Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

The Government of Gujarat has issued the Code on Wages (Gujarat) Rules, 2021 vide notification dated October 5, 2021.

Key provisions under the Rules are:

  • The Code will supersede-
    1. The Payment of Wages (Procedure) Rules, 1937;
    2. The Gujarat Payment of Wages Rules, 1963;
  • The Gujarat Payment of Wages (Unclaimed Amounts) Rules, 1963;
    1. The Gujarat Payment of Wages Deductions for National Defence Fund and Defence Savings Scheme) Rules, 1964;
    2. The Payment of Wages (Manner of recovery of excess deductions) Rules, 1967;
    3. The Gujarat Minimum Wages Rules, 1961;
  • The Ease of Compliance to Maintain Registers under various Labour Laws (Gujarat) Rules, 2017 to the extent these rules are made in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 26 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1948.
  • Minimum Wages: Chapter II of the Rules prescribes provisions with respect to minimum wages, which includes:
    1. The manner of calculating minimum rate of wages.
    2. The norms will be fixed for minimum rate of wages.
  • Revision of wages
    1. The time interval for revision of dearness allowance.
    2. The number of hours of work which will constitute a normal working day.
    3. The weekly day of rest and Night shifts.
  • Payment of Wages: Chapter III of the Rules constitute provisions with respect to payment of wages, which includes:
    1. Recovery of Wages
    2. The manner of exhibiting the notice
  • Intimation of deduction
  1. Procedure for deduction
  • State Advisory Board: Chapter IV of the Rules prescribes provisions for constitution of state advisory board its functions, quorum, meetings etc.
  • Payment of Dues and Claims: Chapter V of the Rules provides the provisions for payment of dues and claims, which includes:
    1. Deposit of the undisbursed dues.
    2. Payment under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 44.
  • Manner of dealing with the undisbursed dues.
  • Forms, registers and wage slips: Chapter VI of the Rules prescribe provisions for Forms, registers and wage slips.

*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

The Government of Gujarat has issued the Industrial Relations (Gujarat) Rules, 2021 vide notification dated October 5, 2021. The Rules shall extend to the whole of Gujarat in respect to the industrial establishments and matters for which the Gujarat Government is the appropriate Government and shall come into the force from the commencement of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.


Key provisions of the Rules are:

  • Works Committee: The works committee shall be constituted, consisting of an equal number of representatives from employer & workers side, maximum members up to 20.
  • Grievance redressal Committee: The grievance addressal committee shall consist of an equal number of representatives from employer & workers side, maximum members up to 10.
  • Standing Orders: The employer, who adopts the model standing order of the Central Government, shall intimate the concerned certifying officer electronically the specific date from which the provisions of the model standing order have been adopted. On receipt of information the certifying officer within a period of 30 days from such receipt may give his observation & if no observation is made by the certifying officer within a period of 30 days the standing order shall be deemed to have been adopted by the employer.
  • Mechanism for resolution of Industrial Dispute: Chapter VI of the Rules prescribes the mechanism for resolution of Industrial dispute.
  • Strikes and Lockouts: Chapter VII of the Rules prescribe the provision for strikes and lockouts.
  • Lay-Off, Retrenchment and Closure: Special provision with respect to lay off, retrenchment and closure are prescribed under Chapter IX of the Rules.
  • Trade Unions: Provisions for registration, maintenance of registers by the Trade Unions, subscriptions for registered Trade Union, filing of Annual Return by the registered Trade Union, annual audit of accounts of Trade Unions etc are prescribed under the Rules.
  • Key Forms under the code are-
    1. Form-I – Memorandum of settlement arrived at during conciliation/ or settlement arrived at between the employer and his workers otherwise than in the course of conciliation proceeding.
    2. Form-II – Notice of change of service conditions proposed by an employer
    3. Form-III – Agreement for voluntary arbitration
    4. Form-IV – Authorization by a worker, group of worker, employer, group of employer to be represented in a proceeding before the authority under this code.
    5. Form-VI – Notice of strike to be given by union (name of union)/ group of workers.
    6. Form-VII – Notice of lock-out to be given by an employer of an industrial establishment.
    7. Form-VIII – Notice of intimation of retrenchment/ closure to be given by an employer to the state government under the provisions of chapter ix of the industrial relations code, 2020 and rules made there under.
    8. Form-IX – Application for permission of lay-off / continuation of layoff / retrenchment/ closure to be given by an employer / industrial establishment / undertaking to the state government under the provisions of chapter x of the industrial relations code, 2020 and rules made there under.
    9. Form X- Notice to the employer who committed an offence for the First time under this code, for compounding of offence under Sub-section (4) of section 89.
    10. Form XI- Complaint under section 91 of the industrial relation code, 2020
    11. Form-XII – Application for Registration of Trade Union
    12. Form-XIII – Certificate of Registration of Trade Union
    13. Form XXI- Annual Return

*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Legislation UpdatesRules & Regulations

On August 11, 2021, the Labour and Employment Department of Gujarat has passed the Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat) (Amendment) Rules 2021 to further amend the Labour Welfare Fund (Gujarat) Rules, 1962.

