Edition III – April, 2022
Relaxation of time limit for filing and depositing ESI contribution
On April 13, 2022, the Director General of Employees' State Insurance Corporation relaxed the Regulations 26 and 31 of the Employees' State Insurance (General) Regulations, 1950 and granted one time opportunity to the employers to deposit monthly Employees' State Insurance ("ESI") contribution for the month of March 2022 up to April 30, 2022 instead of April 15, 2022, keeping in view the problems being faced by the employers in depositing the ESI contribution for the month of March 2022. Further, the employers are also allowed to file return for the contribution periodfrom October 2021 to March, 2022 up to May 26, 2022 instead of May 11, 2022.
Linking of the wage ceiling to inflation index or some other measures
On April 12, 2022, as per the reports published in news articles, the Central Government is contemplating to link employees' wage ceilingas prescribed under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952to an consumer price index or some other measures (such as dearness allowance or the median wage) to allow periodic revisions.
Draft rules released under the labour codes
On April 11, 2022, the Government of Tamil Nadureleased in public domain following draft rules framed under the labour codes: (a) Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 2022; (b) Industrial Relations (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 2022 and (c) Code on Wages (Tamil Nadu) Rules, 2022.
Employee's nature of work important and not nomenclature to decidewhether an employee is workman or not: Gujarat High Court!On April 8, 2022, the Gujarat High Court in Radhe govind Ramdas Yadav vs. Cema Electric Lighting Products (India) Pvt. Ltd. while examining the issue as to whether the employee fall within the meaning of term 'workman' as defined under Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("ID Act"), yet again reiterated the settled principle thatit is not the nomenclature but the nature of duty, which is required to be taken into consideration while deciding the question as to whether a person falls under such definition of workman or not.The Court further observed that merely because a person is fetching more remuneration than the outer limit as provided in the aforesaid definition, will not bar him to include him in the definition of term 'workman'.
Suspended employee cannot take advantage of his unauthorised absence and claim benefits for period of his absence: Supreme Court!On April 7, 2022, the Supreme Court in the State of Jharkhand vs. Banaras Prasad (Dead) Through Lrs. C.A.No. 7196/2022, while examining an issue as to whether the employee (who was suspended from service but no departmental enquiry was initiated) is justified in demanding allowances and benefits for the period when he was remain absented from service unauthorizedly, observed that it would be absolutely contrary to a service jurisprudence principle if an employee is able to take advantage of his own absence and if his grievance was that departmental proceedings were not being initiated despite suspension, he was required to take redressal of his grievances, however he did not do so and conveniently remained absent from the same with a result that even the suspension order could not be served on him, thus the employee cannot claim the benefits during such period of absence
Employee's suppression of pending criminal case at the time of his joining is a valid ground for his termination of employment: Supreme Court!Recently, the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) and Ors. vs. Dilip Kumar Mallick C.A.No. 2754/2022, observed that information given to the employer by a candidate as to criminal case including the factors of arrest or pendency of the case, whether before or after entering into service, must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of the required information and non-disclosure of such information by itself may be a ground for an employer to cancel the candidature or to terminate services. The Court further indicated that all cases of suppression of information should not be viewed from the same lens and in case of suppression, when the facts later come to the knowledge of employer, different courses of action may be adopted by the employer depending on the nature of fault as also the nature of default; and that if the case is of trivial nature, like that of shouting slogans at a young age etc., the employer may ignore such suppression of fact or false information depending on the factors as to whether the information, if disclosed, would have rendered incumbent unfit for the post in question.