THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME (NPS) FOR TRADERS, SHOPKEEPRS AND SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS, 2019 on August, 2021.
Finally Government of India notifies THE NATIONAL PENSION SCHEME (NPS) FOR TRADERS, SHOPKEEPRS AND SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS, 2019 on August, 2021.
Ref: Govt. of India Gazette No. 2988, Ext. P. II, S. 3, sub-s (ii), dated 11.8.2021.
Highlights of the Scheme….
This Scheme will be implemented through the Life Insurance Corporation of India.
This Scheme shall provide minimum Pension of Rs. 3,000/- pm to the small traders, retailer traders, small rice mill owners, oil mill owners, atta chakki owners, workshop or garage owners, commission agents, brokers of real estate, owners of small restaurants, shopkeepers and self employed persons (hereinafter together called “the beneficiaries”) to ensure their old age protection.
The Pension shall be paid to the beneficiaries on attaining the age of 60 years.
The beneficiaries also need to contribute towards this Scheme and Govt. will also contribute equal amount towards the Scheme.
An individual desirous of availing the benefits under the Scheme shall be required to furnish proof of possession of Aadhaar Card or undergo Aadhaar Authentication.
The Govt. shall appoint Implementing Agencies for rendering the services to the beneficiaries under the Scheme.
Please give wide publicity to the citizens who fall under this category.
By Dayanand Mangaonkar
Read MoreFAQs ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT SCHEME
Some of the questions as follow,
1. Can an employee withdraw from VRS after opting for the same?
Ans: Yes, an employee can withdraw from VRS but before its acceptance by the Company.
2. Is Govt. Permission required for declaring VRS?
Ans: No, for introducing VRS or VSS (Voluntary Separation Scheme), no permission is required to be taken from the appropriate Govt. since under Labour Laws VRS or VSS are neither prohibited nor regulated. However, th Scheme so introduced should be in consonance with the provisions as laid down under Income tax Act.
3. Can Management restrain employees from withdrawing the VRS application once submitted?
Ans: No, Management, can not be legally allowed for not allowing employees to withdraw their VRS option.
4. Can Management have the discretion to accept or reject the VRS application of employee, thereby choosing the persons for VRS?
Ans: Yes, Management has full discretion and authority to select the employee for VRS. However, it all depends on VRS T&C.
5. Can an employee raise industrial dispute of his reinstatement after opting for VRS and receiving the benefits under VRS?
Ans: No, such a person, after accepting and receiving the benefits under VRS can not raise any industrial dispute.
6. Forceful acceptance of VRS, can it be challenged by keeping VRS money with self?
Ans: No, such person can not challenge the same by keeping VRS money with himself. For raising the dispute, he/she has to repay back the money to the Company with reason for refunding such money.
For more:
Contact us on: 9879540584 or institutesawani@gmail.com
Read MoreMore clarity needed on taxable interest on employee’s contribution to PF…
Interest on employee contribution to provident fund (PF), hitherto exempt, was made taxable vide the Finance Act, 2021, on contributions exceeding a prescribed threshold of ₹2.5 lakh ( ₹5 lakh in cases where there is no contribution by the employer) in any financial year (FY). The objective of Budget 2021 was to limit the exemptions granted with respect to the accumulated balance payable to an employee. The much-awaited method of calculation of this interest was notified by tax authorities on 31 August. The newly prescribed rule requires maintenance of separate accounts within PF, for non-taxable contributions and taxable contributions. The non-taxable contributions would be the aggregate of the closing balance of the account as on 31 March 2021 and the contributions made during the FY and subsequent FYs up to the prescribed threshold and would also include any interest accrued on the above but as reduced by any withdrawal(s).
However, the question still remains unanswered as to who will deduct the tax on such taxable interest?
Whether it will be deducted by EPFO as TDS that is Tax Deduction At Source or whether PF Member will have to pay it while filing his Tax Return?
Or it is to be paid as Advamce Tax on accrued interest?
