Dear Respected members,
Some of members are alighted the 'bribe' is not used in public sites, may be it is not correct because public sites are developed mostly share all opinions and solutions of illegal situations, if M.I.L not mentioned this type of words how can we think & solve by all aspects. M.I.L request is 100% correct, even i am also face this type of issues from govt. officials in my experience.
Mr.MIL you are mentioned your employees are not raised any complaints against you, so that you need not worry, just you are approach labour court by good legal lawyer, may be the court issue an award favor to you.
MG Sankar
Dy.Manager-Personnel
AJ Group
From India, Hyderabad
5Some of members are alighted the 'bribe' is not used in public sites, may be it is not correct because public sites are developed mostly share all opinions and solutions of illegal situations, if M.I.L not mentioned this type of words how can we think & solve by all aspects. M.I.L request is 100% correct, even i am also face this type of issues from govt. officials in my experience.
Mr.MIL you are mentioned your employees are not raised any complaints against you, so that you need not worry, just you are approach labour court by good legal lawyer, may be the court issue an award favor to you.
MG Sankar
Dy.Manager-Personnel
AJ Group
From India, Hyderabad
Hello Seniors,
Related to above mentioned query please share any High court judgements or related judgement copies as well.
It will be help other organization as well to deposit the salary in time.
Please share any related judgement copy or case details.
Thanking you,
Regards,
Ashish
From India, Pune
Related to above mentioned query please share any High court judgements or related judgement copies as well.
It will be help other organization as well to deposit the salary in time.
Please share any related judgement copy or case details.
Thanking you,
Regards,
Ashish
From India, Pune
Dear MIL,
If you could have attached the copy of the claim imposed by the inspector in your mail, the CiteHR members would have been in a better position to advise you correctly.The seniors have already explained the provisions contained in the Payment of wages Act,1936. You must be aware that a person can not be panelized without being heard.The Principle of natural justice has to be followed invariably in all such cases.The Principle of natural justice is based on the two legal maxims "Nemo debet essa judex in propria cause" which means no one can be judge of his own cause, "Audi Alteram Partem" which means opportunity of fair hearing to the other side must be afforded.
Section15 of the Payment of wages Act,1936 clearly stipulates that an inspector may apply to an authority under the Act for a direction for claim arising out deduction from wages or delay in payment.The Act further provides that when any application is entertained, the authority shall hear [B]the applicant and the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages shall be given an opportunity of being heard,[B] and, after such further inquiry (if any) as may be without prejudice to any other penalty to which such employer or other person is liable under this Act, direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted.Even in cases of delayed payment , the penalty is much lesser,for which you need to refer to the rules of the State.
From the position explained by you in your mail,it seems that the inspector has been harassing you for some ulterior motive. I am sure the notice, which you have referred in your mail is nothing but it must be a SHOW CAUSE NOTICE mentioning that why a ten times penalty should not be imposed on you.It is advised that you ask all the relevant papers from the inspector connecting to claim of Rs 45 lakhs for seeking a proper & correct advice.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
If you could have attached the copy of the claim imposed by the inspector in your mail, the CiteHR members would have been in a better position to advise you correctly.The seniors have already explained the provisions contained in the Payment of wages Act,1936. You must be aware that a person can not be panelized without being heard.The Principle of natural justice has to be followed invariably in all such cases.The Principle of natural justice is based on the two legal maxims "Nemo debet essa judex in propria cause" which means no one can be judge of his own cause, "Audi Alteram Partem" which means opportunity of fair hearing to the other side must be afforded.
Section15 of the Payment of wages Act,1936 clearly stipulates that an inspector may apply to an authority under the Act for a direction for claim arising out deduction from wages or delay in payment.The Act further provides that when any application is entertained, the authority shall hear [B]the applicant and the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages shall be given an opportunity of being heard,[B] and, after such further inquiry (if any) as may be without prejudice to any other penalty to which such employer or other person is liable under this Act, direct the refund to the employed person of the amount deducted, or the payment of the delayed wages, together with the payment of such compensation as the authority may think fit, not exceeding ten times the amount deducted.Even in cases of delayed payment , the penalty is much lesser,for which you need to refer to the rules of the State.
From the position explained by you in your mail,it seems that the inspector has been harassing you for some ulterior motive. I am sure the notice, which you have referred in your mail is nothing but it must be a SHOW CAUSE NOTICE mentioning that why a ten times penalty should not be imposed on you.It is advised that you ask all the relevant papers from the inspector connecting to claim of Rs 45 lakhs for seeking a proper & correct advice.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
i\'m a retired Joint Commisssioner of Labor and functioned as Authority under PW Act,1936 and Authority under MW Act,1948 etc for 25 years. If you are interested, forward documents online, so that I can draft appropriate reply, on charges basis.
Ramana, 09494481944
chvr75@gmail.com
From India, Hyderabad
Ramana, 09494481944
chvr75@gmail.com
From India, Hyderabad
I agree with our fellow HR professionals views which are valid and authenticated.
