Latest news with #PunjabReorganisationAct
Time of India
5 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Punjab parties unite against land pooling scheme, demand FTA exclusion
Bathinda: Punjab's political parties, excluding the ruling Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), demanded the immediate withdrawal of the state's controversial land pooling scheme. The call came during an event organised by the Sanyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), where parties also pressed for the exclusion of agriculture and allied sectors from free trade agreements (FTAs) with the US and other nations. During the meeting held on Friday, leaders from across the political spectrum sought to strengthen the cooperative sector, annul all existing water accords and review Sections 78, 79, and 80 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act. A consensus was reached to urge the Punjab assembly to pass a resolution and sent to the Centre, advocating for parliamentary amendments to these sections. The SKM had convened the all-party meeting, challenging political factions to clarify their positions on contentious issues facing Punjab. Representatives from Congress, BJP, Shiromani Akali Dal, BSP, SAD (five-member recruitment committee), CPI, CPI (M), CPI(ML) Liberation, CPI(ML) New Democracy, and RMPI participated, with only AAP absent. The land pooling scheme has faced widespread condemnation. In a voice vote, party leaders slammed the state govt, labelling the scheme a "ploy to seize fertile lands from farmers and hand them over to corporates". by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo They vowed to resist its implementation, citing over 90% opposition from landowning farmers. Some parties even implicated AAP's "Delhi-based top leadership," alleging collusion with corporations targeting valuable land. Beyond land pooling, political leaders supported the SKM's agenda to annul water-sharing agreements, urging the state govt to pass a resolution to the Centre. They also backed the SKM's demand to scrap the Dam Safety Act in its current form, arguing it undermines the federal structure by transferring state rights over dams to the Centre. Unanimous support was also voiced for bolstering the cooperative movement to combat the sale of spurious seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, and insecticides. SKM leaders Balbir Singh Rajewal, Harinder Singh Lakhowal, Darshanpal, Buta Singh Burjgill, and Raminder Patiala presided over the proceedings. Prominent attendees included Avtar Singh Karimpuri (BSP), Randeep Singh Nabha (Congress), Kewal Singh Dhillon (former MLA), Subash Sharma (BJP), Sukhdeep Singh and Dinesh Kumar (SAD), Iqbal Singh Jhunda and Gurpartap Singh Wadala (SAD five-member committee), Sukhwinder Sekhon (CPI(M)), Bant Singh Brar (CPI), Sukhdarshan Natt and Gurmeet Singh Bakhtupura (CPI(ML) Liberation), Darshan Singh Khatkar (CPI(ML) New Democracy), and Pargat Singh Jamrai (RMPI), all presenting their party's views. SKM leaders later clarified their objective is to understand political parties' stances. The SKM stated it would continue to champion these issues, with parties expected to offer external support. MSID:: 122763944 413 |
Hindustan Times
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Centre grants yet another extension to Ravi Beas Water Tribunal
The central government has granted another extension for a year to the Ravi-Beas Water Tribunal constituted in 1986 for verification and adjudication of claims regarding quantum of water usage and shares of Punjab and Haryana in the remaining waters as per para 9.1 and 9.2 of Rajiv Longowal Memorandum of Settlement (Accord) of July 24, 1985. The Tribunal was constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Haryana on its part started construction of the SYL canal in its territories towards the end of 1976 and completed it in June 1980. (HT File) 'The central government, keeping in view the exigencies of the work involved, as pointed out by the Tribunal, considers it necessary to extend the said period for one year from August 5, 2025. In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 5 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the Central government hereby further extends the period within which the Tribunal may forward its report on the references so made to till August 5, 2026,' reads a July 9 notification by Union Jal Shakti ministry. After the reorganisation of the erstwhile Punjab into the two separate states of Punjab and Haryana on November 1, 1966, disputes arose between the two states with regards to sharing of the surplus Ravi-Beas waters. Haryana laid claim to 4.8 million acre feet (MAF) of water out of 7.2 MAF (composite Punjab's entitlement) on the principle of equitable distribution. Punjab, however, decided not to give anything to Haryana taking the plea that the latter was not a riparian state (a state located on the bank of a river). The central government then tried to resolve the dispute by passing a statutory order on March 24, 