EPFO normally takes more than 12 months to notify interest on PF every year. In such cases on what basis interest is to be computed. Whether its on interest prevailing till notified or interest deemed to be declared by EPFO vide its Notification. OR EPFO will declare interim interest such like Corporates how they declare interim dividend and later on final dividend.
These are some of the questions which Government and EPFO need to answer in consultation with CBDT of Income Tax.
Read MoreMisunderstandings With Male Superior At Workplace Do Not Constitute Sexual Harassment: Madras High Court
Setting aside Tamil Nadu Women’s Commission order directing Loyola College Society to pay Rs. 64.3 lakh to a terminated female employee who had levelled sexual harassment charges against a former principal, the Madras High Court on Wednesday ruled that personal feud, misunderstandings and not getting along with a male colleague would not constitute sexual harassment.
Justice N. Satish Kumar observed that no case of sexual harassment has been made out as per the provisions of the Section 3 of the the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and accordingly opined,
“Without showing any instances leading to sexual harassment merely on the basis of some misunderstandings in the work place between superior and thereafter she was changed to some other post in a consolidate pay, every such instance cannot be termed as sexual harassment… such misunderstandings or happening in the work place cannot be classified as sexual harassment”
The Court also observed that the main allegation of sexual harassment appears to have been an ‘after thought’ as the instant plea had been filed after more than one and a half years from the date of the alleged incident of sexual harassment.
In the instant case, the petitioner had been appointed as an Administrator on contract in Loyola Development Office and Alumni Association in July 2010. She had served in that position until 2015 and was paid a consolidated amount of Rs 30,000 a month. Subsequently, she had been appointed as Secretary to the Rector of Loyola institutions on contract basis. However, her services were terminated on September 3, 2014 and she was offered a sum of Rs 50,000 in lieu of allowing her to serve the notice period but she had rejected the offer.
In 2016, she had moved a writ petition in the High Court accusing a former principal, the Director of Alumni Association for the period between May 2012 and May 2015 of sexual harassment. While the plea was pending, she had approached the Commission and on December 22 she had obtained an order for payment of Rs 64.3 lakh as compensation.
In the instant plea moved by the petitioner, she contended that the accused Director had been transferred to Trichy which indicates that the sexual harassment allegations levelled were true. She further argued that her complaint of sexual harassment had not been forwarded to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and thus there was a violation of the Vishaka guidelines. She thus contended that she is liable to be paid backwages to the tune of Rs.23,40,000 and damages for mental agony to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs.
In 2016, she had moved a writ petition in the High Court accusing a former principal, the Director of Alumni Association for the period between May 2012 and May 2015 of sexual harassment. While the plea was pending, she had approached the Commission and on December 22 she had obtained an order for payment of Rs 64.3 lakh as compensation.
In the instant plea moved by the petitioner, she contended that the accused Director had been transferred to Trichy which indicates that the sexual harassment allegations levelled were true. She further argued that her complaint of sexual harassment had not been forwarded to the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) and thus there was a violation of the Vishaka guidelines. She thus contended that she is liable to be paid backwages to the tune of Rs.23,40,000 and damages for mental agony to the tune of Rs.25 lakhs.
Pursuant to a perusal of the rival submissions, the Court noted that in the first email sent by the petitioner dated August 21, 2013 to the respondent authorities, there was not a ‘whisper whatsoever made with regard to the so called sexual harassment’.
“On entire allegations found in this letter there is no allegation with regard to the sexual harassment whatsoever. Whereas the allegations mainly targeted towards some administrative functions, conduct of functions in Alumni Association and keeping the writ petitioner away from the function and the 5th Respondent conducting it as his own family function, which resulted heavy loss to the college. There is no whisper whatsoever made with regard to any sexual harassment”, the Court noted.
It was further noted that allegations of sexual harassment had been levelled by the petitioner for the first time in the email addressed to the Police Commissioner, Coimbatore on June 14, 2014 that too after criminal investigation had been commenced against her own son. However, there was no mention regarding the specific instances and nature of allegations, the only thing specified was that she had been harassed mentally and sexually, the Court stated.
