Casino & games AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to FacebookFacebookShare to TwitterTwitter Subscribe to the iGaming newsletter Kindred profits fall in 2019 as costs increase Regions: Europe Topics: Casino & games Finance Sports betting Unibet operator Kindred Group has revealed a year-on-year decline in profit for 2019, primarily due to higher costs associated with its expansion efforts in the US.Kindred’s revenue climbed 0.6% year-on-year to £912.8m (€1.09bn/$1.19bn). Western Europe contributed the majority of this revenue, at £555.5m, up 7.6% from 2018. Revenue from the Nordic countries came to £258.6m, a 15.7% decline.Central, eastern and southern Europe brought in £79.0m in revenue, up 15.8%, while the rest of the world contributed £19.7m, up 18.7%.Sports betting brought in just under half of Kindred’s revenue at £435.5m, down less than 0.1%. It was most popular in western Europe, bringing in £299.9m. In the Nordic region, it brought in £86.7m after a 23% decline and in central, southern and eastern Europe it came to £36.9m. Sports betting brought in £12.0m in the rest of the world, up 35% year-on-year.Henrik Tjärnström, chief executive of Kindred Group, said factors such as Sweden’s tightly regulated market affected the group’s ability to bring in revenue throughout 2019.“Some of the factors that impacted the fourth quarter of 2019 were the same as we reported in previous quarters, such as the Swedish regulation and increasing restrictions in the Dutch market,” Tjärnström said. “These and other headwinds are a normal part of our business that we address, adjust to and, over time, use as a competitive advantage.”This £435.5m in sports betting revenue came on £5.18bn in total stakes. The total revenue from in-play betting remained static at £250.5m, while revenue from pre-game bets rose 0.8% to £263.9m. However, an increase in free bets meant that overall sports betting revenue declined slightly.Unibet’s margin on sports bets came to 8.4%, down from 8.6% in 2018.For casino and other games, revenue came to £255.6m in Western Europe, £171.9m in the Nordics, £42.1m in central, eastern and southern Europe and £7.7m in the rest of the world.The operator paid £404.2m in costs of sales, up 13.8% year-on-year. The majority of this came from betting duties, which rose 28.7% to £204.3m. Marketing costs paid to revenue share affiliates declined 2.4% to £48.8m while other costs of sales rose 3.0% to £151.1m.Tjärnström noted that the higher costs despite stable revenue was largely due to the operator’s expansion into the US, which should start to generate more revenue in the future.“We also had the first full quarter of trading in the locally regulated US states of New Jersey and Pennsylvania,” Tjärnström said. It was expected that the first months of trading in the US would be loss-making which is completely in line with Kindred’s experience of launches into other new markets.“This is logical as revenues grow from zero in response to our marketing investments, which includes initial marketing production costs ($2m) to go live that will be used longer term.”This resulted in a gross profit of £508.6m, down 7.9%.Unibet’s administrative costs increased by 15.8% to £219.0m. The largest part of this expenses was salaries, which rose 14.4% to £96.1m. Other operating expenses declined slightly to £73.6m while depreciation costs rose to £25.0m, of which £14.9m was deprecation of properly, plant and equipment and £10.1m for right-of-use assets. Amortisation costs increased by 36.5% to £24.3m.Marketing costs excluding revenue share payments increased by 11.6% to £210.9m. This resultd in underlying profit before items affecting comparability falling 55.8% to £78.7m.After management costs relating to acquisitions of £200,000, personnel restructuring costs of £1.7m, amortisation costs of intangible assets of £7.9m and a £2.0m gain from currency exchange, Kindred’s profit from operations came to £70.9m, down 55.7%.After a £7.0m loss from financial costs and a £2.9m gain from currency exchange rates on loans, Kindred’s pre-tax profit came to £67.1m, down 55.2%. Kindred paid £10.5m in tax in 2019, leading to an overall profit of £56.6m, down 57.0%.For the fourth quarter of 2019, revenue declined 5.6% to £236.2m. This figure came from 1,603,903 active customers, with £110.7m from sports betting and £112.3m.After a cost of sales of £106.2m, Kindred’s gross profit came to £130.0m, down 17.5%. Kindred’s administrative expenses came to £56.9m, leaving underlying profit of £17.8m, down 64.0%.Kindred’s operating profit for the quarter came to £13.3m, down 70.4%. After financial income and expenses, pre-tax profit remained at £13.3m. The operator paid £2.4m in tax in the quarter for an overall profit of £10.9m, down 72.3%.Tjärnström said that so far in 2020, Kindred has appeared far more successful than in 2019.“Subject to change during the remainder of the quarter, but as an initial indication, the daily average gross winnings revenue for the period 1 January to 9 February 2020 in GBP was 5% higher (10% in constant currency) than for the same period last year. In the US, gross winnings revenues grew by 90% in January 2020 compared to December 2019,” Tjärnström said.Today (12 February), Kindred also agreed a deal with Caesars Entertainment to roll out its sports betting and online gaming services in Iowa and Indiana.Kindred, which will also be required to secure relevant licences in both states, will partner with Caesars’ Horseshoe Hammond Property in Indiana and the Harrah’s Council Bluffs property in Iowa. 12th February 2020 | By Daniel O’Boyle Unibet operator Kindred Group has revealed a year-on-year decline in profit for 2019, primarily due to higher costs associated with its expansion efforts in the US. Email Address
Tlou Energy Limited (TLOU.bw) listed on the Botswana Stock Exchange under the Energy sector has released it’s 2016 interim results for the half year.For more information about Tlou Energy Limited (TLOU.bw) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Tlou Energy Limited (TLOU.bw) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Tlou Energy Limited (TLOU.bw) 2016 interim results for the half year.Company ProfileTlou Energy Limited identifies, explores, evaluates, and develops coalbed methane (CBM) resources in Southern Africa. It holds one mining license and nine prospecting licenses covering an area of approximately 8,300 square kilometers in the Karoo Basin, Botswana. The company owns a 100% interest in the Lesedi CBM project. It also holds interest in the Mamba project. The company was founded in 2009 and is based in Brisbane, Australia.
Chile Manufacturers: CELCON, Cintac®, Dap Ducasse, MK, WinkoStructural Calculation:Enrique Olavarría, Enrique OlavarríaImages And Render:John SommerArchitects In Charge:Manuel Novoa Tonda, Michelle Pavez Orellana, Natalie Mollenhauer YakovleffCity:La ReinaCountry:ChileMore SpecsLess SpecsSave this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldRecommended ProductsWindowsJansenWindows – Janisol PrimoEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesRodecaRound Facade at Omnisport Arena ApeldoornMetallicsKriskadecorMetal Fabric – Outdoor CladdingEnclosures / Double Skin FacadesAlucoilStructural Honeycomb Panels – LarcoreText description provided by the architects. H.D. House has two floors. The beams, pillars and slabs of the lower floor are of reinforced concrete, and the walls are made with masonry of aerated concrete blocks, which are very effective considering thermal improvement. The second level is built with a Metalcon system of galvanized steel profiles and covered with walls ventilated with wood to improve their thermal resistance. The roof is also made of Metalcon, with a cover of pv4 sheets with polyurethane that resists the high radiation that affects on the roof.Save this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldSave this picture!Floor Plan Second FloorSave this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldThe facades of the upper floor are covered with pine wood with an oak coloured varnish, and the facades of the lower floor are of exposed concrete, which allows an interesting contrast of textures in the image of the project.Bioclimatic strategies:The house uses bioclimatic strategies for the different facades and orientations of the project. The main facade faces west, towards the city, and has a mobile facade with sunscreens that generate a ventilated double skin on the second floor. In addition, there is a double height interior courtyard that enhances the Venturi effect and cross ventilation, producing air movements that improve the environmental quality of the house. These air flows can be easily controlled by opening or grouping the sunscreens.Save this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldOn the north, south and east facades, where the living spaces have contact with the perimeter of the house, ventilated walls were built on the second floor and walls with blocks of aerated concrete on the first floor. The ventilated walls leave a space of 5cm for the air flow, which acts as a great thermal insulator. The walls of aerated concrete contain micro particles of air in their materiality which is very effective for the energy performance of the house. A triple insulation system of the roof ensures high thermal resistance. In addition, the use of thermo panels for all the windows of the house is considered.Save this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldConstruction Challenges:The west facade of the house follows a curved shape, which extends over the entire perimeter of the lower floor. Because of this, variable columns had to be used in the concrete slab throughout its whole area, which challenged the system of reinforcement of the slab, due to its very particular geometry. The shape is repeated in the roof, which means that all the trusses have a variable length as well, depending on the sector of the corresponding curve.Save this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldAnother important challenge was the sunscreens. They had to be mobile throughout the length of the curved facade. They had to protect from the sun, but also be able to be grouped and opened up, since the best view of Santiago from within the house is on this facade. We studied different mobile protectors to build our own system. Finally, we used an upper and lower metal rail, with structural plywood plates framed in metal profiles grouped by two, with a simple hinge that can move them at different angles until they are parallel to the facade.Save this picture!© Aryeh KornfeldProject gallerySee allShow lessEastern Blocks: Concrete Landscapes of the Former Eastern BlocArchitecture BooksNew York City’s Mayor is Planning to Ban New Glass SkyscrapersArchitecture News Share ShareFacebookTwitterPinterestWhatsappMailOrhttps://www.archdaily.com/915439/casa-hd-biourban-arquitectos Clipboard “COPY” H.D. House / Biourban Arquitectos Projects CopyAbout this officeBiourban ArquitectosOfficeFollowProductsWoodConcrete#TagsProjectsBuilt ProjectsSelected ProjectsResidential ArchitectureHousesSustainabilityLa ReinaChilePublished on April 23, 2019Cite: “H.D. House / Biourban Arquitectos” [Casa HD / Biourban Arquitectos] 23 Apr 2019. ArchDaily. Accessed 11 Jun 2021.
27 total views, 2 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Tagged with: Consulting & Agencies Management Recruitment / people Martin Jervis, former Managing Director of Blackbaud Europe, has been appointed as Chief Operating Officer at specialist fundraising services company Fundraising Initiatives Group.He is tasked with driving the company’s efforts to transform the way charities are helped to manage donor acquisition and stewardship while reducing attrition further. He has extensive experience of leadership roles in technology and services companies, including senior positions in UK, European and International operations.Jervis said: “Right now, the group has a number of impressive projects underway that demonstrate true innovation and creativity. My objective over the next three months is to bring these to the point of roll out in a fully robust and integrated way that will benefit all types and sizes of charities.”Although he wouldn’t comment on the specific services, he said that “these new projects are sure to have major impact on the fundraising landscape”.The Fundraising Initiatives Group has generated more than 2 million donors for charities and raised over £100 million in donations in the UK. Its subsidiary Fundraising Initiatives Ltd (FIL) was founded in 1997 and specialises in door-to-door and private site face-to-face fundraising. It also operates across Europe, Canada, USA, and South Africa. The group also operates telephone fundraising company Premier Contact and payroll giving company Workplace Giving.Cathy Sullivan, Co-Founder and Group Managing Director said: “Martin Jervis brings invaluable experience and a notable track record in business leadership and growth. Couple that with his knowledge and appreciation of the intricacies of the not-for-profit sector and he is the ideal candidate to help us develop and maximise the impact of our new projects.”www.fundraising-initiatives.org/en/ About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. Martin Jervis appointed COO of Fundraising Initiatives Group Howard Lake | 12 October 2011 | News AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis
New grantmaker for aspiring pilots and filmmakers 34 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis1 Howard Lake | 13 October 2014 | News About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. Tagged with: arts Funding Advertisement AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis1 The Matthew Martino Benevolent Fund is a new organisation that has been set up to support young people with an interest in following a career in the film industry or to become pilots. It will start accepting applications for grants from 27 October 2014.Applications will be accepted from around the world. In particular the Fund aims to support individuals whose careers are at a standstill and who need a helping hand. It will also provide sponsorship for film-related events such as film festivals and film award ceremonies.The Fund was created by Zimbabwean English filmmaker Mathetes Chihwai, whose stage name is Matthew C. Martino. He said:“Our charity is working to tackle some of the toughest challenges within the Film & TV industry as well as the Aviation industry to ensure that adequate support is available for the aspiring generation who will conquer tomorrow. We only focus on a few projects as we feel it’s the best way to gain more impact.”The Fund is currently awaiting registration from the Charity Commission.As a Benevolent Fund, the organisation will not undertake fundraising. It will simply disburse the set income that is given to it each year.For 2014-2015 the Trustees have agreed to award 20 grants or sponsorships, with a total planned expenditure of £15,000.Chihwai will not be involved in the day to day running of the Matthew Martino Benevolent Fund as he wishes to “maintain the credibility of the foundation and also allow the awarding process to be free and fair”, according to his publicist Carol Suvarov.