1976 under Punjab Reorganisation Act allocating 3.5 MAF of surplus Ravi-Beas waters to Haryana out of the total 7.2 MAF share of surplus Ravi Beas waters of erstwhile Punjab. For carrying Haryana's share in the surplus Ravi Beas waters, a link canal-the Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) canal-was planned to be constructed in the territories of Punjab and Haryana. Haryana on its part started construction of the SYL canal in its territories towards the end of 1976 and completed it in June 1980. Upset at the decision, the Punjab government moved the Supreme Court against the centre's decision. The Haryana government too moved the apex court seeking implementation of the centre's decision. Construction of the SYL canal in Punjab territory was taken up by the Punjab government in 1982 but stopped in 1990 after completion of about 90% work. An accord known as - the Punjab Settlement- was signed on July 24, 1985 at New Delhi between the then Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) chief Sant Harcharan Singh Longowal. It included certain provisions relating to Ravi-Beas waters -- construction of SYL canal should be completed by August 15, 1986; claims of Punjab and Haryana regarding their shares in the remaining water be referred for adjudication by a Tribunal presided over by a Supreme court judge. In 1986, a Tribunal under Justice V Balakrishna Eradi was constituted by the central government to decide sharing of the surplus Ravi Beas waters. Para 9.1 of the Accord said that waters used for consumptive purposes will also remain unaffected and the quantum of usage claimed shall be verified by the tribunal referred to in para 9.2. Para 9.2 said that the claims of Punjab and Haryana regarding the shares in their remaining waters will be referred for adjudication to a Tribunal to be presided over by a Supreme Court judge. The decision of this tribunal will be rendered within six months and would be binding on both parties. All legal and constitutional steps required in this respect shall be taken expeditiously, it said. The Tribunal gave its report on January 30, 1987 and it was forwarded to the Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan governments on May 20, 1987. The Tribunal in its award increased the share of Haryana to 3.83 MAF from 3.50 MAF and that of Punjab to 5.0 MAF from 4.22 MAF. Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and the Central governments subsequently made references to the Tribunal seeking explanation/ guidance on the report in August 1987 which are under consideration till now. The Tribunal's award thus could not be notified by the central government.
Hindustan Times
26-06-2025
- Business
- Hindustan Times
New labour reforms in the offing: Chandigarh seeks to improve business environment
In a major initiative to enhance the ease of doing business, the Chandigarh administration has proposed a series of transformative labour reforms, aligned with the vision of the Union ministry of labour and employment. These reforms aim to position Chandigarh as a competitive industrial and commercial hub by simplifying regulatory processes while safeguarding worker welfare. The Chandigarh administration aims to establish the city as a benchmark of industrial efficiency and inclusive growth in North India. (HT File) The proposals have been submitted to the Union ministry of home affairs under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966. Inspired by progressive models adopted in Punjab and Haryana, the amendments seek to streamline compliance procedures, reduce regulatory burdens, and foster a more business-friendly ecosystem. Among the proposed reforms are: Factories Act, 1948 (Haryana Amendment Extension); Raises the applicability threshold from 10 to 20 workers (with power) and from 20 to 40 (without power), increases the quarterly overtime limit from 75 to 125 hours, introduces compounding of minor offences to avoid prolonged legal proceedings, allows women to work night shifts with enhanced safety measures. Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 (Punjab Amendment Extension): Increases the threshold from 20 to 50 workers, easing compliance for small and medium enterprises (SMEs), Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Punjab Amendment Extension) and raises the threshold from 100 to 300 workers. Amends the definition of 'public utility service' to include all industrial establishments, ensuring smooth operations. The department, in its communication, stated that these reforms are expected to reduce compliance costs, improve operational flexibility, promote workforce diversity, and attract higher investments. The Chandigarh administration aims to establish the city as a benchmark of industrial efficiency and inclusive growth in North India. The department also noted that several key reforms have already been implemented, including fixed term employment, women in night shifts, and the adoption of a compliance-first approach, all designed to foster a cooperative and progressive industrial environment.
