 And without taking much time, I would request Mr. Murti to unmute himself and take things forward, and sir, we are thank you that you have accepted our request. So kindly unmute yourself. Murti sir, unmute yourself. Yeah. Yeah. Right, sir. Over to you. Yeah, Mr. Vikas, before I start, my daughter is waiting. She's also an advocate to be allowed inside. Could you allow her? Yes, Rupashree. Sir, 100 participants. It's all over. Over 100. All right. Let us go through YouTube. So good evening to all the listeners. Last year, I had an occasion during the COVID time, organized through Mr. Vikas. And he has taken it right through to Punjab and Chandigarh also. And Hariyana and other areas he has covered many places. And this year again, we thought we should have a session on the industrial relations for development of industrial law. Now this is going to be slightly different from what I spoke on the last occasion. And those who have not attended my last talk will find everything new. Those who have attended will find some difference. See, first of all, let us look into the development of industrial law. Now the industrial relations court 2020 is supposed to reflect the developments in industrial law. That industrial law is more a judgment law. The entire gamut of industrial law development has taken place only through the law laid down by the judges. Allowing judges to make laws is a very dangerous trend in democracy. It ruins the system according to me because each judge will have his own philosophy, unmindful of what is required to be done on the ground. I'll give you a few examples. Instead of developing industrial law into a tool for progress of the country, how the Supreme Court in the high courts have ensured that there is not going to be much of a progress in industrial front, thanks to their generosity in delivering judgments. I'll give only a few examples. Take the definition of industry. It is shocking. It is quite shocking that the Supreme Court should say hospital is an industry, educational institution is an industry, Punjab, Punjab role is an industry. All because of a Marxist-minded judgment judge of the Supreme Court, the great Krishna Ayur, who wanted to impose his philosophy on the country, the absolute communist philosophy. With a result, strikes and lockouts were seen in the hospitals, educational institutions. Even today you find that. Yes, some law is required to govern them, but you cannot equate industrial law, bringing industrial law to manage educational institutions, to manage hospitals. And here the parliament utterly failed after making amendments to the definition of industry. 18th August, 1984, after the presidential signature, it has to only publish two lines to give effect to it. But that's not happening. Now with a new court, the same thing what was there earlier has been incorporated. Look at the thinking of the part of the government and those who drafted this entire industrial relations court. So industry definition actually brought a lot of inconvenience. It did not help the growth of development of industrial law at all. Nobody, much less the parliamentarians of 1947 expected that one day the honorable Supreme Court will call the hospital as an industry, educational institutions as an industry. I would say on the whole there is development of industrial law, but development of industrial law totally lopsided, meant only to each judge, why with other to show how socially sees how much he cares for the labor. And this has brought industry into a very dire state. Look at the definition of retrenchment for that matter. Retrenchment in English meant excess staff being offloaded. The interpretation given by Justice Krishna Yalvaj, if it was for 240 days in 12 months and it's eliminated because there is no word that is also retrenchment. Again, a great distorted version of what was originally sought for, what was originally should be done. Lay off for the matter. Supreme Court says unless you reserve a right to lay off in the appointment letter or in the standing orders, you have no right to lay off. Who on earth wanted all this to be done? Lay off has got a certain meaning. So if an industry lays off, when you only write what is the compensation payable, you become multi-technical when it comes to helping the labor and totally something which is unexpected from a hold of that level. Then, for example, to proceed further in the matter, you take, for example, the parliament and its application of responsibility. Notice of change. If you are giving a cup of coffee at four o'clock and you want to make it half cup of coffee, that is called change of service condition. How can the industry run on if this is the type of restrictions that are placed? Most of it, unfortunately, coming from the judiciary. Take, for example, placing the restrictions on right to lay off retrenchment and closure. Many of my clients ask me what sort of law you have in this country. I have a right to start, but I have no right to close down. Which country has that law? This is a great time for the parliament to totally shelf chapter 5B. Unperceivedly, they have totally failed. Parliament has failed the industry. Judges have ruined the industrial law to, if you ask me, to use very