Brick HR

Government of West Bengal Finance Department Audit Branch No. 7690-F(P2) Dated: 3rd November, 2015 NOTIFICATION In exercise of the power conferred by the explanation to Section 25 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (XXVI of 1881), read with Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, Notification No. 20/25/56-pub(1) dated the 8th June, 1957 the Governor is pleased to declare the following days to be public holidays during the year 2016. Birth Day of Swami Vivekananda 12th January, Tuesday **Birth day of Netaji 23rd January, Saturday Republic Day 26th January, Tuesday **Saraswati Puja (Sree Panchami) 13th February, Saturday Doljatra 23rd March, Wednesday Good Friday 25th March, Friday Birth day of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar & Bengali New Year’s Day 14th April, Thursday ID-UL-Fitre 6th July, Wednesday Independence Day 15th August, Monday ID-Ud-Joha 12th September, Monday Mahalaya 30th September, Friday Durgapuja **Saptami 8th October, Saturday Nabami 10th Octob

Regularization /absorption of contract workers, if the contractor did not possess licence, not proper. and The Tribunal while directing regularization has to give finding that the contract labour system was ruse, sham or camouflage and Merely because the workers have worked for 240 days in a calendar year, it will not give any right for absorption/ regularisation.   JHARKHAND HIGH COURT M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd.  Vs  Workmen M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Another Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 _________________________________________________________________ JHARKHAND HIGH COURT  Hon'ble Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, J. W.P. (L) No. 2952 of 2001, D/–1-7-2009 between M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. vs. Workmen M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and Another CONTRACT LABOUR (REGULATION AND ABOLITION) ACT, 1970 – Sections 7, 10 and 12 – Absorption of workers as engaged through the contractor – Sustainability of – As permanent employees – Award – No fin

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT  Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. F.A.O. No. 433/1998, D/–2-3-2009 between Employees' State Insurance Corporation vs. Haryana Biological (P) Ltd. EMPLOYEES' STATE INSURANCE ACT, 1948 – Section 2(9) – ‘Employee' – Respondent-company was found engaging 3 of its directors along with 7 other persons in its factory so that the total of persons employed came to be 10 – The appellant-ESI Corporation, therefore, demanded contribution from the respondent – The Employee's Insurance Court upheld the challenge of the respondent to the said demand – Hence the present appeal allowed – The High Court observed that directors receiving remuneration from the respondent were also employees and were to be counted with the other 7 employees. Para 9 Case Referred Employees' State Insurance Corporation  v.  Apex Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd  .  , 1998-I LLJ 274 (SC). Paras 5 & 6 For Appellant  :  Mr. Vikas Suri / Advocate. IMPORTANT POIN

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT  Hon'ble Mr. Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. C.W.J. (Appellate Side) W.P. No. 17874 (W)/2007 with C.A.N. No. 5707/2008, D/–14-5-2009 between Wanson Leather Industries Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. EMPLOYEES' PROVIDENT FUNDS AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ACT, 1952 – Section 7A, Determination of money due from employer – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226, Powers of the High Courts to issue certain writs – Instead of filing an appeal – Petitioner challenged impugned order of RPFC Office for recovery of money due towards contributions – High Court dismissed the writ petition by holding impugned order passed after giving full opportunity of hearing to petitioner – No written objection submitted to show cause notice – Correctness of list of workers and other details given to petitioner, never disputed – The moment evasion was detected, petitioner gave membership to those 67 workers named in the list - No reason to interfere with

An employer has a right to transfer an employee when there is a condition of service but the transfer order is to be made by the appointing authority. No doubt, transfer of an employee employed in transferable post from one place/department is an incident of service but the transfer order must be passed by a competent authority. In one case, the transfer order was passed by an authority not competent to pass the same and hence there was no obligation on the appellant to obey such an order and on account of the disobedience of that order there could not be leveling of charges as done against the concerned employee and as such he could not be penalized on the basis of these charges. While accepting the appeal, their Lordships held that the service rules being binding on both the master and the servant, they cannot be violated to the prejudice of one or the other. Each party is bound by them and that is the sanctity of the service conditions. Waiving the service rules as reflecting