Time of India
25-06-2025
- Business
- Time of India
Chandigarh takes a cue from Pb, Hry models, proposes amendments to labour laws
1 2 Chandigarh: The Chandigarh administration proposed amendments to existing labour laws, submitted to the ministry of home affairs, to streamline compliance, reduce regulatory burdens, and foster a business-friendly ecosystem while prioritising worker welfare. "To empower the business community and enhance Chandigarh's competitiveness, the administration proposed amendments under Section 87 of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, drawing inspiration from Punjab and Haryana's progressive models," said a UT spokesperson. In the Factories Act, 1948 (Extension of Haryana Amendment Act, 2018), the administration recommended increasing the threshold. "Raises the applicability threshold from 10 to 20 workers (with power) and 20 to 40 (without power), exempting smaller units from complex compliance requirements and reducing operational costs," said the spokesperson. Further, UT sought to allow night shifts for women. "UT proposed women to work night shifts with enhanced safety protocols, enabling industries to leverage a diverse workforce and operate round-the-clock." UT proposed extended overtime hours. "The quarterly overtime limit from 75 to 125 hours should be increased, providing businesses with greater operational flexibility to meet production demands," the UT proposed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like 5 Books Warren Buffett Wants You to Read In 2025 Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List Undo Compounding of offences should be introduced wherein provisions to settle minor violations without lengthy legal processes should be done, which will save time and resources for businesses. Amendments in the Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition) Act, 1970 (Extension of Punjab Amendment Act, 2020) are sought to increase the applicability threshold from 20 to 50 workers, easing regulatory requirements for small and medium enterprises, allowing them to focus on growth and innovation. Similarly, changes in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Extension of Punjab Amendment Act, 2020) are sought to elevate the applicability threshold from 100 to 300 workers, streamlining dispute resolution processes and reducing compliance burdens for larger businesses. Amendments were proposed in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (New Amendment for Chandigarh) to amend Section 22 to replace "Public utility service" with "Public Utility service and all industrial establishments," ensuring smoother operations across all industrial sectors and minimising disruptions. "These proposed reforms are designed to create a dynamic, investor-friendly environment in Chandigarh by reducing compliance costs: Higher thresholds and simplified regulations lower operational costs, particularly for small and medium enterprises. It will enhance operational flexibility. It will promote inclusivity allowing women in night shifts, expands the workforce, addressing skill shortages and fostering inclusive growth. Streamlining legal processes and boosting competitiveness," said the spokesperson. MSID:: 122073091 413 |
The Hindu
08-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Water dispute: HC dismisses Punjab's plea seeking recall or modification of May 6 order
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed the Punjab government's plea seeking a recall or modification of its May 6 order which asked it to release water to Haryana. Punjab had sought a recall or modification of the high court's order pertaining to Union Home Secretary Govind Mohan's May 2 decision to release 4,500 cusecs of extra water to Haryana. The high court had directed Punjab to abide by the decision of the meeting held on May 2 under the chairmanship of the Union Home Secretary. Punjab had alleged concealment of "material facts" by the Centre, Haryana and the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) which led to the May 6 high court order. In the order that came out on Saturday, the division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel dismissed the Punjab government's plea. Referring to the state of Punjab's assertion that disputes relating to water between two or more states emanate from Article 262 of the Constitution, pursuant to which Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, the court said, "Merely because this court held that Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 is a manifestation of Article 262 (1) of the Constitution, does not help the stance of State of Punjab in any manner in its attempt to seek re-calling/ modification of the order, unless the State of Punjab can show that because of this error, any prejudice has been caused to it, which is certainly not the case herein." The major thrust of Punjab's argument is as regards material concealment on the part of BBMB and Haryana by contending that the April 29 letter of Haryana, requesting the BBMB Chairman to refer the matter to the Centre was not brought to the notice of the court. "Taking up the ground of non-disclosure of the letter, it is obvious from reading of the said letter that the extraordinary meeting of the BBMB dated April 28 was held to execute the resolution dated April 23 of the Technical Committee of BBMB. However, this letter clearly reveals that the State of Haryana was aggrieved by non-execution of resolution of BBMB, especially regarding release of 8500 cusecs of water to Haryana. "Contents of letter April 29 further elicit that stance taken therein was that the BBMB was being monopolised by Punjab. Thus, the State of Haryana under Explanation - II to Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, requested the Chairman of the BBMB to refer the matter to Centre for implementation of earlier resolution," said the order. A close scrutiny of Rule 7 of 1974 Rules, along with both the explanations, reveals that in case of difference of opinion among the members on any question of policy or the rights of any of the participating states, the chairman shall refer the matter to the central government, which shall decide the same, it said. The court further stated that the April 29 letter does not relate to any dissent by Haryana but contains a request to the BBMB Chairman to refer the matter to the central government for the execution of the minutes of the April 28 meeting. Thus, in essence, the letter dated April 29 does not raise any dispute or difference of opinion of Haryana but merely seeks implementation of the April 28 resolution of the Technical Committee of the Board. As such, this letter cannot be treated as a reference to the Centre, the court held. Consequently, the April 29 letter of Haryana does not fall within the realm of "material fact", non-disclosure of which is hence inconsequential, it said. Regarding the ground of BBMB being incompetent to decide the issue once the matter was referred to the government of India is concerned, the order said since this court has held the April 29 letter not to be a reference to the government of India, the question of reference being pending with the government of India does not arise and, thus, BBMB was free to act in accordance with law. Referring to its May 6 order, the court mentioned that it disposed of the matter in the backdrop of an emergent situation that had arisen and any delay in resolving the dispute would have caused irreparable damage to millions of residents of different states, including Haryana, Rajasthan and Delhi. On May 20, Haryana, BBMB and the Centre had filed their replies to Punjab's plea which sought a review or modification of the high court's May 6 order. Haryana had earlier submitted that the application filed by Punjab is "complete abuse of the process of the court with an ulterior motive to wriggle out from the proceedings of contempt." Punjab and Haryana had been at loggerheads over the distribution of water with the AAP government refusing to share water from Bhakra Dam, saying the neighbouring State has already utilised its share of water.
