“Purposive interpretation in a social amelioration legislation is an imperative, irrespective of anything else. This is eloquently brought out in the case of Atma Ram, (1988) 4 SCC 284. How labour legislations are to be interpreted has been stated and restated by this Court time and again. In Surendra Kumar, (1980) 4 SCC 443, this […]Read more "Etymological Excursions in Bread & Butter Statutes"
Clearly ignoring The ‘Far Outweigh’ Standard in Recovery from Employees, the SC has ruled recently in High Court of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, [Civil Appeal No. 3500 of 2006] that even though recovery from retired employees, or employees who are due to retire within one year of the order of recovery, is impermissible, […]Read more "The ‘Far Outweigh’ Standard in Recovery from Employees II"
Justices A.K. Goel and A.M. Khanwilkar have allowed the Civil Appeal, State of West Bengal v. Aswini Kumar Mahato (Civil Appeal No. 4689 of 2011) against a Calcutta High Court order in which it was held that once an employee retires on attaining the age of superannuation, the concerned authority has no jurisdiction to pass […]Read more "Pension Cuts under Proviso (a), Rule 10(1) of The West Bengal Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Rules, 1971"
Section 85(a)(i)(b) of The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 prescribes punishment for a particular offence as imprisonment which shall not be less than Six Months and fine of Five Thousand Rupees. The proviso empowers the Court that it may, “for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of […]Read more "Section 85 of The Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948"
My Lord, What is Pension? “It is a well known principle that pension is not a bounty. The benefit is conferred upon an employee for his unblemished career. In D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 D.A. Desai, J. speaking for the Bench opined that: “The antiquated notion of pension being a […]Read more "Pension is Not a Bounty"
“Orders passed by the employer seeking recovery of monetary benefits wrongly extended to employees, can only be interfered with, in cases where such recovery would result in a hardship of a nature, which would far outweigh, the equitable balance of the employer’s right to recover.” In the following few situations, recoveries by the employers, would […]Read more "The ‘Far Outweigh’ Standard in Recovery from Employees I"