Saturday, July 9, 2022

I.D.A.

 

The present blog isn’t my subject specific domain,  yet, thought to write about this.

There was a discussion regarding -> whilst the Industrial Dispute covered the definition of Workman (S.2s) & the Employer (S.2g), it circumvented on defining an Employee (eg. let’s say Software Engineers). So, the way Workman is covered against Laying Off, Retrenchment etc.; Employees, as mentioned above, should’ve also been covered. For example, IT or Finance Sector Employees protected from being Laid Off or Retrenched, especially at the time of Recession or amidst the likes of Covid lockdown.

No matter how noble the thought of covering Employees in the likes of Industrial Dispute Act, there’s a glitch when they’re being compared to Workmen. And that is, the Remuneration & Facilities given to Employees compared to the defined Workmen, in which it’s presumed that such Employees aren’t vulnerable when compared to Workmen; which made sense of then Not including such Employees.

But again, the Company Law should only include such Companies that can support or provide Employees renumeration for at least 3-6 months, rather laying off immediately, especially during recession or lockdown. If you can’t take care for even 3-6 months, then you aren’t a company but a retail Shop.😊

© Pranav Chaturvedi

No comments:

Post a Comment

Is 18 Months Necessary For The Publication? This Creates A Grey Area In The Anticipation Itself! And Why The Concept Of Provisional Application Should Be Abolished & Replaced With The Existing Patent Of Addition After Complete Specification!

  I covered this topic long back. I’m covering this again with a caveat! Let’s say between the period of provisional and complete, someo...