Skip to main content

Labour law compliances for startups in India

 With Start-up storm gripping the nation and the tremendous potential that it promises for country’s growth, the Ministry of Labour & Employment has issued an advisory to the States/UTs/Central Labour Enforcement Agencies for a compliance regime based on self-certification and regulating the inspections under various Labour Laws. The move is to promote the Start-Up ecosystem in the country and incentivizing the entrepreneurs in setting up new start-up ventures.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue


It has been suggested that if such start-ups furnish self-declaration for compliance of nine labour laws for the first year from the date of starting the start-up, no inspection under these labour laws, wherever applicable, will take place.

 


Exemptions granted -

Start-ups have been exempted from inspection by labour inspectors for up to 3 years if they give a self-declaration for compliance to the nine labour laws. It has also been recommended that if such startups furnish self-declaration for compliance of the required nine labour laws for the first year from the date of starting the business, no inspection under these labour laws, wherever applicable, will take place for such start-ups.

 


Labour Law relaxations provided to startups -

Startups shall be allowed to self-certify their compliance (through Mobile App) with 9 Labour Laws and Environmental Laws. However, startups may be inspected on the basis of a written complaint filed for violation subject to approval of at least 1 level senior to the Inspecting officer.


Consult: Top Start-up Lawyers in India


In case of environmental laws, startups which fall under the “white category” would be entitled to certify and only random checks would be conducted once in a while.

 


This significant exemption shall be available with respect to the following labour laws -

Building and Other Constructive Workers (Regulation of Employment & Conditions of Service) Act, 1996


Inter-State Migrant Workmen (Regulation of Employment & Conditions of Service) Act, 1979


Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972


Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition Act), 1970


Employee’s Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952


Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948

 


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue


From the second year onwards, up to 3 years from the setting up of the units, such startups are required to furnish self-certified returns and would be inspected only when credible and verifiable complaint of violation is filed in writing and approval has been obtained from the higher authorities.


The labour minister further stated that the advisory to state governments is not to excuse the startups from the ambit of compliance of these labour laws but it is to provide an administrative mechanism to regulate inspection of the startups under these labour laws, so that startups are encouraged to be self-disciplined and adhere to the rule of law. 


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree