Employee not entitled to back wages on acquittal, unless prosecution was malicious: SC
The Supreme Court (“SC”), in the case of Raj Narain v. Union of India and Ors, held that an employer cannot be made to pay the back wages of an employee on his/her acquittal by a criminal court, unless the prosecution was found to be malicious.
This means that an employee, who was kept away from his/her job during his/her criminal trial would not be entitled to the wages he/she was entitled to during such period unless it falls within the exceptions carved out by the SC, as mentioned below.
The SC, however, made a distinction that this ruling would not be applicable on criminal cases that have been initiated against the employee on the behest of the employer.
Quick View:
- In this judgement, the SC seems to have taken into consideration the interests of all parties while coming to this decision. While it is fair that employers cannot be expected to pay back wages for the initiation of criminal proceedings against its employees, the SC has also taken into account, the interest of the employees, wherein if the prosecution was malicious or if the employer initiated the criminal case, then the ruling will not be applicable.
SC quashes Pension (Amendment) Scheme, 2014 which capped salary at ₹ 15,000 a month
The Supreme Court (“SC”), in the case of the Employees Provident Fund Organization & Anr v. Sunil Kumar & Ors. quashed the Employees Pensions (Amendment) Rules, 2014 (“Pension Rules”) which capped the pension at ₹15,000 per month.
The Pension Rules amended the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and increased the pensionable salary from ₹ 6,500 to ₹ 15,000.
The SC ruled that capping the pensionable salary to ₹ 15,000 is not realistic in today’s world. The SC ruled that an employees’ pension should be proportional to his/her salary and is not to be capped.
Quick View:
- Pension is intended to be a social security measure to help people sustain and survive once their years of active service are over. Consequently, capping the payable pension to INR 15,000/- per month is not realistic in today’s world, as also observed by the SC. This ruling should come as a relief to employees who were affected by this scheme.
Delhi High Court rules there is no generic disparagement by Emami’s Fair and Handsome brand of skin cream
In an application filed by Hindustan Unilever Ltd. (“HUL”), a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court (“Court”) has held that there is no generic disparagement by Emami’s fairness cream for men ‘Fair and Handsome’ in its advertisement.
HUL had claimed that Emami, in its advertisement for its product, makes a false claim that HUL’s fairness cream was “rubbish and inefficacious” and that it was restricted only to women. Further, it also objected to the advertisement showing a tube with its colour combination of pink and white and referring it to as a cream only for women whereas Emami’s cream is shown as an effective fairness cream for men even though the active ingredient in both the fairness cream is the same. Based on this, HUL pleaded that the advertisement in question by Emami was an attempt to demean, diminish and injure the business of HUL.
The Court rejected the contentions of HUL and went on to hold that the advertisement is question does indeed make fun of a male for using a ladies cream, however, it cannot be said that it also is false or misleading because of the same. The Court held that the advertisement is question did not amount to generic disparagement.
Quick View:
- The Delhi high Court has correctly held that Emami’s advertisement did not cause any disparagement of HUL’s product. As right held by the Court, that in order to determine whether or not any statement disparages, the view point to be considered is that of the general public and keeping this principle in mind it has held that advertisement in question is not disparaging.
Disclaimer: This post has been prepared for informational purposes only. The information/or observations contained in this post does not constitute legal advice and should not be acted upon in any specific situation without seeking proper legal advice from a practicing attorney.