Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from 2013

Can an outsider (non-employee) be present in a Employee’s Trade Union! Justice Chandru’s lighthouse with focus!

Can an outsider (non-employee) be present in a Employee’s Trade Union!  Justice Chandru’s lighthouse with focus! Source: Lawyers Collective 10 Dec 2013 Moth-Eaten Debate On Outsider Presence December 9, 2013   Amicus Curiae   No comments A+ | a-  A High Court judge has chosen to tender a suggestion to the government to amend the Trade Union law to prohibit outsiders from assuming leadership in Trade Unions. It is indeed surprising that the judge has volunteered this opinion even though the central and State governments were not parties to the case. Such expressions of personal opinion with no legal value is called ‘obiter dicta’. Even so, as this is the opinion of a High Court judge, we may examine its merits. “Madras Labour Union” was established as the first labour union inIndia. Interesting history. The administration of the Buckingham Carnatic Mill [Binny Mill, Perambur] was ruthlessly exploiting its workers. A worker had recorded a memory clip in the Union’s Souvenir, that
Post a Comment
Read more

Filing Complaints under IT Act – Maharashtra - weblinkg http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/1130/Filing-Complaints-under-IT-Act Cyber Crimes are new class of crimes rapidly increasing due to extensive use of technology. The information technology Act, 2000, specifies the acts which are punishable under the Act. State IT Secretary is the adjudicating officer under the IT Act, to adjudicate matters in respect of contraventions to the Chapter IX of the Information Technology Act 2000 and the matter or matters or places or area/areas in the State in which claim for injury or damage does not exceed Rs. 5 crore. The Adjudicating officer has the powers of Civil Court which are conferred on the Cyber Appellate Tribunal under sub-section(2) of the section 58. Cyber Laws IT Act 2000 IT Act (Amendment) 2008 IT Act Notification No 220 IT Act Notification No 240 Procedure for Filing a Complaint for Adjudication under IT Act Every Application for Adjudication Under IT Act 2000 should be in the specified format and should be accompanied by applicable fee. Application form: Proforma for Complaint Fee Structure: Every complaint of a matter to the Adjudicating Officer shall be accompanied by Application fee of Rs. 50/- and fee towards damages claimed by way of compensation from the contraveners, payable by a bank draft drawn in favour of "Adjudicating Officer Information Technology Act" at Mumbai, Maharashtra, calculated on the basis on the rates provided below. I. Damages by way of compensation Fee a. Upto Rs.10,000 10% ad valorem rounded of to nearest next hundred b. From 10001 to Rs. 50000 Rs. 1000 plus 5% of the amount exceeding Rs. 10,000 rounded of to nearest next hundred c. From Rs. 50001 to Rs. 100000 Rs. 3000/- plus 4% of the amount exceeding Rs. 50,000 rounded of to nearest next hundred d. More than Rs. 100000 Rs.5000/- plus 2% of the amount exceeding Rs. 100,000 rounded of to nearest next hundred II. Fee for Every ApplicationRs.50/- Where to Submit: Adjudicating Officer, c/o Directorate of Information Technology, 7th Floor, Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400021 Contact us: itcases@maharashtra.gov.in

Filing Complaints under IT Act – Maharashtra - weblink http://it.maharashtra.gov.in/1130/Filing-Complaints-under-IT-Act Cyber Crimes are new class of crimes rapidly increasing due to extensive use of technology. The information technology Act, 2000, specifies the acts which are punishable under the Act. State IT Secretary is the adjudicating officer under the IT Act, to adjudicate matters in respect of contraventions to the Chapter IX of the Information Technology Act 2000 and the matter or matters or places or area/areas in the State in which claim for injury or damage does not exceed Rs. 5 crore. The Adjudicating officer has the powers of Civil Court which are conferred on the Cyber Appellate Tribunal under sub-section(2) of the section 58. Cyber Laws IT Act 2000 IT Act (Amendment) 2008 IT Act Notification No 220 IT Act Notification No 240 Procedure for Filing a Complaint for Adjudication under IT Act Every Application for Adjudication Under IT Act 2000 should be in
Post a Comment
Read more

