Minimum Pay for Junior Advocates
It has been known for decades that junior advocates, in most scenarios, don’t get paid at all, or if they do, it’s the bare minimum. Why was this a norm for years together, and why didn’t anyone question this? Enrolling in any state Bar Council takes quite a few thousand, and earning that amount back will take months. Was the Bar Council unaware of this plight? Most advocates tell their juniors that the experience they gain in the office is remuneration enough. With this learning and experience, they can start practising individually and earn independently; learning is happening, but is that enough reason to make the junior advocate work for free? To end all these questions, the Madras High Court, in June 2024, in Farida Begam v. The Puducherry Government & Ors. [WP No. 17976 of 2019] directed the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry to make sure that every junior advocate gets a minimum pay of Rs. 20,000 per month in Chennai, Madurai and Coimbatore and for those practising in all the other districts a minimum of Rs. 15,000. The Court thought that the junior advocates work hard for their seniors, and if not paid appropriately, the fear of cost of living and economic instability will make them want to quit the profession, and they have every right to get paid for the work rendered. It is even against Article 21 as to the right to livelihood. Section 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961, mentions the functions of the State Bar Councils and clearly states that the Bar Councils should safeguard the interests of the advocates on roll. Well, this clems like a relief to a lot, but we still have to wait and see how far it is appropriately implemented and whether the Court will have to intervene again. Done By: Anoushka Samyuktha, B.A LL.B (Hons), LLM (Criminal Law), Junior Legal ConsultantFor Origin Law Labs
Green Credit Program
The Green Credit Program is a market-based program designed to pay individuals, industries and other local bodies for voluntary environmental actions across various sectors. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change had proposed the draft of the Green Credit Programme Implementation Rules 2023 with a clear plan to separate the activities into eight different sectors, including water, agriculture, air pollution, waste management, etc. Green credits will be given, which are tradable. They can trade the green credits, increasing the credits for sales on a proposed domestic market. This program was announced initially in the budget of 2023-2024 to leverage a competitive approach and voluntary environmental actions by various stakeholders. Just like trademarks, the government has introduced the Ecomark Scheme. An Ecomark is a mark or label given to environmentally sustainable products. This will promote active competition in the market, meet the sustainable quotient, and encourage more environmentally friendly players in the market. Done By: Anoushka Samyuktha, B.A LL.B (Hons), LLM (Criminal Law), Junior Legal ConsultantFor Origin Law Labs
The legal implication of moonlighting
Moonlighting refers to when a person takes up a job while they are already working a full-time job for an organisation. The employee does this to attain additional income. Is this wrong? Well, it depends on each organisation. Certain companies have permitted moonlighting, but with limitations. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act 1946 permits dual employment. This phenomenon increased during the COVID-19 pandemic when people were unsure when they would lose their jobs and started having another job as a backup for income. The work–from–home setup plays a significant role in moonlighting. Does the right to profession get hit here? In most of the employee contracts, there is an exclusivity clause. Therefore, it actively prohibits the employee from taking up another job. If they do so, then they can be fired immediately. Moonlighting caused misusing of one company’s resources for working in another company. According to Section 60 of the Factories Act,1948, “No adult worker shall be required or allowed to work in any factory on any day on which he has already been working in any other factory, save in such circumstances as may be prescribed”. Similarly, the Delhi Shops and Establishments Act of 1954, the Bombay Shops and Establishment Act of 1948, and the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Act of 1958 also have provisions against dual employment. In Government of Tamil Nadu v. Tamil Nadu Race Course General Employees Union [(1993) ILLJ977MAD], it was held that there may not be any prohibitions on having dual employees if explicit consent is obtained from the employer. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that moonlighting is a villain as such. Again, IT DEPENDS. Done By: Anoushka Samyuktha, B.A LL.B (Hons), LLM (Criminal Law), Junior Legal ConsultantFor Origin Law Labs
Gig Workers v. “Regular” Full time Employees
We have all seen labourers working different jobs with different bosses regularly. Workers who work temporarily outside the scope of an employer-employee relationship are known as gig workers. Section 2(35) of the Code on Social Security, 2020 defines a gig worker as someone who performs tasks, participates in work arrangements and earns from such activities independently. This clearly means that they are their own bosses, and according to this definition, even a freelance worker of any profession will also be termed a gig worker. With the current scenario of the population in India, unemployment is the new enemy of the economy. Many have taken up roles of any kind to meet their ends. Therefore, there is a significant rise in the number of freelance workers these days, and it is predicted in research by ASSOCHAM that there will be a 17% rise in the number of gig workers every year and almost 350 million gig jobs in India exclusively. This has opened various legal questions, including those regarding labour laws. The need for separate legislation for the gig workers has put them in a disadvantageous position. Four labour codes were recently introduced to curb this dent. The Code of Social Security, 2020, by the recommendations of the Second National Labour Commission, addresses the laws relating to gig workers. The code, however, does not identify the gig workers as regular employees or the labour force. However, the minimum wage social security benefits and other needs have been duly addressed. Recently, in IFAT v Union of India [WP (C ) 1068/2021], it was noted that a fair minimum wage has to be provided to gig workers also as they do the same amount of work as a regular employee would and cannot be discriminated of such fundamental rights. It will amount to a violation of Articles 14, 21 and 23 of the Constitution. These laws still have many grey areas, including the PoSH guidelines, welfare fund, etc. Streamlining these laws is extremely important, Considering the rapid rise in India. Done By: Anoushka Samyuktha, B.A LL.B (Hons), LLM (Criminal Law), Junior Legal ConsultantFor Origin Law Labs
Employee Intervention or Workplace Intervention