The Amendment has modified Rule 3AA, which deals with Maintenance of registers etc. by employees in which sub clause 1(a) has been deleted.

Rules 3AA(1)(a) states that a register of wages in Form “A’, except in case where the employer maintain muster roll-cum Wages register under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 and the rules made then under shall be maintained and preserved for a period of 10 years.


*Tanvi Singh, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: Sangeeta K. Vishen, J., allowed an application directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination for the subject – Foundation Engineering while observing that technical glitches could be faced during an online examination.

The petitioner, an engineering student had approached the High Court against the Gujarat Technological University which had barred him to appear for the pre-check trial test declaring that he had failed in the test which was conducted for the subject. The counsel for the petitioner, N.M. Kapadia contended that the petitioner was unable to answer the entire set of questions due to technical glitches during the online examination. He further contended that when the pre-check trial test was conducted on 15-9-2020, the technical glitch was again experienced by the petitioner as well as other students. Accordingly, the University, on the same day had tweeted that “Students who are not able to successfully submit today’s Pre-check trial test can re-appear tomorrow i.e. 16-9-2020 from 11:00 to 11:30 AM Login will start from 10:15 AM Students can appear using the same credentials used by them today and that are displayed in their student portal.” It was submitted that thereafter, the petitioner had appeared in the pre-check trial test on 16-9-2020. It was further contended that as is discernible from the contents of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent 1 – University, it suggests that there is the least likelihood of any malfunction. The University does not say that there was no malfunction in the system. The stand of the University was that remedial examination was available to the petitioner, as the petitioner had failed in one of the subjects; the same would grossly affect the career of the petitioner inasmuch as, the petitioner will carry two mark sheets for the same subject, for no fault of him. It was contended that right to education is a fundamental right and the same cannot be tinkered with by the University in such a fashion.

The Court while allowing the application directed the respondent to allow the petitioner to appear in the examination for the subject – Foundation Engineering. The Court further observed that the fact that the situation complained of was beyond his control and stated that

As the technology is and we all know, it has the tendency of uncertainties, be it network issues, device issues, etc. When working with technology, technical glitches cannot be ruled out and must be taken into consideration.”

[Harsh Hiteshbhai Gandhi v. Gujarat Technological University, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1328, decided on 18-09-2020]

Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Gujarat High Court: A Division Bench of Sonia Gokani and N.V. Anjaria, JJ., held that there may not be an actual interference with the course of administration of justice but it is enough if the offending publishing or act is likely or tends in any way to interfere with the administration of law.

Contempt Proceedings

Suo Motu contempt proceedings were initiated under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 15 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 where this Court issued a notice under Section 17 of the Contempt of Courts Act to respondents/alleged contemner.

Since every case of criminal contempt under Section 15 is required to be heard and determined by the bench of not less than two judges which is as per Section 18 of the said Act, the matter was placed before the Chief Justice and the same has been placed before this Court by way of a roster.

Factual Matrix

Contemner-Respondent 1 filed an anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 145, 332, 504, 186, 147, 153, 269 of the Penal Code and Section 13(1) of the Gujarat Epidemic Disease-19 Regulations, 2020 and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.

On 22-06-2020, a phone call was received by the Judge on her official mobile phone from a person who introduced himself as Niranjan Patel, MLA.

Phone Call

Further, the person inquired as to why he made a phone call, he said there was one criminal case listed before the Court on that day and the Judge immediately stopped him from talking further and clearly told him that he should not have called a Presiding Judge in the manner it was done and disconnected the phone.

The said person called thrice but the Judge did not answer the calls and laters it was noticed that the number belongs to Taufik Faiz Xerox having Vodafone number.

Bench was of the opinion that,

“…it was an act meant to prejudice or interfere with due course of Judicial proceeding, or an act which interfered or tended to interfere with the administration of Justice which would amount to criminal contempt with the meaning of Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1974.”

