Enhanced gratuity limit to be applicable from prospective date – The Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972Expand

Labour Ministry clarifies on the enhanced gratuity limit for private sector workers effective date The Labour Ministry has made it clear that enhanced limit of gratuity for private sector workers will be effective from prospective date only. It means provision regarding enhanced limit will be effective for workers becoming eligible on or after March 29, 2018.
In a brief posted on its website, the Ministry said, “The enhancement in gratuity ceiling under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 has been implemented from prospective date only. Further, implementation of the same with retrospective effect will be administratively difficult and employers may not have sufficient liquidity to meet the arrear liabilities.” Amendment in the Payment of Gratuity Act was notified on March 29. This amendment has enhanced the gratuity ceiling to Rs 20 lakhs from Rs 10 lakhs.
The Labour Ministry said that it received a large number of representations requesting that the effective date of Payment of Gratuity (Amendment) Act 2018 should be January 1, 2016 instead of March 29, 2018 at par with the Central Government. However, the Ministry did not find this proposal practical. This stand will disappoint the employees.
Earlier upper ceiling on gratuity amount under the Act was Rs 10 lakh. The provisions for Central Government employees under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 with regard to gratuity were also similar. Before implementation of 7th Central Pay Commission, the ceiling under CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was Rs 10 lakh. However, with implementation of 7th Central Pay Commission, in case of Government servants, the ceiling now is Rs 20 lakhs effective from January 1, 2016. Therefore, considering the inflation and wage increase even in case of employees engaged in private sector, the Government enhanced the limit for the private sector.


Amount recovered from factory employees against canteen food will attract GST: AAR – The Factories Act, 1948Expand

In an order by the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR), Kerala, has ruled that recovery of food expenses from the employees for the canteen services provided by company would come under the definition of ‘outward supply’ as defined in Section 2 (83) of the Goods an Services Tax Act, 2017and hence are taxable under the Goods and Services Tax () laws GST.
M/s. Caltech Polymers Pvt. Ltd is a manufacturer and seller of footwear. As the factory employs more than 250 employees, the company was statutorily obliged to provide canteen services to its employees as per Section 46 of the Factory Act, 1948. A space for the canteen was provided by the company inside the factory premises and the expenses incurred to run the services were recovered from the employees as a deduction from their monthly salary in proportion to the food they consumed.
The company was of the opinion that such activity would be outside the purview of’ Supply” as such activity was not in the course or furtherance of its business. The company also pointed out that such facility of supplying food to the employees was done as part of their statutory requirement and the expenses recovered in connection with the food supply was without any profit. A Mega Exemption Notification No. 25/2012 – ST dated 20.06.2012 issued by the Government of India were referred by the company. As per the notification services in relation to supply of food or beverages by a canteen maintained in a factory covered under the Factories Act,1948 was exempted under the Service Tax Law.
The Authority while agreeing with the notification observed that there was no similar provision in the GST laws. Other than that the Authority found schedule II of the GST Act in clause 6 declares certain composite supplies as the supply of service if such service is for a consideration.


Senior not responsible of junior committing suicide for doing extra work under compulsion: MP HC – The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.Expand

If higher officer compels his subordinate to do extra work, which is unbearable, then he has other several options and it cannot be said that he had no other option except to commit suicide, the court said.
While discharging the principal and headmaster of a school accused of abetment of suicide of a peon belonging to Scheduled Caste community, the Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that if a higher officer compels his subordinate to do extra work, which is unbearable, he cannot be held to have abetted his suicide because the latter had ‘other several options and it cannot be said that he had no other option except to commit suicide’.
In his suicide note, the victim had stated that he was harassed by the accused who forced him to work beyond his capacity against the rules and they used to abuse him with derogatory remarks by referring to his caste and due to this harassment and humiliation he committed suicide.
The accused had approached the high court challenging the order of framing charges against them under Section306 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The high court took note of the evidence in this case, viz. Suicide note and statement of witnesses. Mother, brother and wife of the deceased stated that deceased constantly made complaints regarding the behaviour of the accused and compelled him to do extra work beyond his capacity. Deceased had committed suicide in the premises of the school.


Granting of back-wages not justified when workman refused to go for duty when management offered to take him back during conciliation proceedings. – The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Expand

Termination of services of a casual worker, without compliance of provisions of Sections 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal, attracting reinstatement with continuity of service and back- wages. Granting of back-wages to a workman is not justified when the workman had refused to resume duty, offered by the management, at the initial stage of conciliation before the Conciliation Officer.
M/s. N.K. Industries vs. Presiding Officer and Another. 2018 (P&H H.C.)
The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947


Part-time sweeper entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service when his termination was effected in contravention of retrenchment provisions of I.D. Act. – The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947Expand

Termination of services of a part-time sweeper without compliance of provisions of Sections 25F, 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is illegal.
When the termination of services of a part-time sweeper is illegal, awarding him reinstatement with continuity of service is justified.
Burden of proof to prove continuous service of 240 days or more is primarily upon the workman.
For discharging primarily burden to prove continuous service of 240 days or more, the workman has to take plea from the initial stage of proceedings in his statement of claim and to summon the records of attendance from the employer appropriately even through court.
Non-production of attendance and such other records by the employer will prove the version of the workman.
To disprove the claim of the workman, the management must lead cogent evidence by producing relevant records of attendances, payment of wages ,leave, provident fund and ESI, as the circumstances may be.
Part-time employee is also a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, entitled to all servies benefits available under applicable labour laws to fulltime employee.
Assistant Charity Commissioner & 1 vs. Makwana Natwarlal Devji & 1. 2018(Guj. H.C.)
The Industrial Dispute Act, 1947

For Further Queries:

+91 22 25903902enquiry@kalp.co.in