Supporters say Veolia treats drivers like ‘corporate slaves.’WW photo: Sharon BlackBaltimore — Despite a massive show of airport police, who ejected them from the SuperShuttle holding lot, 35 decorated cars made their way to the Baltimore-Washington International Airport loop on Dec. 21 to conduct a “Caravan for Justice” in support of SuperShuttle drivers.The action was held in honor of Nelson Mandela and was called by the Baltimore and Maryland “We Deserve Better” Workers Assembly, with the support of Food and Commercial Workers Local 1994. The SuperShuttle drivers have been actively organizing with the UFCW to improve their working conditions. Two have been fired.SuperShuttle is owned and controlled by Veolia, a multibillion-dollar international corporation that has distinguished itself as a racist, union-busting company, most recently in Boston. It pays its drivers less than the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour.The drivers want to join UFCW Local 1994 to protect their rights as workers. They desperately need this because Veolia has created a company system of indentured servitude that has impoverished these workers, who are mainly immigrants from West Africa.Veolia makes drivers lease vans — from a company also owned by Veolia — and pay a $35,000 fee, payable in installments over a 10-year period at 15 percent interest. These installment payments are just one of the deductions from the payout to the drivers. They are also charged operating expenses: fees to the airport authority, dispatch fees, insurance fees to a company owned by Veolia and franchise fees. These fees total between $1,200 and $2,100 per week. Most drivers can’t break even under such a system; in some cases, the drivers end up owing SuperShuttle after working long hours.Veolia has worked out an “evil system,” as one worker described it. The company claims the drivers are not workers but owners, though Veolia owns and controls almost every aspect of their working lives — forcing them to buy insurance owned by Veolia, determining a dress code, carrying out random and unannounced inspections, forced drug testing and much more, including hiring and firing.Veolia has been able to avoid paying unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, sick leave or any other benefits. The company actually makes more money from the drivers’ fees than from customer fares. Recently, however, the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation has ruled that SuperShuttle drivers are indeed employees, so SuperShuttle must pay unemployment.This is a system of humiliation and near slavery. Once these drivers have spent long hours of backbreaking work and signed for loans to pay the original fee, they feel too deeply invested to actually leave.To illustrate the humiliating treatment they receive, SuperShuttle drivers are the only drivers not permitted to use bathrooms inside the terminals and must leave airport property. The hotels are also closed to them. No bathroom or waiting facilities are available for drivers in the holding lots, even though they must stay in their vehicles both winter and summer to maintain their places in line. There is no holding lot at Dulles Airport in Washington itself, but there is one at BWI. The drivers have a trailer there but no bathroom — only a portable toilet.Many drivers have been terminated for speaking out. As outrageous as it sounds, the company refuses to allow the drivers to sell or transfer their franchises even when they are very sick. This happened to one driver who had his legs amputated due to diabetes and to another who was being treated for multiple myeloma, a form of cancer.Drivers threatened for speaking at rallyAt a rally held before the caravan drove through the airport loop, UFCW Local 1994 representative Amy Millar co-chaired and introduced Tony Kokou Yovo, one of the fired drivers, and Patrick Lacefield, another driver. Millar explained that in all her years as a union organizer, she had never before seen this level of abuse and exploitation.Yovo explained his case and how he was targeted unjustly by Veolia. He thanked everyone for their support. Lacefield was overcome with emotion as he explained how he was threatened with firing if he participated in the action and how the drivers were “corporate slaves” who need worldwide support.Daniella Longchamp, a youth and low-wage worker from the Workers Assembly, told the drivers that the group supported their struggle. She compared their abuse to human trafficking and the “worst of capitalism” and spoke about the case of the Boston school bus drivers, who are also fighting the Veolia corporation.Other speakers included UFCW Local 1994 Secretary Treasurer Yvette Cuffie; Josh Ardison, UFCW organizer; Maryland State Delegate Jeff Waldstreicher; former City Councilwoman Belinda Conaway; legislative candidate Andrew Platt; and the drivers’ attorney, John Singleton.Sharon Black, a representative of the Workers Assembly and co-chair of the rally, stated, “There is a new low-wage workers movement, from Walmart to McDonald’s. The SuperShuttle workers are part of this. They need and deserve our support.“Today’s rally and caravan far exceeded our expectations. We thought about 10 cars would show up, given the fact that today’s action is the weekend before Christmas and that we had about a week to organize the caravan. But we thought the issue was so crucial and the need to act as quickly as possible on behalf of the fired drivers called for an immediate response. And today we have an astounding 35 vehicles and about 70 participants.”FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
Outraged nurses march against border detention facilities in El Paso, Texas, on June 19.The terrorist tactics of Immigration and Customs Enforcement come from the top, but can be disrupted in the workplace, especially if unions put muscle into the fight against raids and deportations. Recent examples are presented below, by industry, to get readers thinking about what more can be done.TransportationFlight attendant Hunt Palmquist announced via the Houston Chronicle on June 19 that after witnessing ICE agents taking migrant children to “relocation” in Texas by plane, he decided to never work another flight that separates families. Palmquist vowed to “immediately remove myself from the trip due to the nature of this unconscionable act by my government, and my employer’s complicity.” He added, “I have told my story to many of my flight attendant colleagues and they have pledged to do the same.”The next morning, major U.S. airlines — American, United and Frontier — each released statements and tweets distancing themselves from the practice. American Airlines “requested the federal government to immediately refrain” from using its planes to transport separated children. Were they afraid of “optics” or of a job action by their unionized workforces?Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1700 represents Greyhound bus drivers. The local shares articles such as “Greyhound Should Just Say No to the Border Patrol’s Bus Sweeps” on its social media.TechnologyOn June 19, Microsoft workers put out an open letter against the corporation’s $19.4-million cloud computing contract with ICE, saying, “As the people who build the technologies that Microsoft profits from, we refuse to be complicit.” By the middle of June 21, there were 300 employee signatures. Coverage of this incident said various employees were considering leaving the company. (tinyurl.com/yc9fvfwy)Food industryAfter ICE attacked and detained 140 of 2,800 workers represented by the Retail Warehouse and Department Store Union on June 19 at Ohio Fresh Mark plants, the national union funded legal and financial aid for the family members of those workers.“Our union will not stand for violence against immigrants; we will not stand for tearing families apart; and we will not stand for the terrifying tactics of the Trump administration. The RWDSU is committed to assisting workers affected by this ICE raid and will continue to fight against any and all heartless attacks on immigrant workers seeking to provide for their families,” said Stuart Appelbaum, RWDSU president.The plants had recently been denounced for Occupational Safety and Health violations. (tinyurl.com/y9hrhe6p)Building tradesPainters Local 456 launched Alianza Laboral Worker Resource Center in the southeast Nashville, Tenn., Latinx community, to reach im/migrant workers who otherwise face abusive tactics like wage theft. Among the workplace hazards about which the center holds trainings are ICE raids. According to organizer Rosa Ponce, employers can deny entrance to agents lacking a warrant, “but the general contractor is not going to refuse to let ICE in unless we’re organizing and having these conversations with the boss.” (tinyurl.com/yagax6ds)Health careNational Nurses United members have bolstered rallies against ICE/private prison collusion, notably at Texas marches to border detention centers. Bonnie Castillo of NNU covers these actions in medium.com.Castillo cites NNU board member Martese Chism, who went from Chicago to protest in El Paso, saying, “I felt compelled to come here … because today is June 19, the day that Texas freed the slaves, and so I’m here to tell [our government] to do the right thing and free the children.”Castillo adds that “NNU’s RN Response Network disaster relief program — for volunteers to be on standby for providing first aid to detained immigrant children and families — netted over 900 sign-ups in just a few days.”These union nurses are alerting the medical field that the trauma of separation, on top of war and violence experienced in home countries and during the journey to these borders, is a long-term public health crisis. (tinyurl.com/ycf7djhx)Labor-community organizingMany Fight for $15 formations and unions — International Longshore Association, Service Employees International Union 1199 Healthcare Workers and 32BJ SEIU, for instance — are engaged with the new Poor People’s Campaign, which marched on Washington on June 23. Speakers there added the crimes of ICE to their list of injustices that Martin Luther King Jr. called out 50 years ago: racism, capitalism and militarism. Twitter footage of the march that day shows working-class crowds chanting, “Rise up my people, my condors and eagles! No human being will ever be illegal!” Condors and eagles refer to the Indigenous cultures of South, Central and North America.The fact that working people — in industries capable of servicing ICE logistically, industries which employ many migrants and others — are openly opposing the racist “zero tolerance” program provides hope that we can ultimately organize to withhold our labor on a mass scale and stop ICE.Catalinotto is a member of the Workers World Party Labor Fraction.FacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare thisFacebookTwitterWhatsAppEmailPrintMoreShare this
News UpdatesPlea Moved in Delhi HC Seeking Immediate Release of Persons Related to Tablighi Jamaat From Quarantine Centres [Read Petition] Karan Tripathi14 May 2020 1:58 AMShare This – xA plea has been moved in the Delhi High Court seeking immediate release of all persons related to Tablighi Jamaat, who as per the Petitioner, are being kept in the quarantine centre for more than 35 days. Moved by Sabiha Quadri, the petition claims that continuous quarantine without any valid reason is not just violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, but is also…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginA plea has been moved in the Delhi High Court seeking immediate release of all persons related to Tablighi Jamaat, who as per the Petitioner, are being kept in the quarantine centre for more than 35 days. Moved by Sabiha Quadri, the petition claims that continuous quarantine without any valid reason is not just violative of Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution, but is also an offense under sections 341 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code. The Petitioner has highlighted that a total of 3288 persons associated with Tablighi Jamaat, who are in different quarantine centres, have not been released despite the fact that they are in no manner infected with the disease. It is also argued that some of these persons have also tested negative in three consecutive tests. This continued period of quarantine of 37 days, the Petitioner argues, is in sheer violation of the guidelines issued by the government which prescribe only 14 days of quarantine. ‘The Delhi Government and the Sub Divisional Magistrate have failed to comply with their own guidelines’, the petition states. While calling the government’s behaviour ‘inhumane’, the Petitioner argues that the government’s approach in the present matter is arbitrary, malafide and malicious and cannot sustain in a society which is governed by rule of law and principles of natural justice. The Petitioner further alleges that the act of not releasing the members of Tablighi Jamaat shows that the Delhi Government itself is discriminating on the grounds of religion which is prohibited under Article 15 of the ConstitutionClick Here To Download Petition[Read Petition] Next Story
ColumnsThe Industrial Relations Code, 2020: Implications For Workers’ Rights Ramapriya Gopalakrishnan24 Oct 2020 1:59 AMShare This – xThe Industrial Relations Code, 2020 that was notified by the central government on 29 September 2020 consolidates the provisions of the three major central laws in the country relating to industrial relations, namely, the Trade Unions Act, 1926; the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 and the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946. Many of the features of these laws continue to be retained in the Code. At the same time, the Code has introduced some significant changes in the law governing industrial relations that have important implications for workers’ rights. This article discusses the key new features of the Code and the implications thereof for workers.Advertisement Coverage of the law The coverage of labour related enactments in the country is determined by the definitions of the terms ’employer,’ ‘worker/workman/employee/person employed’ under the legislation in question. In the case of a law governing industrial relations, in addition to the aforesaid terms, the definition of the term ‘industry’ would also determine the scope of its coverage. The Code contains new definitions of the terms ‘industry’ and ’employer.’ It also defines both the terms ’employee’ and ‘worker.’ Advertisement 1.1 Industry In line with the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. A.Rajappa and others reported in (1978) 2 SCC 213, section 2(p) of the Code defines the term ‘industry’ to mean any systematic activity carried on by co-operation between an employer and workers for the production, supply or distribution of goods or services with a view to satisfy human wants or wishes irrespective of whether any capital has been invested for the purpose of carrying on the activity and regardless of whether or not the activity is carried on for any gain. Institutions owned or managed by organizations wholly or substantially engaged in any charitable, social or philanthropic service stand excluded from the scope of the definition. In addition, the provision vests the central government with the power to exclude ‘any other activity’ from the scope of the definition by issuing a notification. Advertisement Advertisement While the wide definition of the term ‘industry’ could bring more activities within the scope of coverage of the Code, the exception made in the case of institutions run by organizations wholly or substantially engaged in any charitable, social or philanthropic service could deprive a number of workers in such institutions of the coverage of the Code. Furthermore, the unguided power given to the central government to exclude any activity from the scope of the term ‘industry’ by the issue of a notification could result in the arbitrary exclusion of workers employed in establishments engaged in such activities from the scope of the Code. Advertisement Advertisement Advertisement 1.2 ‘Worker’ and ‘Employee’ The Code defines both the term ‘worker’ and ’employee.” Section 2(zr) of the Code defines the term ‘worker.’ Like section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the term ‘worker’ is defined to mean a person employed in any industry to do any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational, clerical or supervisory work. In addition, working journalists and sales promotion employees have been brought within the scope of the definition. Persons employed in a supervisory capacity drawing wages exceeding Rupees Eighteen Thousand per month or any other amount notified by the central government stand excluded from the scope of the definition of the term ‘worker.’ Persons employed in an industry mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity also stand excluded from the scope of the definition of the term ‘worker.’ Section 2(l) of the Code defines the term ’employee’ in a wider manner than the term ‘worker.’ Apart from persons performing work of a manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operational and clerical work in an industrial establishment, those doing supervisory, administrative or managerial work are also included within the scope of the term ’employee.’ When one of the very purposes behind the enactment of the new Labour Codes is the simplification of the law, the usage of both the terms in the Code without any explanation for that only leads to confusion. There is no clarity about the rights conferred by the Code on persons who fall within the scope of the definition of the term ’employee’ but are outside the scope of the definition of the term ‘worker.’ The following example will illustrate the confusion brought about by the usage of the two terms: The definition of ‘industrial dispute’ under section 2(q) refers only to the term ‘worker’ and not ’employee’ implying that only workers will have the right to access the mechanisms for resolution of industrial disputes under the Code, However, section 91 of the Code enables an ’employee’ to make a complaint to the concerned authority or forum if his or her employer prejudicially alters his or her conditions during the pendency of an industrial dispute. 1.3 Employer Section 2(m) of the Code defines the term ’employer ‘in a wider manner than section 2(g) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The definition of the term under section 2(m) of the Code includes the occupier of the factory as defined under the Factories Act or the Factory Manager and also contractors. The inclusion of contractors within the scope of the term ’employer’ could in practical terms make it difficult for workers employed through intermediary contractors to press claims against the principal employer. Flexibility for employers The Code sanctions the engagement of workers as fixed term employees. It also enhances the threshold number of workers for the application of standing orders and for obtaining prior government approval in the case of lay off, retrenchment and closure. Such measures afford greater flexibility for employers. 2.1 Fixed term employment The Code permits the employment of workers for a fixed term. Section 2(o) of the Code defines ‘fixed term employment’ as the engagement of a worker on the basis of a written contract of employment for a fixed period. The conditions on which fixed term employment is permitted have been set out in the proviso to section 2(o). As per the proviso, the hours of work, wages, allowances and other benefits of a fixed term employee should be on par with that of a permanent worker doing the same work or work of a similar nature. In addition, a fixed term employee would be eligible for all statutory benefits available to a permanent worker proportionately according to the period of service rendered by him or her. A worker on fixed term employment would also be eligible for gratuity if he or she renders service under the contract for a period of one year. However, upon termination from service at the end of the contract period, a worker engaged on a fixed term employment basis would not be entitled to the payment of any retrenchment compensation. This is because the definition of the term ‘retrenchment’ under section 2(zh) of the Code excludes the termination of service of a worker as a result of the completion of the tenure of fixed term employment. The Code does not place any restriction of the length of the period for which a worker may be engaged as a fixed term employee. It also does not place any cap on the number of times a worker may be engaged as a fixed term employee. The lack of such restrictions would mean that in practice, workers could be repeatedly engaged as fixed term employees and remain in that precarious state until they reach the age of superannuation. The Code also does not impose any restriction on the kind of work for which workers can be engaged on a fixed term basis. It would mean that fixed term employees can be engaged for any kind of work in an establishment including core production work. In practical terms, the sanction accorded by the Code for the engagement of workers on a fixed term employment basis coupled with the fact that the threshold of workers for the application of standing orders has been raised to three hundred workers would mean that most employers would have a free hand to engage as many workers as they please as fixed term employees and that they could be engaged for work of a regular nature in the place of permanent workers. This in turn could have a bearing on the exercise of freedom of association and collective bargaining rights as their precariousness would impair their ability to form and join trade unions of their choice and effectively exercise their trade union rights. 2.2 Enhancement of the threshold for the application of Standing Orders Section 30 of the Code read in conjunction with section 28 imposes an obligation on employers of industrial establishments in which three hundred or more workers are employed to frame standing orders regulating the conditions of service of the workers in the establishment. Under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, such an obligation was imposed on employers of industrial establishments where one hundred or more workers are employed. Furthermore, section 39 of the Code leaves it open to the central as well as state governments to exempt any industrial establishment from the provisions contained in Chapter IV of the Code relating to standing orders. Standing orders regulate a range of issues relating to the employment of workers. These include the types of workers who may be engaged in the establishment, appointment of workers, the period of probation, attendance, leave, acts and omissions that shall be construed as misconduct, disciplinary proceedings, suspension, the penalties that may be imposed in the event of commission of a misconduct and the procedure for termination of service of a worker. Standing orders help ensure uniformity in the terms and conditions of employment of the workers employed in an establishment. In Workmen of Dewan Tea Estate and others v. Their Management reported in AIR 1964 SC 1458 and Sudhir Chandra Sarkar v. Tata Iron and steel company limited reported in AIR 1984 SC 1064 and other cases, the Supreme Court has held that the conditions of employment prescribed under the certified standing orders get incorporated in the contract of service of each worker with the employer and are akin to statutory conditions of service. The implication of raising the threshold to three hundred workers is that it is not mandatory for employers of industrial establishments employing less than three hundred workers to ensure that the terms and conditions of employment of their workers are uniform and they would be free to regulate it by individual contracts. Moreover, the unguided power vested with the central and state governments under section 39 to exempt the employer of any industrial establishment from the obligation to frame standing orders could result in employers of industrial establishments with more than three hundred workers being arbitrarily absolved from the obligation to frame standing orders. 