LI Network
Published on: January 7, 2024 at 03:06 IST
The Bombay High Court recently pronounced that the customary practice of requiring suspended employees to mark attendance is against the law.
The Court emphasized that according to the law, suspended employees are only obliged to inform their employer of their non-engagement elsewhere.
This ruling came forth in a writ petition filed by M/s. Hindustan Level Employees Union against Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL).
In a bench headed by Justice Milind N. Jadhav, the Court stated, “…the question before me is whether such a customary practice of requiring the employee to mark his attendance at the factory gate without the support of any rule, regulation, standing order, or statutory enactment is maintainable in the face of the statutory provision of Section 10(A) of the said Act. I am afraid it is not. The Respondent – Company cannot lay down and insist on a customary practice followed by the Company to prevail upon the existing statutory provisions of law.”
The Court clarified that if the customary practice is in direct conflict with Section 10(A) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, it cannot supersede the claim of an employee for subsistence allowance.
The case involved a challenge to the award rejecting the Union’s reference, concerning the denial of subsistence allowance to a suspended employee who did not mark attendance at the factory gate during suspension. The Labour Court upheld the company’s decision, leading to the matter being brought before the High Court.
The High Court observed that the company’s requirement for physical attendance and daily sign-ins at the factory gate during suspension, for subsistence allowance, was illegal and against Section 10(A) of the IESO Act.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the award, directing the company to pay the entire amount along with interest to the suspended employee within one week.