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".
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".