The Court further opined that no complaint of sexual harassment had ever been made directly to the college administration and accordingly opined,
“It is to be noted that the petitioner is not rustic women. She has worked in Stella Maris college, one of the famous college, for more than ten years as per her own document i.e, email dated 14.6.2014. She had also worked in Apollo Hospitals and she had an opportunity to work with the then Chief Ministers Mr. M.G. Ramachandran and Madam Jayalalitha. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not aware of procedure to make a complaint”.
The Court further held that personal feud between the petitioner and the accused would not constitute sexual harassment and thus observed,
“Merely on the basis some personal feud between the 5th Respondent and her in some other transaction particularly with regard to the conduct of the functions and taking a credit in that function or because the petitioner was not getting well with the 5th Respondent and she was not happy and kept away from the participation of the function and she was not given proper importance. Such misunderstandings or happening in the work place cannot be classified as sexual harassment”.
Furthermore, the petitioner’s claim for compensation for premature termination of service was also rejected by the Court as it was held that contract of personal service cannot be enforced in writ proceedings since the very employment itself is based on the personal contract service.
While proceeding to dismiss the order of the Tamil Nadu Women’s Commission, the Court opined that the order for payment of compensation had been made by the Commission without conducting due enquiry and only on the basis of the submissions of the petitioner. It was also noted that the Chairperson of the Commission had alone conducted the inquiry and that there was no proof of participation of the other members.
“This Court is at loss to understand how the commission has passed such order without proper enquiry and without evidence in this regard. Such conclusion was arrived on the basis of representation made by the writ Petitioner”, the Court remarked.
The Court further opined that as per the provisions of the National Commission for Women (Procedure) Regulation, 2005, the Commission is entitled to only make recommendations and direct the concerned authorities such as the police to take appropriate action if a prima facie case is made out. Commission cannot direct the implementation of the orders to implement the orders passed by it, the Court added.
Thus, the Court set aside the order of the Commission by concluding,
“The Order directing the College to pay huge compensation certainly liable to be interfered and not maintainable and such order is definitely against the very statue under which the Commission was constituted. Therefore, the Order of the Women Commission is necessarily to be set aside”
Case Title: Mary Rajasekaran v. University of Madras
Read More‘Right to sit’: Tamil Nadu tables Bill mandating establishments to provide seating for employees.
In a move that would benefit thousands of employees of large and small establishments, particularly those working in textile and jewellery showrooms, the Tamil Nadu Government on Monday tabled a Bill in the Legislative Assembly making it mandatory for establishments to provide seating facilities for employees. The Bill introduced by Labour Welfare Minister and Skill Development C.V. Ganesan sought to amend the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 by adding a sub section to mandatorily provide seating facilities for the staff.
The proposed Section 22-A to the Act reads: “The premises of every establishment shall have suitable seating arrangements for all employees so that they may take advantage of any opportunity to sit which may occur in the course of their work and thereby avoid ‘on their toes’ situation throughout the working hours.”
Read MoreAxis Bank announces ‘Come As You Are’: A charter of LGBTQIA+ friendly policies.
Axis Bank has announced ComeAsYouAre, a charter of policies and practices for their employees and customers from the LGBTQIA+ community.
The initiative has been taken under the bank’s #DilSeOpen philosophy. Key Takeaways from the charter: Inclusive initiatives for the employees include –
Listing partners for Mediclaim benefits irrespective of gender, sex, or marital status
Employees are allowed to dress in accordance with their gender/ gender expression:
Restrooms of their own choice in accordance with their gender expression/gender identity.
A redressal policy…..
The bank also shared in a company statement that customers will be able to open a Joint Savings Bank Account or a Term Deposit with their same-sex partner and also make them a nominee.
Engaging Casuals after breaks and removing them on Union Formation-Is it valid practice?