2.3 Enhancement of the threshold for obtaining prior government approval in the case of lay-off, retrenchment or closure Section 77 of the Code increases the threshold number for the requirement of prior government approval in the case of lay off, retrenchment or closure of an industrial establishment from one hundred to three hundred workers. It also leaves it open to the central or state government to effect an upward revision of the threshold number. Increasing the threshold would have the effect of reducing the protection available to workers presently in industries where between one hundred and two hundred and ninety nine workers are employed by exposing workers in such industries to the risk of arbitrary lay-offs, retrenchment and closure and consequently, the loss of livelihood. Moreover, while the government has chosen to effect a three-fold increase the threshold number for the requirement of prior government approval, it has not correspondingly increased the compensation payable to workers in the event of retrenchment or closure. The compensation payable to workers in the event of retrenchment or closure continues to be fifteen days of average pay for every completed year of service. 2.4 Lesser compensation in the event of retrenchment or closure Clause (b) of section 70 of the Code that prescribes the conditions precedent to the retrenchment of workers provides for workers to be paid retrenchment compensation of fifteen days’ average pay or ‘average pay of such days as may be notified by the government,’ for every completed year of service. It thus leaves it open for the central government or the state government to increase or reduce the number of days of compensation for every completed year of service. Thus, as of now, it is not certain that workers will get compensation even at the rate of fifteen days’ average pay for every completed year of service when they are retrenched. Moreover, by reason of the changed definition of wages under section 2(zq) of the Code, the compensation of fifteen days average pay for every completed year of service could be lower than what it used to be, in real terms. The definition of the term ‘wages’ under section 2(zq) of the Code is narrower than that under section 2 (rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Code defines the term to include basic pay, dearness allowance and retaining allowance. It excludes house rent allowance, conveyance allowance and commission which are included in the definition of ‘wages’ under section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It also excludes the value of any house accommodation or of supply of light, water or any amenity which was explicitly included in the definition of wages under section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has been clarified in the proviso to the definition of wages that when the amounts excluded from the scope of the definition of the term ‘wages’ are more than fifty percent of the remuneration paid to an employee, the quantum in excess of fifty percent of the remuneration would be considered as part of the wage. The proviso leaves it open to the central government to effect an upward or downward revision of the percentage mentioned. The changed definition could in practice result in only half the remuneration paid to a worker being taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the compensation payable in the event of retrenchment of the worker or the closure of the establishment. 2.5 Exemption of certain industrial establishments from the provisions of the Code Sub-section (2) of section 96 enables the government to issue a notification exempting any new industrial establishment or class of new industrial establishments from any of all the provisions of the Code for a specific period, if it is the public interest to do so. Sub-section (1) of section 96 of the Code vests the government with the power to exempt any industrial establishment or class of industrial establishments from any of the provisions of the Code by the issue of a notification if it is satisfied that the objects of the relevant provisions are fulfilled otherwise. The power of exemption granted to the government under section 96 of the Code is much wider than that under section 36B of the Industrial Disputes Act which permits the government to exempt any industrial establishment run by the government from the application of the Act if it is satisfied that adequate provisions exist for the resolution of industrial disputes in the establishment. Section 96 grants discretion to the government to exempt start-ups from the application as well as other classes of establishments from the provisions of the Code. Any exercise of such power of exemption would obviously deprive workers in such industrial establishments of the rights guaranteed under the Code including freedom of association and collective bargaining rights and the right of access to justice. 2.6 Exceptions to the rule of notice prior to effecting any change in the conditions of service Section 40 of the Code requires the employer to give advance notice of at least twenty one days to the workers in the establishment before effecting any change in their conditions of service. This is similar to section 9-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. A new exception from the requirement has been made in the case of emergent situations which require a change of shift or shift working otherwise than in accordance with the applicable standing orders. In such cases, the change may be effected in consultation with the grievance redressal committee. Another new exception is provided in the case where a change is effected in accordance with the orders of the government. Restrictions on strikes The apex court observed in the judgment in B.R.Singh v. Union of India reported in (1989) 4 SCC 710 that the right to strike in an important weapon in the armoury of workers and indicated that the bargaining power of trade unions would be considerably reduced if they are not permitted to demonstrate and resort to strikes. Restrictions on the right to strike impair unions from functioning effectively to protect and defend the interests of their members. The Code makes the exercise of the right to strike difficult by extending the mandatory requirement of advance notice to all industrial workers. 3.1 Mandatory requirement of advance notice While under the Industrial Disputes Act, only workers in any industry classified as a public utility service are required to give notice to their employer before going on a strike, under sub-section (1) of section 62 of the Code, workers in all industrial establishments are required to give notice of a minimum of fourteen days and a maximum of sixty days before going on a strike. As per sub-section (1) of section 60, conciliation proceedings are deemed to have commenced on the date when the first meeting is held by the conciliation officer after receiving notice of the strike. Section 62 prohibits workers from going on a strike during the pendency of conciliation proceedings and seven days thereafter. Section 63 declares that a strike shall be illegal if it is commenced or declared in violation of section 62. In practice, the requirement of advance notice and the consequent triggering of conciliation proceedings would make it very difficult for workers in any industrial establishment to go on a legal strike even if they are justified in doing so. Provisions which make it overly difficult for workers to participate in a legal strike are not in conformity with the principles of freedom of association laid down by the ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations. 