Skip to main content

Payment of Bonus Amend Act 2015 - Glance of Stay Orders granted by Kerala and other High Courts

COURT ORDER FOR STAYING IN THE BONUS AMENDMENT FROM RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT
SR NO.
NAME OF THE COURT
ORDER
DATE OF ORDER
PETITIONERS
RESPONDENTS
1
High Court of Karnataka
In the Meanwhile the impugned notification at Annexure A shall stand stayed in so far as the retrospective effect of the implementation provided therein. It is clarified that the amendment will take effect only from financial year 2015 2016 onwards.
02.02.2016
Karnataka Employees Association & another
Union of India & Secretary to the Government of India
2
High Court Kerala
Order - Amendment to the extent it gives retrospective effect from 01.04.2014 is hereby stayed. In other words shall be implemented from 2015-16 pending disposal of the writ petition. This is with reference to applicability of the interim order by Kerala High Court in United Planters’ Association of Southern India and another vs. Union of India,
vide WP(C) No.3025/2016(C) dated 27.1.2016 and also by Karnataka High Court
in Karnataka Employers Association and another, WP No.5272 & 5311/2016 dated 2.2.2016, both the High Courtshave stayed the Amendment to the Payment of Bonus Act to the extent it gives the retrospective effect from 1.4.2014.

It is pertinent to state that an order passed in a writ petition by any High Court
questioning the constitutional validity of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or
final, keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Art.226 of the
Constitution of India, it will have effect throughout the territory of India. In this
context it is pertinent to refer to the judgment of Supreme Court in M/s. Kusum
Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India and another, AIR 2004 SC 2321 wherein

it has been held that :
The Court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed
on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act
whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in clause
(2) of Art.226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the
territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.

However, the second part (section 12 of the Payment of Bonus Act) of the
amendment, for the words “three thousand and five hundred rupees” at both
the places where they occur, the words “seven thousand rupees or the
minimum wages for the scheduled employment, as fixed by the appropriate
Government, whichever is higher” shall respectively be substitutedis yet to be

challenged since this aspect has not been stayed by Karnataka High Court although
it was specifically taken up in the writ petition.
27.01.2016
The United Planters Association of Southern India & another
Union of India & Secretary to the Government of India
3
Allahabad Court - Chief Justice Court
The submission is that as a result of the retrospective amendment, the   financial   liability   of   the   employer   would   have   to   be recomputed and would be enhanced in respect of a period where a deposit has already been made in compliance of the provisions of Section 19(b) even before the assent of the President was received on   31   December   2015.   Hence,   it   has   been   urged   that   the retrospective amendment is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 for
the reason that it casts an unforseen liability on the employer. In   our   view,   the   submission   does   warrant   consideration.   The attention   of   the   Court   has   been   drawn   to   the   fact   that   a   learned Single Judge of the High Court of Karnataka has entertained a writ petition [Karnataka Employees Association vs. Union of India
(Writ   Petition   No.5272/2016   (L-MW)   &   5311/2016)]  and   has
issued   an   interim   order   to   the   effect   that   the   amendment   would
take effect only from the financial year 2015-16.
In   our   view,   the   ends   of   justice   would   be   met   if   a   direction   is
issued to the effect that no coercive steps shall be taken against the
petitioner in respect of any period prior to 31 March 2015
15.03.2016
Benara Udyog Ltd.
Union of India & Secretary to the Government of India
4
MadhyaPradesh High Court
In the Meanwhile the impugned notification at Annexure A shall stand stayed in so far as the retrospective effect of the implementation provided therein. It is clarified that the amendment will take effect only from financial year 2015 2016 onwards.
04.02.2016



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

MCS MAHARASHTRA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY BYE LAWS 101 TO END

MCS BYE LAWS CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST 101 TO END 101. If all the business on the agenda of the General Body Meeting of the Society cannot be transacted on the day on which the General Body Meeting is convened, the meeting shall be postponed to any other suitable date as may be decided by the Members present at the meeting, however not later than 30 days from the date of the meeting. 102. The Chairman of the Society shall preside over all General Body Meetings of the Society, in case if the Chairman is absent or if present and is unwilling to preside, the Members present may elect a person from amongst themselves to preside over the meeting. 103. No proxy or a holder of power of attorney or letter of authority shall be eligible to attend a General Body Meeting of the Society on behalf of a Member of the Society. 104. Voting right of a Member and the Associate Member of the Society shall be regulated in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of ...
4 comments
Read more

MCS ACT: Encroachment /usage of Common Area by Flat Owners - Highlights of bye laws and the role of MC/General Body

The Managing Committee has to read the bye laws in harmony and adopt a standard process as approved by the General Body   Almost Every Society has conflicts or even fist fights on usage of common areas, especially the parking, the passage outside the flats and other areas meant for east of movement and common utility. As a Building lay out, and common areas differ accordingly to the size/class of buildings and also the category of flats , it is essential to review the relevant bye laws and formulate a policy with uniform norms and permitting fair use. What is permissible and fair use again depends on the unique size and design of a building, it is imperative to evolve a robust policy post deliberations at a General Body of Members.  Bye Law No 165. Penalties for breaches  Bye Law No 165(a)  The meeting of the General Body of the Society may prescribe penalties for different breaches of the Bye-laws of the Society. The Secretary of the Society, under instruct...
1 comment
Read more

PoSH Act: ICC of the Employer of the Complainant (Victim) is also empowered to conduct enquiry -Path-breaking Ruling by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

 KEY POINTS BY LAWSHASTRA - FULL JUDGEMENT APPENDED BELOW   This path-breaking judgement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, has well enunciated the objectives of the VISHAKA Guidelines and the PoSH Act, while spelling out the jurisdictional aspects of the “Employer” Crystal clear.  Precisely, the jurisdictional challenge by the Appellant in the present case, inter alia relates to whether the Internal Complaints Committee (hereinafter referred to as “ICC”) constituted at a certain Department of the Government of India can entertain a complaint under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “POSH Act”) against the Appellant who was working at a different Department of the Government of India at the relevant time.  Key Points for reference   PoSH Act. (extracts) Section 2(a)  “(a) “aggrieved woman” means -  in relation to a workplace, a woman, of any age whether employed or n...
Post a Comment
Read more