No! Such practice of giving repeated breaks and engaging casuals again and again to avoid their permanency is a clear case of Unfair Labour Practice. Termination of such casuals will amount to retrenchment and if not executed by complying relevant provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is bound to be declared illegal and such casuals in all probabilities will be awarded reinstatement. In the case of Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation vs. Mamni, it was held that where services of a workman (Junior Technician) was terminated on regular basis and on each occasion she was appointed for 89 days after a gap of 2-3 days and completed 240 days in a year, such termination will be retrenchment.
Such action of the employer will amount to Unfair Labour Practice. In this case employer can not take benefit of section 2(oo) (bb) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which states that termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non-renewal of concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein…….” is not Retrenchment u/s 2(oo) of the ID Act.
by Dayanand Mangaonkar
Read MoreImportant Judgments of the month
- Casual employees engaged for maintenance of guest house to be covered by ESI Act…… Mad HC
- pujari in a temple is not a ‘Workman’…….. Raj HC
- An employee will be ‘Workman’ when management has failed to show that he was sanctioning leave, issuing gate pass and granting overtime of any worker…….. Cal HC
- Termination of a workman, without holding proper enquiry and proving guilt is illegal……….. Cal HC
- Settlement under Section 12(3) of the ID Act, 1947 between Union and Management us binding on all workman……. Mad HC
- No accident compensation payable when death occurred due to disease…….. Mad HC
- An enquiry will not be proper if Subsistence Allowance not paid, and Enquiry Officer was not examined……. Del HC
- Compensation for accident only if it occurred in the course of and arisen out of employment……. Mad HC
- Principal Employer can not shrink responsibility to identify eligible workers engaged through contractor…. Mad HC
- Trainee if not under Apprentice Act or Standing Orders, will be treated as ‘employee’…………. Mad HC
When employee resigns from the services having outstanding amount of advances and loan taken by him, can employer adjust such outstanding amount from his full and final settlement payable?
Yes! Employer will be within his rights to adjust the outstanding amount of advances and loan from the full and final dues. Madras high Court in the case of Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. vs. Labour Court, Madurai, has also held so.
The employee challenged the adjustment under Payment of Wages Act as illegal deduction. Court said that after resignation, relationship of employer and employee ceases and parties are governed under Contract Act and not Payment of Wages Act. If the employee owes any money to the employer, the former becomes debtor and latter becomes creditor and therefore it would be open to the employer to adjust the entire amount due on account of wages under section 7(4) of the Act. Section 7(1) to 7(3) will come into play in such circumstances.
It can not be said that after severance of the employer employee relationship the employer should be required to chase the workman to recover the loan amount by filing civil litigation as also held by Bombay High Court in Engineering and Ancillary Manufacturers vs. Salim Khan.
But such advances and loan can only be adjusted against payable wages, leave encashment and bonus only.
Even if the amount of recovery is higher than the payable full and final dues, such balance recoverable amount can not be adjusted against Gratuity if payable being barred by the Payment of Gratuity Act itself. The only option left with the employer in such situation is to recover the balance amount through Civil Suit in the Court of Law.
By Dayanand Mangaonkar
Read MoreComputation of Retrenchment Compensation – Whether 26 days basis or 30 days basis a month be considered;
At one point of time, certain controversies have arisen regarding retrenchment compensation. In one case the Bombay High Court has held that retrenchment compensation should be calculated as if a month comprises of 26 days. The Madras High Court also followed the same.
However, the Calcutta High Court while considering both the judgments has clarified by holding that the retrenchment compensation shall be calculated by taking the month comprising of 30 days and not of 26 days. It was further clarified that the decision of Bombay and Madras High Courts were based upon the interpretation of Section 4(2) of the Payment of gratuity Act, 1972 which did not apply for the calculation of retrenchment compensation under the Industrial disputes Act, 1947. Thus, for the purpose of calculation of 15 days’ wages, the monthly wages are not required to be divided by 26, then multiplied by 15.
The similar stand was taken by Supreme Court in the case of Guru Jhambheshwar University, Hisar vs. Dharampal wherein it was affirmed that concept of 26 working days while paying retrenchment compensation is not applicable.
By Dayanand Mangaonkar
Read More