Dear Respected Members,
Some members have expressed concern that the term 'bribe' should not be used in public forums. Perhaps this viewpoint is not entirely accurate, as public platforms are primarily designed to share all perspectives and solutions, including those related to illegal activities. If M.I.L has not mentioned such terminology, how can we fully understand and address these issues from all angles? I believe M.I.L's request is entirely valid, as I have also encountered similar issues with government officials in my own experience.
Mr. M.I.L, you have stated that your employees have not raised any complaints against you. Therefore, there is no need to worry. I recommend that you seek legal recourse by approaching the labor court with the assistance of a competent lawyer. It is possible that the court may rule in your favor.
Best regards,
MG Sankar
Dy. Manager-Personnel
AJ Group
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
5Some members have expressed concern that the term 'bribe' should not be used in public forums. Perhaps this viewpoint is not entirely accurate, as public platforms are primarily designed to share all perspectives and solutions, including those related to illegal activities. If M.I.L has not mentioned such terminology, how can we fully understand and address these issues from all angles? I believe M.I.L's request is entirely valid, as I have also encountered similar issues with government officials in my own experience.
Mr. M.I.L, you have stated that your employees have not raised any complaints against you. Therefore, there is no need to worry. I recommend that you seek legal recourse by approaching the labor court with the assistance of a competent lawyer. It is possible that the court may rule in your favor.
Best regards,
MG Sankar
Dy. Manager-Personnel
AJ Group
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Seniors,
Regarding the above-mentioned query, please share any High Court judgments or related judgment copies. This will help other organizations to ensure timely salary deposits. Kindly provide any related judgment copies or case details.
Thank you,
Regards,
Ashish
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regarding the above-mentioned query, please share any High Court judgments or related judgment copies. This will help other organizations to ensure timely salary deposits. Kindly provide any related judgment copies or case details.
Thank you,
Regards,
Ashish
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 cannot be penalized 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 esse judex in propria causa" 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.
Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 clearly stipulates that an inspector may apply to an authority under the Act for a direction for a claim arising out of a deduction from wages or delay in payment. The Act further provides that when any application is entertained, the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages shall be given an opportunity of being heard, 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 to in your mail, is nothing but a SHOW CAUSE NOTICE mentioning why a ten times penalty should not be imposed on you. It is advised that you ask for all the relevant papers from the inspector connecting to the claim of Rs 45 lakhs for seeking proper and correct advice.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 cannot be penalized 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 esse judex in propria causa" 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.
Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 clearly stipulates that an inspector may apply to an authority under the Act for a direction for a claim arising out of a deduction from wages or delay in payment. The Act further provides that when any application is entertained, the authority shall hear the applicant and the employer or other person responsible for the payment of wages shall be given an opportunity of being heard, 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 to in your mail, is nothing but a SHOW CAUSE NOTICE mentioning why a ten times penalty should not be imposed on you. It is advised that you ask for all the relevant papers from the inspector connecting to the claim of Rs 45 lakhs for seeking proper and correct advice.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am a retired Joint Commissioner of Labor and have served as an Authority under the PW Act, 1936, and the MW Act, 1948, for 25 years. If you are interested, please forward the necessary documents online so that I can prepare an appropriate response, based on charges.
Ramana, 09494481944 chvr75@gmail.com
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Ramana, 09494481944 chvr75@gmail.com
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with our fellow HR professionals' views, which are valid and authenticated. I suggest that you please study the notice in detail and talk to a labor law consultant in your area to fight it out legally since the notice has already been issued. It will not serve any purpose even if you try to settle the case otherwise. Please inform us of the outcome of the case, even at a later date, for our education.
Regards,
B. Dakshina Murty
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regards,
B. Dakshina Murty
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I wish to upload the Judgment 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 the case of Mittal Engineers, the contractor had paid less wages than the MW. This was found in the inspection by the Labour Inspector who issued a notice. In the meanwhile, the contractor paid the difference and communicated this fact to the Labour Inspector. The Labour Inspector did not verify the payment of the difference and filed a claim. The employer filed proof and a record of payment which was accepted by the authority, however, on an issue of penalty, it imposed twice the amount of the 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 High Court, which observed that the authority has no jurisdiction to impose a 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 a penalty of 10 times. At the most, the Labour Inspector ought to have directed the Employer to make payments on time, and there should not be a delay.
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 a penalty of 10 times. At the most, the Labour Inspector ought to have directed the Employer to make payments on time, and there should not be a delay.
From India, Kolhapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The interaction creating the sensitivity that every employer has to be very sensitive on salary payout. This has built the knowledge that in practical life, at times, many employers delay a few days due to fund planning issues, or some long holiday issue, or operational efficiency issue. But the risk is not very high in this scenario. The affected party should pursue with proper legal reply so that the department will have to act on that logically as per the law and not as per the individual perception.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I require someone to elaborate on the risks of remitting contributions of PF and ESI by the employer beyond the 15th and 21st, respectively, but the payment reaches the department within the month. In a corporate sector, while we operate with multiple service providers, controlling this timeline is practically a challenge.
If the employer has not paid the deducted PF and ESI over a period of time, what are the implications for this abnormal delay?
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If the employer has not paid the deducted PF and ESI over a period of time, what are the implications for this abnormal delay?
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello MIL,
The observations made by Mr. Kishore Kulkarni and B.S. Kalsi have substance. However, 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 competent to levy such compensation shall be one holding not less than a rank of an Assistant 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 wherein you could have had the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay. However, you have not said anything about these facts in your post. The Act itself provides that no direction for payment of compensation need be given if there are bona fide reasons for delayed payment. An order levying ten times the compensation cannot be a cryptic order but shall be a reasoned 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 referred to any of these facts, it is advisable to consult a competent advocate to ascertain the validity of the order and to take further necessary action.
B. Saikumar
HR & labour law Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The observations made by Mr. Kishore Kulkarni and B.S. Kalsi have substance. However, 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 competent to levy such compensation shall be one holding not less than a rank of an Assistant 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 wherein you could have had the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay. However, you have not said anything about these facts in your post. The Act itself provides that no direction for payment of compensation need be given if there are bona fide reasons for delayed payment. An order levying ten times the compensation cannot be a cryptic order but shall be a reasoned 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 referred to any of these facts, it is advisable to consult a competent advocate to ascertain the validity of the order and to take further necessary action.
B. Saikumar
HR & labour law Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
No Due Certificate.doc
Govt of Corporate Affairs - Due Date Extension.jpeg