However, to ascertain as to who in fact was in the custody of the mobile phone number at those hours and who had called and sent the messages, the Superintendent of Police was directed to record the statement of Niranjan Patel, MLA and Tosif Vohra.


Niranjan Patel indicated that he had no family relations with respondent 1. With regard to the call in question, he stated that he never had made any such call nor would he ever think to make any such call on behalf of anyone. His name is dragged maliciously.


In the present matter, on perusal of the submissions, High Court stated that the apology as may be tendered by the parties, the alleged contemners shall need to be regarded by the Court, where it is also to regard as to whether the apology tendered is at the first point of time without attempting to justify the actions and creating the defence or is it being used as an escape route.

Court also needs to regard, “Whether the same is in a case which has been committed the first time.”

The law is also clear that it is not necessary for the Court to accept such an apology, even if found to be unconditional and unqualified when the parameter of genuineness is not found satisfying.

Administration of Law

Further, the Court added that what is also required to be considered is that there may not be an actual interference with the course of administration of justice but it is enough if the offending publishing or act is likely or tends in any way to interfere with the administration of law.

If the Act if is so derogatory to the very dignity of the justice delivery system so as to undermine the confidence of the people, Court would not choose to overlook such a serious dimension.

Even an apology which is conditional but inspiring confidence, being full of contrition and remorse and which is also meant to be sincere, demonstrating clearly that the person concerned has out of repentance and remorse tendered the same and is not a design or manner to overreach the process, can also be accepted.

Section 12 of the Contempt of Court provides for the punishment of contempt.

Supreme Court’s decision in Bal Kishan Giri v. State of U.P., (2014) 7 SCC 280 considered as to when can an apology be considered, where the following was held:

”…apology cannot be a defence, justification or calculated strategy to avoid punishment for an act which tantamount to contempt of court, and is not to be accepted as a matter of course. However, apology can be accepted where conduct for which apology given is such that it can be ignored without compromising dignity of court, or evidences real contrition, and is sincere. Apology cannot be accepted where it is hollow, there is no remorse, no regret, no repentance, or if it is only a device to escape rigour of law that is it is merely paper apology.” On facts, it had been held that the High Court was justified in not accepting apology which was not bonafide.“ It also held that casting of bald, oblique unsubstantiated aspersions not only causes agony and anguish to judges concerned but also shakes confidence of public in judiciary.”

Decision rendered in case of Vishram Singh Raghubanshi v. State of U.P., (2011) 7 SCC 776  also reiterated that not necessarily, apology even if unconditional and unqualified needs acceptance.

Apart from being bonafide, if the conduct is serious which has caused damage to the dignity of the institution, the same need not be accepted.

High Court stated that when the conduct of both alleged respondent 1 and 2 are considered, it can be noticed that both tendered apology which they insisted to be unconditional and unqualified and at the first given opportunity.

Compromising with the dignity of the institution

Present case being an extremely gross case where there is a direct attempt to contact the Presiding Judge of the Court with a clear design to obtain an order in favour of the respondent 1 by camouflage and all possible efforts have been made to interfere with the administration of justice, even if the apology is termed as a qualified and unconditional, accepting the same would amount to compromising with the dignity of the institution.

Prima facie, it appears that with an intent to get the order in his favour, he had hired alleged contemner 2 who in his opinion was having all resources and was having more contact and he made arrangement in his meeting to get the number of Judge.


It is a very serious case and, in a time, where many litigants harbour a notion to win over and manoeuvre anything and everything by adopting even extra-legal means and whose only goal is the end result which they desire, regardless of the means adopted, the Court is of the clear opinion that acceptance of apology would vindicate such notion that one can get away with any outrageous conduct by merely tendering an apology.

It appears largely a design to procure liberty by an ill design and unpalatable means of contacting the sitting Judge of this Court right on the day when the matter is scheduled to get the order by hook or crook and the means adopted, as can be noticed, prima facie are such which would shake the edifice if permitted to go scot-free.

The glaring facts of the instant case would not permit this Court to accept the apology and discharge the notice as requested by the Counsels appearing for the parties as the Court cannot overlook the vital and fundamental aspect that such acceptance can mean this Court compromising the dignity of the institution and interference with the administration of justice.

Hence, Court is not persuaded in the totality of facts and circumstances, to accept such apology so tendered. [Suo Motu v. Vijay Arvindbhai Shah, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1274, decided on 31-08-2020]