I suggest you to please study the notice in detail and talk to a Labour Law consultant in your area and fight it out legally since the notice is already said to have been issued, it will not serve any purpose even if you try to settle the case otherwise. Please inform in this form the outcome of the case even at a later date for our education
Regards
B.Dakshina Murty
From India, Hyderabad
I suggest you to please study the notice in detail and talk to a Labour Law consultant in your area and fight it out legally since the notice is already said to have been issued, it will not serve any purpose even if you try to settle the case otherwise. Please inform in this form the outcome of the case even at a later date for our education
Regards
B.Dakshina Murty
From India, Hyderabad
I wish to upload the Judgement of Delhi High Court in Mittal Engineering and Contractors etc. Though the facts of the reported case and that of MIL differ in many ways. In case of Mittal Engineers, the contractor had paid less wages than the MW. This was found in the inspection by Labour Inspector who issued notice. In the meanwhile, the contractor paid the difference and communicated this fact to the Labour Inspector. Labour Inspector did not verify the payment of difference and filed a claim. The employer filed proof and record of payment which was accepted by the authority, however, on an issue of penalty it imposed twice of the amount of difference amounting to Rs. 4,63,980. This order was challenged in the High Court of Delhi by the Employer and the order was set aside by the HC which observed that the authority has no jurisdiction to impose penalty .
The entire discussion is worth reading.
In the case of MIL, there is no question of less payment but a little delay in payment for which there is no provision of imposing penalty of 10 times. At the most, the Labour Inspector ought have directed the Employer to make payments in time and there should not be delay.
From India, Kolhapur
The entire discussion is worth reading.
In the case of MIL, there is no question of less payment but a little delay in payment for which there is no provision of imposing penalty of 10 times. At the most, the Labour Inspector ought have directed the Employer to make payments in time and there should not be delay.
From India, Kolhapur
The interaction creating the sensitivity that every employer has to be very sensitive on salary pay out. This has build the knowlege that in practical life at times many employer delay few days due to fund planning issue or some long holiday issue or operational efficiency issue. But risk is not very high in this senario. But affected party should persue with propler legal reply so that department will have to act on that logically as per the LAw and not as per the individual perception.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
I require some one elabrate the risk on remittance of cotribtuion of PF and ESI by the employer beyond 15th and beyond 21st respectively but payment reaches departmment with in the month. In a coporate sector while weoperate with multiple service provder controlling this time line practically a challnege.
if employer has not paid the deducted PF and ESI over a period of time what is the impplication for this ubnormal delay.
From India, Bangalore
if employer has not paid the deducted PF and ESI over a period of time what is the impplication for this ubnormal delay.
From India, Bangalore
Hello MIL
The observations made by Mr.Kishore Kulkarni and B.S kalsi have substance.But what I observed is that an Inspector has levied compensation to the extent of ten times the wages,the payment of which has been purported to have been delayed.Even assuming that a ten time compensation has been levied under the Payment of Wages Act, such compensation cannot be levied without taking recourse to proceedings under Sec.15 of P.W.Act. If the proceedings are initiated under Sec.15, then the authority comptent to levy such compensation shallbe one holding not less than a rank of an Assist.Labour Commissioner as per Sec.15(1) but not a Labour Inspector. Even then the compensation cannot be levied without hearing you as per the principles of natural justice where in you could have got the opportunity to expalin teh reasons for the delay.. However you have not said any thing about these facts in your post.The Act itself provides that no direction for payment of compensation need be given if there are bonafide reasons for delayed payment. An order leviying ten times the compensation cannnot be a cryptic order but shall be a resoned order to be passed by a competent authority i.e ALC/RLC/ Presiding Officer of a Labour Court .An order in breach of these conditions is not sustainable. As you have not reererred to any of these facts, it is advisbale to consult a competent advocate to ascertain the validity of the order and to take further necessary action..
B.saikumar
HR & labour law Advsor
From India, Mumbai
The observations made by Mr.Kishore Kulkarni and B.S kalsi have substance.But what I observed is that an Inspector has levied compensation to the extent of ten times the wages,the payment of which has been purported to have been delayed.Even assuming that a ten time compensation has been levied under the Payment of Wages Act, such compensation cannot be levied without taking recourse to proceedings under Sec.15 of P.W.Act. If the proceedings are initiated under Sec.15, then the authority comptent to levy such compensation shallbe one holding not less than a rank of an Assist.Labour Commissioner as per Sec.15(1) but not a Labour Inspector. Even then the compensation cannot be levied without hearing you as per the principles of natural justice where in you could have got the opportunity to expalin teh reasons for the delay.. However you have not said any thing about these facts in your post.The Act itself provides that no direction for payment of compensation need be given if there are bonafide reasons for delayed payment. An order leviying ten times the compensation cannnot be a cryptic order but shall be a resoned order to be passed by a competent authority i.e ALC/RLC/ Presiding Officer of a Labour Court .An order in breach of these conditions is not sustainable. As you have not reererred to any of these facts, it is advisbale to consult a competent advocate to ascertain the validity of the order and to take further necessary action..
B.saikumar
HR & labour law Advsor
From India, Mumbai
You can contact us for solving this matter
Thanks & Regards
Adv. Sanjeev Baliyan
(Sr. Consultant-Labour Laws)
Clairvoyant Management Solutions
Noida
9971589511
Home - Clairvoyant Management Solutions
From India, Pune
Thanks & Regards
Adv. Sanjeev Baliyan
(Sr. Consultant-Labour Laws)
Clairvoyant Management Solutions
Noida
9971589511
Home - Clairvoyant Management Solutions
From India, Pune
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.
No Due Certificate.doc
Govt of Corporate Affairs - Due Date Extension.jpeg