Hindustan Lever Employees Union vs HUL: Bombay HC scraps mandatory daily attendance

In a landmark ruling, the Bombay High Court has upheld the right of suspended employees to receive subsistence allowance without having to mark daily attendance at the workplace. This welcome decision simplifies the process and removes a pointless burden for employees facing disciplinary action.

The case involved Hindustan Lever Employees Union and Hindustan Unilever Limited, where the company insisted on suspended employees reporting daily as a condition for receiving their subsistence allowance. This allowance, mandated by Section 10A of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, is meant to support employees during their suspension period, when they are not receiving their regular salary.

The Court rightly rejected the company’s argument, stating that the law imposes no such condition for receiving the allowance. Judge Milind N. Jadhav questioned the purpose of daily reporting, calling it an “empty and meaningless formality” that serves only to “massage the ego” of the employer.

The Court’s decision carries significant weight. It puts an end to a potentially outdated practice that adds unnecessary stress and inconvenience to employees already facing the uncertainty of suspension. Comparing the situation to bail conditions, Judge Jadhav aptly pointed out that requiring daily reporting adds no value beyond mere control.

This ruling sets a positive precedent for other cases involving employee suspension and subsistence allowance. It emphasises the importance of upholding the spirit of the law, not blindly following established practices that may no longer serve a valid purpose.

In conclusion, the Bombay High Court’s decision is a victory for employee rights and common sense. It simplifies the process of receiving subsistence allowance and eliminates a needless burden for suspended employees, allowing them to focus on resolving their disciplinary matters without unnecessary pressure.