Skip to main content

​What are the obligations of employers during lockdown?

 The Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has affected almost every country in the world and India is no exception. To control the spread, the Indian government has imposed a mandatory countrywide lockdown. Only establishments and workplaces that provide essential services can continue operations, subject to adopting necessary measures to contain COVID-19.


Most companies across India had stepped up precautions and created task forces comprising senior leaders to monitor and respond to the evolving situation. With the nationwide lockdown that began on March 25, 2020, all offices and factories across the country are shut with few exceptions. Most have switched to a work-from-home policy for all employees, which brings its own challenges.


The government has issued various directives for the employers to be followed during lockdown foreseeing the hardships of the employees during the COVID-19 outbreak. These directives include paying wages to the employees, non-termination of the employees, etc. However, whether the same is binding on the employees or not is what is needed to be considered.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


Implications over employers during lockdown

As the business world undergoes drastic changes due to the sudden outbreak of the Coronavirus, there are so many questions pertaining to the legal implications of some actions that employers might take due to the COVID-19 crisis. Should they reduce salaries or withhold bonuses? Can they retrench employees? Should they provide pay to their employees if they are unable to come (or prohibited from coming) to work due to the COVID-19 outbreak? There are many questions like these that have a legal implication and must be answered in light of the prevalent law of the country. Let’s take a look as to what the law says about the legal implications of an employer during lockdown.




Employer’s obligation to not terminate employees


The employers may terminate/retrench their employees in accordance with the applicable rules. However, until the nationwide lockdown remains in effect, the Government of India has asked all the employers to not terminate employees on humanitarian grounds.


Employer’s obligation to not reduce wages


In the absence of any specific law in this regard, the government lacks the authority to mandatorily obligate private organisations to pay wages to their employees. The Central Government has invoked the provisions of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to declare the lockdown and the State Governments have invoked the provisions of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 to frame regulations and issuing guidelines/directions to deal with the pandemic. However, the directions issued by the governments to the employers to pay wages to all the contractual and permanent employees neither comes within the scope of the Disaster Management Act nor the Epidemic Diseases Act. A simple reading of these two Acts makes it clear that neither the Central nor State governments have the powers to direct private employers to pay wages to its employees during a lockdown situation. The Acts merely empower the committees established within its scope to frame strategies to deal with the disaster. Therefore, the directions issued by the governments to pay wages/or to not deduct wages can only be considered as advisory and cannot act as an obligation on private organisations.


Consult: Top Labour & Service Lawyers in India


Employer’s obligation to not defer/avoid payment of bonuses/raises


While observing the statutory obligations of an employer under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. Payment of bonuses/raises to employees is at the discretion of the employer. However, bonus must be paid to employees who are eligible under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The Act regulates the payment of bonus of employees whose wage is below Rs. 21,000/- per month. The bonus provisions under the Act, applies to establishments (including factories) that employs or employed, on any day during an accounting year, 20 or more employees. Every eligible employee is statutorily entitled to receive a statutory bonus ranging from 8.33% to 20% of the wage. Under the Act, bonus is to be paid to employees within a period of 8 months from the close of the accounting year.


Employer’s obligation to provide pay to their employees if they are unable to come (or prohibited from coming) to work due to the COVID-19 outbreak


So far as the period of lockdown is concerned, until the nationwide lockdown remains in effect, the Government of India has directed all the employers to pay the wages to their workers on the due date without any deduction. After the period of lockdown is over, if the employee avails leave in excess of the leave available to him, the Employer is entitled to deduct wages in accordance with its extant policies. There is no legal bar on the Employer from deducting salary for days of absence (after the lockdown is over) in excess of the days provided for under the relevant policies/contract of employment. However, given the present scenario, it will be advisable for the employer to not deduct wages in the event an employee is suffering from COVID-19.

 


What legal implications should employers keep in mind while implementing work-from-home?

Key employment law considerations that employers should keep in mind when implementing work from home are:


Hours of Work: The concept of work from home is not specifically regulated or governed by statute. Therefore, in the absence of a specific statute, the employment laws that would otherwise be applicable to employee when they are working from the employer’s establishment would continue to apply. In this regard, work hour and overtime laws would continue to apply to employees. Hence, an employer would have to be mindful that employees do not work beyond their regular working hours and adhere to relevant overtime requirements.


Confidentiality and Data Security: One of the primary considerations when it comes to allowing employees to work from home is confidentiality and data security. Therefore, it is recommended that employers take additional data security measures to ensure that their IT infrastructure and resources are protected. Certain employers have resorted to geo-tagging of their devices to ensure that their data security and confidentiality is not breached.


Productivity and Performance Tracking: Given that in most instances the standard processes for productivity and performance tracking have been developed for employees working out of the employer’s establishment, employers would have to now adapt these methods to employees working from home. In this regard, there are a number of applications that are available for employers to monitor their employees work remotely. In certain circumstances, employers also require their employees to periodically provide summaries to their managers of the work that they are doing.


OSP Licences: To facilitate employers to allow employees to work from home, the Department of Telecommunications has through circular dated March 13, 2020, issued certain relaxations in the terms and conditions prescribed for Other Service Providers (OSPs), with respect to the ability of their employees to work from home. The exemptions/relaxations are available till April 30, 2020. This circular inter alia exempts OSPs from the requirement to pay a security deposit and have an agreement to enable work-from-home options or seek prior permission to allow work from home. Further, OSPs have been exempted from the requirement of having a secured VPN from an authorized service provider. OSPs may now use secured VPNs configured using ‘static IP’ addresses by themselves to enable interconnection between the home agent position and the OSP center with pre-defined locations.


Connect with an expert lawyer for your legal issue

 


How can a lawyer help?

During this time of unrest, issues related to employment are most likely to arise due to a lot of confusion going on around in the minds of the employees. Moreover, a situation like this is an unprecedented one and requires the help of a legal expert in case an issue arises. This is why it is important to have a labour lawyer by your side who can guide you with the right steps to be taken and help you in doing the needful to avoid such issues. A labour lawyer, being an expert in the service sector laws, can help you understand the options available to you in situations like these and can also assist you with the necessary procedures in order to resolve salary or job-related issues.


Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more