scorecardresearch
Follow Us:
Friday, December 04, 2020

Legal Weekly: Vodafone to pay 50,000 to an ex-employee, Ban lifted from Tamil books; Top Judgments of the Week

Legal Weekly is a compilation of the landmark rulings passed by the Supreme Court and the High Courts of the country during the week. Read upon why Vodafone had to pay a hefty fine to a former employee and how the Tamil author managed to lift a ban from his books.

Updated: October 28, 2017 4:26:59 pm
vodafone case, tamil books, senthil mallar tamil books, ncdrc post office, vodafone sexual harassment, madras high court, bombay high court, indian express news The court held that since most of the allegations made by the state were accepted by the author and accordingly amends were made to the books, it found no reason to stay the ban. (Source: File Photo)

Madras HC: Ban lifted from two Tamil books

Two books authored by K. Senthil Mallar ‘Meendezhum Pandiyar Varalaru’ and ‘Venthar Kulathin Irupppidam Ethu?’ recently courted controversy after the Tamil Nadu government banned them under section 95 of the CrPC, fearing they could incite violence among various communities. Senthil filed a petition in the Madras High Court calling to lift the ban from his books.

Setting aside the government order, the Madras High Court observed that certain ‘provoking contents’ be deleted or altered from the book. The court noted that the content alleged as abusive and derogatory by the state was posed a threat to public order.

“There cannot be any justification in lifting a community by demeaning other communities,” the court said.

The court held that since most of the allegations made by the state were accepted by the author and accordingly amends were made to the books, it found no reason to stay the ban.

vodafone case, tamil books, senthil mallar tamil books, ncdrc post office, vodafone sexual harassment, madras high court, bombay high court, indian express news The court did note that at the time of the alleged incident, the company did not have a Complaints Committee for reporting such cases.

Bombay HC: Vodafone fined Rs. 50,000 for not having a Complaints Committee

A former Vodafone employee and petitioner alleged that she was terminated from her service in 2000 because she refused to give in to the sexual advances made by the then Chief Operating Officer (COO) and another company executive.

Since the company had no Complaints Committee to address sexual harassment issues, the petitioner approached the office functionaries for help, but none of them helped her. As the facts from the case weren’t clear, the court didn’t rule on that. But it noted that at the time of the alleged incident, the company did not have a Complaints Committee for reporting such cases.

“..nothing prevented the Respondent No.1 from inquiring into her grievance even after her termination.”

The court, therefore, ruled that the company failed to follow the Vishakha guidelines and is liable to pay the petitioner a fine amounting to Rs 50,000 for not constituting a Complaints Committee for the redressal of sexual harassment cases.

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC): Post office Chandigarh and New Delhi fined Rs 25,000

The post office of Chandigarh and Lodhi Road in New Delhi, the petitioners, failed to deliver application forms of two graduates appearing for the Delhi Judicial Services Examination 2015 surpassing the last date of submission of applications. Due to the laxity of the postmasters, the applicants were not able to appear for the examination.

The post office received the applications on November 6, but the same was delivered 10 days later to the Delhi High Court. The petition was filed by the post offices of Chandigarh and Delhi as a Revision Petition against an order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SDRC).

The NCDRC bench held that each complainant in the case, the graduates, should receive Rs. 25,000 from the post offices and held that, “Undoubtedly, the said default has caused to the Complainants a great deal of anguish and mental agony of losing precious chance of participating in an important competitive examination, for which they have been awarded paltry compensation of ₹25,000/-.”

Bombay HC: Indian Nursing Council has no authority to give recognition to nursing institutes

Private Nursing Schools and Colleges Management Association filed a writ petition against the Indian Nursing Council (INC) and questioned the council’s authority on granting recognition to institutes providing nursing courses.

The petitioners have membership in over 400 schools in the state imparting nursing training to students.

The INC was allegedly imparting nursing courses like the Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife course (ANM), General Nursing and Midwifery (GNM), Bachelor of Nursing (BSc), Post Basic Bachelor of Nursing (PBBSc) and Master of Nursing (MSc), which the petitioners challenged.

The court passed the judgment in favour of the petitioner and held that INC does not have the authority to grant recognition or affiliation to nursing institutes. The court further held that the candidates who have received degrees and diplomas by INC uptil now will be allowed to practice in the limits of the state.

📣 The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Research News, download Indian Express App.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
X