bonus. The Employees’ unions are for abolishing the ceilings altogether. While not agreeing to the demands of the employees and also in view of the huge financial burden on the establishments in the private as well as in the public sector, the Labour Ministry sent a proposal, as recommended by the Second NCL, to the Ministry of Finance for their comments. This was done since the proposal would also have an impact on the Ad-hoc Bonus Scheme on account of the proposed increase in calculation
Ceiling to Rs. 3500/- per month. The Ministry of Finance agreed to the proposal soon after the Prime Minister discussed the issue during his meeting with Trade Union leaders in August 2006. The Finance Ministry asked the Labour Ministry to take necessary action for amending the Act to hike the ceilings. Now that consultations with all stakeholders have been completed, the proposal was under active consideration of the Ministry.
RETURNS TO BE FILED DURING OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER 2007
Return/Form Under To be Filed on or before To be sent to
Half-Yearly Return ending September [APP-2]
The Apprenticeship Act, 1961 15-10-2007 The concerned department of Employment & Training
Quarterly Return [ER-1] The Employment Exchange (CNV) Act, 1959 15-10-2007 The concerned Employment Exchange
Application for renewal of licence The Factories Act, 1948 30-10-2007 The concerned inspectorate of Factories
Application for renewal of licence The Contract Labour (R & A) Act, 1970. 31-10-2007 The concerned ALC
Half-Yearly Return ending September The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 12-11-2007 The concerned Local Office Manager
ALL-INDIA AVERAGE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX NUMBERS FOR INDUSTRIAL WORKERS
(BASE 2001=100)
General Index
Year Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
2007 127 128 127 128 129 130 132 133
Important Cities
Place Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 Jul-07 Aug-07 Sept-07 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07
Bangalore 121 121 132 133 134 135 138 138
Chennai 118 116 121 122 123 125 126 126
Delhi 116 117 125 128 128 128 130 131
Hyderabad 113 113 120 121 122 123 124 124
Kolkata 117 115 128 130 130 130 133 135
Mumbai 122 121 130 132 132 134 136 135
Pune 120 120 132 133 135 136 138 137
LINKING FACTOR WITH PREVIOUS SERIES BASE 1982=100
Important Cities
Place Linking Factor
All India 4.63
Bangalore 4.51
Chennai 4.95
Delhi 5.60
Hyderabad 4.79
Kolkata 5.12
Mumbai 5.18
Pune 4.96
From India, Coimbatore
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Labour laws.ppt
All the labour laws.doc
Labour Laws.pdf