3.2 Enhancement of fines Under sub-sections (13), (15) and (16) of section 86, participation in an illegal strike, inciting other workers to participate in an illegal strike and financing an illegal strike are punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. The fine amount has been enhanced to a maximum of Rupees Ten Thousand for participation in an illegal strike and Rupees Fifty Thousand for instigating others to participate in a strike or financing an illegal strike. The ILO’s Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations has deprecated the practice of imposition of such penalties on strikes that may be justified. 3.3 Expanded definition of the term ‘strike’ Section 2(zk) of the Code defines the term ‘strike’ in a wider manner than section 2(q) of the Industrial Disputes Act to include concerted casual leave on a given day by fifty percent or more workers employed in an industry. This would mean that that the penalties prescribed by the Code for participation in an illegal strike could follow even in a case where the majority of workers absent themselves on any day by availing of casual leave. Recognition of trade unions The Code is the first central law that provides for the recognition of trade unions for the purpose of collective bargaining. All along, there was a statutory vacuum at the central level on the subject and the field was covered by a non-statutory Code of Discipline as well as some state laws that addressed the issue. 1 Negotiating union and negotiating council According to sub-section(2) of section 14 of the Code, when only one registered trade union of workers is functioning in an industrial establishment, the employer should recognize it as the sole negotiating union of the workers subject to its fulfilling certain criteria that are yet to be prescribed. As per sub-section(3) of section 14, when more than one registered trade union of workers is functioning in an industrial establishment, the trade Union having the support of at least fifty-one per cent of the workers on the rolls of that establishment shall be accorded recognition by the employer as the sole negotiating union of the workers. If no single union enjoys such support, the employer is required to constitute a negotiating council consisting of the representatives of those registered trade unions which have the support of at least twenty per cent of the total workers on the muster roll of the establishment. According to sub-section (6) of section 14, the recognition granted to a union as a negotiating union shall be valid for a period of three years from the date of recognition. Likewise, a negotiating council may function for a period of three years from the date of its constitution. It is however left open to the union or unions concerned and the employer to extend the period of validity of recognition upto a maximum of five years. The Code does not prescribe the mode on the basis of which the support enjoyed by the trade unions operating in an industrial establishment is to be ascertained. The criteria for recognition of a union as the sole negotiating agent when there is only trade union in an establishment and the manner of verification of the support enjoyed by each trade union when there are two or more unions functioning in an establishment are to be prescribed under the rules to be framed by the central and state governments under section 99 of the Code. The Code does not specify that such criteria and the mode of verification should be prescribed in consultation with representative workers’ and employers’ organizations. It is imperative that the mode of verification be decided following detailed consultations with representative workers’ organizations in order to ensure that only unions that are independent and genuinely representative of the workers are accorded recognition by the employer. 2 Issues in respect of which collective bargaining may be held Clause (o) of sub-section (1) of section 99 empowers the central as well as state governments to frame rules regarding the matters on which the negotiating union or the negotiating council may hold negotiations with the employer of the industrial establishment. The scope of the issues on which collective bargaining may be held will thus be circumscribed by rules that are yet to be framed. The parties to the negotiations should be free to decide the issues on which they will hold negotiations as is the case at present and it should not be determined by the rules to be framed under the Code. 3 Recognition of trade unions at the central and state levels Section 27 of the Code provides for the recognition of trade union federations as central trade unions by the central government and as state trade unions by the state government. However, there is no clarity on the criteria and procedure for the grant of such recognition as the Code is silent on that too. Changes with respect to the mechanisms for the resolution of industrial Disputes The Code introduces certain changes both in the mechanisms and the procedure for the resolution of industrial disputes.5.1 Grievance Redressal Committee for the resolution of disputes arising out of individual grievances Section 4 of the Code makes it mandatory for employers of industrial establishments employing twenty or more workers to constitute one or more Grievance Redressal Committees consisting of an equal number of representatives of the employer and the workers for resolution of disputes arising out of individual grievances. While section 9-C of the Industrial Disputes Act inserted by the 2010 amendment to the Act also provides for the constitution of such committees, there are a few differences between the two provisions regarding the constitution and functioning of the Committee. Section 9-C of the Act allows the committee to have six members at the most. Section 4 of the Code raises the number to a maximum of ten. Section 4 also provides for adequate representation of women workers on the committee. Sub-section (5) of section 4 prescribes a limitation of one year from the date on which the cause of action arises for raising a dispute before the committee. Sub-section (6) of section 4 stipulates that the proceedings before the Committee should ordinarily be completed with a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the application. The time period prescribed by the Code for completion of the proceedings of the committee is shorter than the period of forty-five days prescribed under section 9-C of the Industrial Disputes Act. Another difference between the two provisions is that while section 9-C provided for an appeal to the employer against the decision of Grievance Redressal Committee, the Code does not provide for such an appeal. As per sub-section (8) of section 4, only a worker who is aggrieved by the decision of a grievance redressal committee or whose grievance is not resolved by the committee within the thirty day period stipulated under sub-section (6) may file an application before the conciliation officer for the resolution of the dispute through the trade union of which he or she is a member.5.2 Conciliation Conciliation proceedings are expected to be completed expeditiously. In the event of non-completion of the conciliation proceedings within a period of forty five days from the date on which the application was made, sub-section (10) of section 4 allows the concerned worker to file an application before the Industrial Tribunal for the resolution of the dispute within a period of two years from the date of cessation of his or her service. In the case of collective disputes, as per the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 53, an application may be made to the Conciliation Officer for resolution of the dispute within a period of two years from the date on which the dispute arose. Sub-section (4) of section 53 requires the Conciliation Officer to send his report on the matter within a period of forty five days from the date of commencement of the conciliation proceedings. In the case of disputes relating to strikes or lockouts, conciliation proceedings are required to be completed within a period of fourteen days. The period may however be extended on agreement by the parties to the dispute. When no settlement is reached in the conciliation proceedings, within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the report of the Conciliation