Atul GuptaPartner
Parvathy TharamelCounsel
Tania GuptaAssociate
Key Developments
-
New rules in Karnataka mandating gratuity insurance
The Government of Karnataka notified the Karnataka Compulsory Gratuity Insurance Rules, 2024 (Rules) on 10 January 2024, making it mandatory for establishments to obtain gratuity insurance through the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC) or any other insurance company incorporated in the manner prescribed under the Rules. Existing employers were given time to procure a valid gratuity insurance policy till 10 March 2024. New employers are required to procure a valid gratuity insurance policy within a period of 30 days from the date on which the Rules become applicable to the establishment.
Employers are also required to apply for registration along with the list of employees insured, within 30 days from the date of obtaining insurance. The Rules allow establishments having an existing approved gratuity fund or establishments with 500 or more employees who establish an approved gratuity fund to opt to continue or adopt such arrangement by submitting an application. The Rules also require employers to make all premium payments to the insurance company, renew the insurance policy periodically (i.e., before the lapse of the insurance policy) and intimate the authorities about the renewal.
Non-compliance with the provisions of the Rules may hold the employer liable to a fine of INR 10,000 to INR 20,000 and/or imprisonment for a term of three months to one year.
(To read our detailed update on the Rules, click here.)
-
Madras High Court places the safety of a larger group of people above an individual’s right to not get vaccinated
Recently, the Madras High Court1 observed that an organisation must necessarily take into consideration the welfare of the majority of employees and accordingly, a person who is not vaccinated and who does not follow the Covid-19 protocol, cannot be allowed to have access to other employees in public spaces of the organisation.
In this case, the respondent refused to get vaccinated against Covid-19. His employer prepared a list of all employees who had not vaccinated themselves and requested the respondent, and other unvaccinated employees, to either get vaccinated or work from home/online mode. If the respondent’s physical presence was required for some work, he could either follow the Covid-19 protocol (such as wearing a mask) or apply for leave as per the allotted quota or on loss of pay.
The respondent was uncomfortable with being named in the list of unvaccinated persons (that was circulated amongst the employees of the organisation) and argued that his vaccination status should have been kept a secret. The options presented by the employer were disregarded by the respondent and consequently, he was dismissed for unauthorised absence. The respondent filed a private complaint claiming that the circulation of sensitive personal data by the employer about his vaccination status amounts to an offence under the Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act). This complaint was challenged by the petitioner before the Madras High Court.
The Madras High Court ruled that though an individual cannot be forced to get vaccinated, an organisation can take measures for the welfare of the majority of its employees. Further, between the rights of an individual and a larger group of persons, it is the right of the larger group of persons that will take predominance. The Court also clarified that the follow-up action taken by the employer by preparing and circulating amongst all employees a list of persons who are not vaccinated, does not tantamount to circulating sensitive personal data and does not amount to a violation of Section 43A of the IT Act and associated sensitive personal information rules.
-
Calcutta High Court holds that calling an unknown lady ‘darling’ is a sexually coloured remark
In a recent decision, the Calcutta High Court held2 that addressing an unknown woman as ‘darling’ is patently offensive and the word essentially amounts to a sexually coloured remark.
The appellant in an inebriated condition called the complainant (a woman police officer) ‘darling’. The appellant argued that he used the word ‘darling’ as a joke and did not intend to insult the modesty of the woman. He argued that it was neither obscene nor a sexually coloured, lewd remark, but at best, inappropriate. The Court ruled that using expressions like ‘darling’ to address an unacquainted lady amounted to sexual harassment and an act intended to insult the modesty of the addressee.
-
Amendment in the rate of employees’ contributions to the Labour Welfare Fund in Maharashtra
On 18 March 2024, the Maharashtra government notified the Maharashtra Labour Welfare Fund (Amendment) Act, 2024.
Through this amendment, the rate of employee contribution has been revised to INR 25 across the board. Earlier, different rates were prescribed depending on the wages earned by the employee. This differential rate system has now been eliminated. However, the contribution rates in respect of an employer remain the same as before, i.e., thrice the amount of the employee’s contribution.
-
New rules for employing women in night shifts in Haryana and Rajasthan
In 2017, the Haryana government had allowed factories to engage women workers at night between 7 pm and 6 am subject to certain conditions to ensure the safety and security of such women workers. Recently, by way of a notification dated 14 March 2024 (2024 Notification), the state government revised these conditions, superseding all previous notifications in this regard.
Under the 2024 Notification, new conditions have been introduced such as obtaining consent from each woman worker for working in the night shift, installing GPS in vehicles provided for transportation of woman workers to and from the workplace, providing well-trained drivers, provision of proper communication channels, etc.
Similarly, in 2020, the Rajasthan government exempted shops and establishments from Section 22 of the Rajasthan Shops and Establishments Act, 1958 (2020 Notification). Section 22 prohibits employers from requiring women employees to work between 10 pm and 6 am (Night Shift) . The 2020 Notification exempted organisations from this provision for a period of four years, subject to certain conditions. The state government recently renewed the exemption through a notification dated 19 March 2024. The renewed exemption is valid for another period of four years, thereby allowing continued engagement of women employees in Night Shifts.
Employers who do not fulfil the conditions set out in the notifications will lose the benefit of the exemptions and may also be liable for penal consequences under applicable laws.
With the upcoming general elections, it is expected that there will be significant progress towards the implementation of the four labour codes. There is also increased discussion around the integration of artificial intelligence in the workplace and it would be interesting to witness these developments unfold in the near future.
[1] Gopal Vittal, Bharti Airtel Ltd. v Kamatci Shankar Arumugam
[2] Janak Ram v State of West Bengal