Guidelines for sexual harassment of women at the Supreme Court framed; High Courts directed to follow suit

Guidelines for sexual harassment of women at the Supreme Court framed; High Courts directed to follow suit July 19, 2013    Updates    No comments A+ | a- 17th July 2013: Seeking to address sexual harassment of women in the Supreme Court premises, a bench comprising the Chief Justice of India, Justice Altamas Kabir and Justices Ranjana Desai and A.R. Dave approved guidelines for the prevention and redressal of sexual harassment of women which will be applicable to the Supreme Court complex and the lawyers chambers. The guidelines were framed in a writ petition filed by two women lawyers, following an incident of sexual harassment of a woman in the High Court of Delhi, seeking directions to combat sexual harassment of women within the court premises. The directions of the Supreme Court come sixteen years after its historic decision in Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 241, where it took note of the lack of the law in the area and directed all employers to adopt gui
Post a Comment
Read more

High Court fines Collector for dereliction in duty – delay in recovery of workmen’s compensation

High Court fines Collector for   dereliction in duty – delay in recovery of   workmen’s compensation “If there is no harvesting of the crop, the crop rots in the field and becomes inedible, further the inflation is so high that the value of money deprecates day by day. The value of the money, which was awarded in the year 2010 has been reduced to a large extent on account of inflation. The rate of interest awarded does not commensurate with the high rate of inflation” ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT A writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the District Magistrate, Lalitpur to comply with the order of the Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation dated 8th April, 2010, by which a sum of Rs. 1,85,915.00 was awarded as compensation to the petitioner along with interest @ 10 per cent. Pursuant to the said award, a letter dated 19th February, 2011 was issued by the Commissioner to the Collector praying that the amount may be recovered from the Executive Engin
Post a Comment
Read more

Unhush harassment - Nee for rising awareness of fair practice with working women! Deccan Herald

Unhush harassment Aug 10, 2013,WFS : “Vishaka Guidelines Against Sexual Harassment at the Workplace” This means little to most working women – regardless of industry, sector, location, qualification, or professional experience. What has contributed to this dismal scenario is not just a lack of knowledge about the law and its provisions but also the overwhelming impression that a complaint could well end up finishing the complainant’s career. In fact, they often end up stigmatised. How just is justice? In fact, though the Act supposedly addresses many relevant aspects, it also penalises complainants whose accusation cannot be proved, even if true. Such are the ground realities of a woman’s professional life in India that when a male colleague leers, makes sexist remarks or jokes verbally or electronically with her, she invariably resorts to trying to avoid him as far as possible. Perhaps, one or more may adopt such tactics as staring back, ignoring the harasser or even tellin
Post a Comment
Read more

Fortune vs Saffola - High Court of Delhi, source; Indlaw.com

2013 INDLAW DEL 1027 [DELHI HIGH COURT] (1) Marico Limited; (2) Marico Limited v Adani Wilmar Limited Rajiv Sahai Endlaw 18 Apr 2013 BENCH Rajiv Sahai Endlaw CASES REFERRED TO Dabur India Limited, Delhi v (1) Colortek Meghalaya Private Limited, Meghalaya; (2) Godrej Sara-Lee, Mumbai 2010 Indlaw DEL 56 Hindustan Unilever Limited v Cavincare Private Limited 2010 Indlaw DEL 3247 (1) Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare Limited; (2) Horlicks Limited and another; (3) Heinz India Private Limited v (1) Heinz India Private Limited; (2) Glaxo Smithkline Consumer Healthcare 2010 Indlaw DEL 3044 Dabur India Ltd v Wipro Limited, Bangalore 2006 Indlaw DEL 373 Karamchand Appliances Private Limited v Sh. Adhikari Brothers and Others 2005 Indlaw DEL 429 Dabur India Limited v Colgate Palmolive India Ltd 2004 Indlaw DEL 394 Pepsi Company, Inc. and Others v Hindu
Post a Comment
Read more