Dear Friends, Balancing Act! Year 2016 has not been very different when viewed in terms of judicial pronouncements in employment disputes. In labor laws, judicial verdicts play an immense role in defining and refining the employer-employee relationship. The trend of prioritizing discipline and compensation in place of reinstatement, striking a fine balance between the employer's right to manage the industry and employees' right to seek relief in case of violations of employment terms and regulations, continues. On one side, the indications are clear that indiscipline has no place in the industry and employees have to adapt their mindset according to changing times; employers are also discouraged from exploiting the weaker section. It seems that the apex court has repeatedly been reminding lower courts/industrial tribunals to refrain from using discretion under Sec. 11A of the I.D. Act while granting relief to employees in case of termination, especially in cases where the employer punishes an employee based on misconduct duly proven in a valid and fair inquiry. The Court has upheld that the power of punishment lies with the disciplinary authority and their discretion should only be disregarded by reducing the punishment when it is shockingly disproportionate enough to shake the conscience of the court. This year, the Supreme Court has also pronounced such judgments. Another striking pronouncement was about providing equal pay for equal work. Through this judgment in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh, the Supreme Court has provided comprehensive guidelines to understand the principle of equal pay for equal work and its application. The Court has stated that temporary, casual, or contractual employees doing work with the same quality and responsibility as regular employees are entitled to equal pay. This judgment will have far-reaching consequences. Industries employing maximum contractual labor with the aim to save costs on wages while paying them significantly less compared to regular employees but doing the same or similar job will have to reconsider this practice. Assigning contractual labor to regular work in manufacturing alongside permanent employees but paying them less is deemed a violation of the law. Paying two similarly placed constituencies differently is seen as an act of oppression, suppression, and coercion as it forces involuntary subjugation. We have once again compiled our annual collector's issue on important labor judgments. Understanding the responsibility our readers have bestowed upon us, the BM research and editorial team has meticulously reviewed thousands of pages of judicial pronouncements from various high courts and the Supreme Court of India in 2016 to select around 800 judgments that may be beneficial to the industry and HR professionals at large. With limited space, presenting the essence of each judgment in one or a few lines from various journals and keeping track of every important judgment has been a challenging task. If you like it, please let us know. If not, well, let us know that too. Happy Reading! Anil Kaushik, Business Manager - HR Magazine B-138, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar - 301001 (Raj.) India Mob.: 09785585134, 08302173422 Landline: 01446550134 Business Manager :: HR Magazine
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
181From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Equal pay for Equal work - casual workers.pdf