A workplace has to be healthy. A safe and positive workplace increases the productivity of the employee and boosts organisational development as well. There are up to 900 million working people in India (2021), and it’s only growing. With these numbers, are the labour laws effective? The mental health of these workers is the most challenging domain to deal with, especially in legal aspects. According to a survey conducted by Deloitte, India ranked 18th highest in terms of anxiety. This indicates that mental health should be a part of work-life balance. To give practical solutions to the conflict between workers’ rights and the current socio-economic circumstances that violate those rights, the origin of labour law may be traced back to the need to provide practical answers. In Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Employees State Insurance Corporation [AIR 1996 SC 3261], it was determined that employers were accountable for ensuring that their employees could lead fulfilling lives. Consequently, they were obligated to participate in the formulation and execution of welfare programmes on an equal basis. Various legislations give attention to employees’ mental health, such as the Military Lunatic Act of 1877, The Mental Healthcare Act of 2017, etc. Despite these efforts, many developing countries, including India, have fewer essential employee interventions to supervise enterprises and occupational health, which might put workers’ health in needless danger if issues continue to exist. Done By: Anoushka Samyuktha, B.A LL.B (Hons), LLM (Criminal Law), Junior Legal ConsultantFor Origin Law Labs
Can a Member of Parliament be fired just like that? – Jaya Bachchan v. UoI
Becoming a Member of the Parliament comes with many rules and even more responsibilities. Only some people can or should be allowed to be appointed as a Member of Parliament. It requires specific qualifications to hold the office of the Member of Parliament Article 84 of the Indian Constitution prescribes the required qualifications to become a Member of Parliament. It includes i) the person must be a citizen of India, ii) the person must be 25 years of age for the Lok Sabha and 35 years of age in the case of Rajya Sabha, iii) the person must fulfil any such other qualifications prescribed under any other law in effect in India. When we talk about qualifications, we must definitely discuss the disqualification. Article 102 of the Constitution talks about disqualifying a Member of Parliament. The categories for disqualifications if the person is chosen as a Member of Parliament are as follows, A. If the person holds an office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State B. If the person is of unsound mind and is declared as such by a competent court C. If the person is an undischarged insolvent D. If the person is not a citizen of India or has acquired citizenship of a foreign state E. If the person is disqualified by any other law in operation in India and made by the parliament. In the case of Jaya Bachchan v. Union of India, AIR 2006 SC 2119, the Government of UP appointed Mrs. Jaya Bachchan as the chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Council. She was also given the position of Cabinet Minister. She received all the perks that came along as well. The main contention was that she was using the office as an office of profit. According to Article 102(1)(a), the President decided she would be disqualified as a Rajya Sabha member. However, the Court held that the President should get an opinion from the Election Commission before disqualifying any House members. Therefore, the Court held that this petition had no merit and was dismissed. The Court also held that an office of profit is one that has the potential to generate a profit or monetary advantage. To the extent that the office brings with it or entitles the holder to any monetary benefit other than actual expenditures, then the office shall be considered an office of profit for the purposes of Article 102(1)(a). Done By: Anoushka Samyuktha, B.A LL.B (Hons), LLM (Criminal Law), Junior Legal Consultant For Origin Law Labs
Cryptocurrency Laws
We have heard a lot about digital currencies such as Bitcoins and Altcoins. What does the law have to say about them? Cryptocurrency is sold mainly because of the idea of no double spending and because it cannot be counterfeited. It was first created by a programmer, Wei Dai, in 1998. But it needed a proper shape and was less safe than it sounded. Later, in 2009, Satoshi Nakamoto, a developer, created a more credible system and gained recognition. It is treated as a digital asset with a digital ledger to record all the transactions. According to a 2018 survey, one of every ten Bitcoin transactions was made in India. Until 2018, there were no active rules that either regulated or unregulated cryptocurrency in India. Many scams, including the Gain Bitcoin Scam, have gained much attention. In the 2018-2019 budget, the finance minister only stated that cryptocurrency will not be considered legal tender and that the Government will take stern actions against anyone funding such illegitimate activities. Further, the RBI issued a regulatory statement not to deal with virtual currencies and to end the relationship with organisations that use virtual currencies. In Internet and Mobile Association of India v. Reserve Bank of India [2020 SCC Online SC 275], it was argued that the RBI could not issue such notices. The Court directed the attention to the Banning of Cryptocurrency and Regulation of Official Digital Currency Bill, 2019. But later, in 2019, the RBI issued such a notice under the Banking Regulation Act, 1948, the Reserve Bank of India, and the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007. Therefore, cryptocurrencies are still unregulated in India, and despite this, entities are dealing with this because there is no complete ban. Done By: Anoushka Samyuktha, B.A LL.B (Hons), LLM (Criminal Law), Junior Legal ConsultantFor Origin Law Labs
Dishonoured Cheque when not a criminal offence
We all know that dishonour of cheques is a criminal offence as given under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act of 1881. Section 138 of the NI Act states that “where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both”. But have we wondered about scenarios where the cheque drawer can escape this? The Allahabad High Court, in Archana Singh Gautam v. State of UP & Anr. [2024:AHC:102434], it was ruled that any dishonoured cheque from banks that have gone through a merger cannot be held liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Therefore, there will not be any criminal proceedings against the drawer. In this case, any invalid cheque issued to the Allahabad Bank after merging into the Indian Bank will not attract any criminal charges. It is also vital to mention Section 118(b), which says that the cheque should be duly drawn on the mentioned date, even if it may be post-dated. The Court duly stated that this reasoning applies not only to the Allahabad Bank but also to all the banks of a similar nature that have merged with other banks. Done By: Anoushka Samyuktha, B.A LL.B (Hons), LLM (Criminal Law), Junior Legal Consultant For Origin Law Labs