Bombay HC scraps mandatory daily attendance: Union vs HUL
The case involved Hindustan Lever Employees Union and Hindustan Unilever Limited, where the company insisted on suspended employees reporting daily as a condition for receiving their subsistence allowance.
Bombay HC scraps mandatory daily attendance: Union vs HUL, where Suspended Employee are not required to mark Daily attendance for Allowance
The Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) has ruled that, in accordance with Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, an employee is entitled to a subsistence allowance during a period of suspension. The employer is not permitted to impose any requirements on the employee, such as marking their daily attendance at work.
An employee receives a subsistence allowance to support him and his family while on suspension.
The Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) has affirmed suspended workers’ entitlement to subsistence allowance without requiring them to record their daily attendance at work in a landmark decision. This is a good option because it streamlines the procedure and takes away an unnecessary burden from employees who may face disciplinary action.
In the Hindustan Lever Employees Union v. Hindustan Unilever Limited case, the employer demanded that suspended workers report every day in order to be paid their subsistence allowance. This allowance is intended to support employees during their suspension time, when they are not getting their regular income, and is required by Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946.
The company’s claim was correctly rejected by the Court (Bombay HC), which held that there is no legal need of this kind to get the allowance. Judge Milind N. Jadhav referred to daily reporting as an “empty and meaningless formality,” questioning its purpose.
The Court’s ruling is highly consequential. It ends a potentially outmoded procedure that causes needless anxiety and bother for workers who are already dealing with the possibility of being suspended. Judge Jadhav (Bombay HC) correctly pointed out that mandating daily reporting adds nothing beyond control when he compared the circumstances to bail requirements.
For future issues involving employee suspension and subsistence allowance, this decision establishes a favorable precedent. It highlights how crucial it is to respect the letter of the law rather than mindlessly adhering to long-standing customs that might no longer have a function.
In summary, the ruling by the Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) is a win for common sense and labor rights. It takes away an unneeded burden from suspended employees and streamlines the subsistence allowance application process, freeing them up to concentrate on handling their disciplinary issues.
Read more news like this on PropleManager.co.in
Value our content… contribute towards our growth. Even a small contribution per month would be of great help to us. Since our establishment, we have been serving the industry through daily news and updates.
Our content is free for all, and we plan to keep it that way
Support the People Manager. Pay Here (All it takes is a minute)
- Lubrizol and Polyhose Sign MoU to Manufacture Medical Tubing, Expand Capacity in Chennai - November 14, 2024
- After Seen 6.6% Rise of EPFO Contributors Government plans to hike EPF wage ceiling to Rs 21,000 - November 11, 2024
- Termination Of Service After Employee’s Retirement Unknown To Law In Absence Of Pending Departmental Proceedings: Patna High Court - November 5, 2024
