LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More


(Guest)

Right to privacy

The Report Published in Times of India was the violoation of Right to Privacy.... In a true sense the Names of The Parties are with held...while publishing the the Judgement...Can the Parliament of India Make a Law Which prevents the names of the parties to be published when a particular judgement is being brought into a Public domain....The Famous Case which got published with the names. Destroyed the earning prospect of an Indian Citizen....

 

Below is the very famous case which was widely published and very well read. In this case the Tribunal decided in favour of the workman. Later on The Opponent of the workman filled a writ Petition. The Opponent Bank won the WRIT Petition. Subeqeuntly the Petitioner filled a Appeal and then she lost in Appeal. Subsequently the Petitioner filled a Review. The Review Got dismissed. Finally the Petitioner had approched the Hon'ble Apex court with an SLP which consists of 12 Question of Law? This case is worth watching.... SLP No 4218/4217 of 2010 in Review No 153 of 2010, in Appeal no 67 in writ Petition 475. Hon'ble Mumbai High court........The Challenging part of this is that the Petitioner is Party in Person as she ran out of Money during the Writ Petition..... The Case started way back in 2006..... Now it is 5 years of Litigation...

Bombay HC clarifies law on 'workman'

MUMBAI: In a significant verdict that has focused on the contemporary corporate world, the Bombay high court has dispelled archaic notions of
what a protected 'workman' means and upheld the sacking of a personal financial consultant by Standard Chartered Bank.

The bank had appointed Vandana Joshi in May 2006 in its management cadre and dismissed her the following month for "deficiency in performance of duties". Joshi's fight landed first in the Industrial Tribunal which accepted her claim of being a "clerk" and thus a 'workman' whose sudden termination it held as "unlawful".

In January 2009 the tribunal directed the bank to reinstate her back with wages. The bank moved the high court in appeal against the tribunal order. While overturning the tribunal's order, Justice D Y Chandrachud broke new ground in deciding what labour law experts say has been a "very vexed issue on who constitutes a workman in the post liberalisation era?"

In the case at hand, the HC observed that the bank employee's job targets included "achieving allocated business targets, ensuring high quality customer service, ensuring external and internal compliance in all branch transactions, handling difficult customer situations and contributing to the overall achievement of business growth". Her key responsibilities included "active cross-selling of third party products, generating new business via sales promotions, outmarketing calls and presentations and in-branch contacts and participating actively in branch sales planning to generate action plans for meeting targets".

In other words, responsibilities that many executives in the large banks in Mumbai strive to achieve daily. Joshi, when she first challenged her termination, admitted that hers was a managerial appointment but later insisted that she was a clerk as she reported to her branch manager and had no power to "sanction leaves or initiate disciplinary enquiries".

The tribunal agreed with her but the HC severely disagreed with the tribunal for causing "manifest failure of justice". Justice Chandrachud said that the tribunal had no jurisdiction to even decide the issue as Joshi was not a workman under section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In fact the HC said the tribunal applied a "superficial analysis to the problem in determining whether she was a workman under the law by only seeing if she had supervisory power and could recommend leave".


Learning

 1 Replies

Sh. P Suresh (For To By Green Kindness Perpetuity Selfsustainability Always)     27 August 2011

Oh yes, there is lot of difference in terms of definition. While a priest is head of a sacred place, the Indian priest is not even equal to a sweeper in foreign terms. This is not spelt out loudly. This gets to be clear when a bit of scratching happens.

 

The bank is a foreign bank - The employee is an Indian. - The other employee who turned to be opponent of the employee who upturned the Tribunal's order is also an Indian. - Unhealthy inter personal rivalry/competition is more likely cause for the miseries.

 

'Angreez logo' are held in high esteem by our desi folk. Desis give up anything and become loyals. Angreezis turn to be Gods and act as per their whims. No ill will or anything against any unseen, whoever, Angreezi or anyone at all. But, then, in practical life, injustice has got done.

 

* Our Indian governMINT babus (who enforce law) have definitely not done a good job. They should have defined these well and made it public. All should know what is what right from word go. Here the definitions are not well defined. Is one rupee being accepted as one dollar? Amount of work, quality of work by an Indian  seems to be much more than the effort by a counterpart. There is something wrong in the Indian Babus who negotiate deals and thrust them as law, products etc.

* Is one month time any time at all in the given case? What did the employer see so much in the employee? Has the employee not got humiliated, harassed? What for?


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register