Officer, an application for resolution of the dispute by the Industrial Tribunal may be made as per sub-section (6) of section 53 of the Code.5.3 No reference requirement Unlike section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, there is no provision requiring reference by the government of collective industrial disputes for adjudication. However, in the case of disputes of national importance, the central government needs to refer the dispute for adjudication by the National Industrial Tribunal5.4 Only Industrial Tribunals The Code does away with Labour Courts and provides for adjudication of industrial disputes only by Industrial Tribunals. Section 44 of the Code provides for the appointment of both a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member to each Tribunal. The qualifications for appointment and the method of recruitment of the Members have not been spelt out in the Code. The proviso to sub-section (4) of section 44 however indicates that only a person holding the post of Joint Secretary or an equivalent rank in the central government or state government may be appointed as an Administrative Member. The Code also does not specify that only a person having prior experience of dealing with labour matters may be appointed as an Administrative Member of the Tribunal. Sub-section (7) of section 44 provides that the Bench consisting of the Judicial Member and the Administrative Member may hear and decide cases regarding the interpretation and application of Standing Orders, discharge or dismissal of workers, retrenchment of workers, closure of an industrial establishment, legality of strikes and lockouts and inter and intra trade union disputes. Other cases may be heard either by a Judicial Member or an Administrative Member. If it is left only to an inexperienced Administrative Member to decide cases by himself or herself, it will seriously impair the quality of the justice delivery system in labour related cases.5.5 Transfer of Pending cases As per section 51 of the Code, cases pending before the existing Labour Courts and Industrial Tribunals are to be transferred to the Tribunals to be constituted under the Code and either be heard de novo or from the stage at which they were pending prior to the transfer5.6 Jurisdiction over trade union disputes In addition to the resolution of industrial disputes defined under section 2(q) in a manner similar to that under section 2(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Code also provides for the resolution of ‘trade union disputes.’ The term ‘trade union disputes’ is defined under section 2(zm) of the Code to mean ‘any dispute relating to a trade union arising between two or more trade unions or between the members of a union inter-se.’ According to Section 22 of the Code, the Industrial Tribunal would have jurisdiction over disputes arising between members of a trade union regarding the administration, management or election of the office bearers of the union and also over disputes arising between one trade union and another. As a result, the civil courts will no longer have jurisdiction over such disputes once the Code comes into force and this has been explicitly stated in sub-section (2) of section 22.5.7 Power to grant interim relief Sub-section (2) of section 50 gives Industrial Tribunals the power to grant interim relief but it is restricted only to cases of dismissal or discharge or termination of workers.5.8 National Industrial Tribunals Section 46 of the Code provides for the constitution of National Industrial Tribunals to adjudicate upon disputes that involve issues of national importance or issues concerning industrial establishments in more than one state. Just like the Industrial Tribunals to be established under the Code, the National Tribunals are also to have a two member Bench consisting of a Judicial Member and an Administrative Member. Only a sitting or former Judge of a High Court is eligible to be appointed as a Judicial Member of the National industrial Tribunal. A person of the rank of Secretary in the government or an equivalent rank having adequate experience of handling labour related matters may be appointed as an Administrative Member of a National Industrial Tribunal.5.9 Reference to the government when there is no consensus between the members of a Tribunal Cases before the Industrial Tribunal and National Tribunal are expected to be decided by consensus between the members. When the members differ in opinion on any point, they are required to make a reference to the concerned government as per sub-section (2) of section 47. The government would then appoint a Judicial Member of another Tribunal to hear the points in dispute and the case would be decided by majority. Softening the rigour of the law The Industrial Relations Code also introduces changes in respect of the penalties for the commission of certain offences and the process of imposition of the penalties. 6.1 Deletion of the penalty of imprisonment for the commission of certain offences Sub-section (5) of section 86 renders the commission of any unfair labour practice punishable only with fine. Under section 25-U of the Industrial Disputes Act, the commission of an unfair labour practice is punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. Sub-section (6) of section 86 makes the contravention of sections 78,79 and 80 relating to the need for government approval before effecting a lay off, retrenchment or closure punishable with fine. Under sections 25-Q of the Industrial Disputes Act, contravention of similar provisions was punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. Thus, the penalty of imprisonment has been removed in respect of the commission of certain offences by employers and this reduces the deterrent value of the penalties prescribed. On the other hand, participation in an illegal strike, instigating others to participate in an illegal strike or financially aiding an illegal strike continue to be punishable under sub-sections (13). (15) and (16) of section 86 with imprisonment or fine or both. 6.2 Imposition of fines by gazetted officers Section 85 of the Code enables the government to appoint any officer of the rank of Under Secretary to the government or an officer of higher rank for holding enquiries and imposing the penalty of fine for contravention of the provisions of the Code. These include penalties for the commission of unfair labour practices, violation of the conditions precedent to retrenchment and failure to pay the prescribed compensation in the event of lay off, retrenchment or closure. The vesting of power with government officers to hold inquiries and impose penalties has the effect of making it easier for employers to get away with violation of the law.6.3 Compounding of offences Section 89 of the Code provides for the compounding of offences. As per sub-section (1) of section 89, on the application of the accused person, an offence under the Code punishable with fine may be compounded by paying fifty percent of the maximum fine prescribed to a gazetted officer notified by the government. In the case of offences punishable with imprisonment for a year and fine, the offence may be compounded by payment of seventy five percent of the fine amount. The possibility of compounding of offences would mean that virtually in no case an employer would be prosecuted and convicted. The possibility of compounding reduces the deterrent value of the penalties prescribed under the Code for contravention of the law by employers. On balance, it is clear that most of the changes introduced in the law governing industrial relations under the Code are employer-friendly changes and that the protection for workers’ rights has been reduced under the Code. Little wonder then that the Code has been welcomed by employers and greeted with dismay by workers’ organizations.Views are personal only. (The author is an Advocate practising in the Madras High Court) TagsIR Code Industrial Relation Code Workers Right Labour Law Labours Industry Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Story