strong words. So how on earth can you do all this thing? For example, you have a provision for section 17 capital being in the industrial district. I thought the parliament will intervene because supposing that a person who has virtually assaulted a manager may have resulted in grievance injuries. And some court says, all right, he was a bad man. Then now he's all right. You take him back. This is the attitude of the labor courts. Take him back. Now, if I don't want to take him back, I must pay him last long wages. Then what is the discretion of the high court? High court is a puppet court with article 226. If there's a good case where back wages must be given, or wages must be given, or some interim leave must be given. The court will do it while bringing legislation and forcing in all cases that 17B must be applied, wages must be paid, even in such cases. So these are all things which we thought that they will make changes when it comes to all these things, but nothing has been done. And development of industrial law, in what sense? Every activity, the industry, or whoever does whatever work is a workman. For example, technicians, I don't know parliament and what influence they brought this word technical in the definition of workman. A software engineer who's paid 5 lakhs of rupees a month is a workman in industrial law. Was that the intention? Did the parliament not know that this is hopeless? A hopeless interpretation by the courts? Can they not change it when they want? They change everything overnight by presidential ordinance. So again, we are suffering. Sir, could you come here to the mic because a lot of people are saying it's less audible. One second. Hear me. Yes, sir. Hello. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Are you able to hear me? Yes, sir. Then what it was earlier? Better, better. Okay. Now, now, now, now, now let's take to what they have done in various space. Some of the features like, for example, definition of layout, implementation, chapter 5B, draconian law, then sections which require permission from the government or from the court to do even part terminations. If you put in all these restrictions, how should the industry function? Look at judiciary, how it has impacted the production and productivity. Goal flow must be proved. How can I prove go slow in a mass action? So the workmen can indulge in go slow and say there's something wrong with the machine. Therefore, it goes slow. You must give some little leverage. Allow an employer to decide and run the plant. Now they have done. Now the situation is worse. Industrial relations court is a big apology to the industrial disputes act and to the existing labor laws. If they were incapable of drafting a good law, they should not have done it. According to me, industrial dispute cycle is one of the final piece of legislation. They have ruined it now. Some bureaucratic in Delhi making four acts, one act without understanding the implications has led to this serious setback. Now, take for example, I want to take you to the definitely the contract labor act where the section said a contractor is a workman who agrees to produce a given result and also a person who supplies labor. What is the meaning of it? Somebody gives me security of the entire plant to me to be taken care of and I go ahead and do it and I build on a lump sum basis. There is another agency which provides only labor. Now the Supreme Court says no, no, no, no, no, merely providing labor is not a contractor. They refuse to recognize the law. You will have control. You will supervise. Your officers will direct them as to what is to be done. Therefore, it's a sham contract. The silver lining is in the last four or five years. Some judges have thought that it's unwise to interpret that way and have come to a conclusion that what was said earlier was not correct. A person who in fact just is Roenton Nariman and just is Roenton. I'm underlined and said a person who runs a employment bureau like an employment exchange in the private sector and somebody said, I want 20 operators and he sends 20 operators. You say, no, no, no, he's not a contractor because he doesn't come and supervise the work. He doesn't come and control the workmen. That was not intended. Why are you putting your words into this section? For years and years, allowing the officers of the Labor Department to go totally correct because they have the discretion to give or not to give. If you read Justice Roenton Nariman's judgment, it shows there's absolutely no discretion in the officer. If an application is made, because the fees is paid, he's bound to grant your license unless the work is prohibited. And most of the state governments and the central government have forgotten the existence of section 10 in the Contract Labor Act. Two things happen out of this. One is the law itself says you can have merely labor working for you from a person who supplies mere labor, mere supply of labor. In fact, it just is asked if the idea is that man only supplies labor, who should tell them where they should work, what work they should do, how they should do. It is not. Naturally, the principal employer, if the principal employer says that you become known, no, no, this is not contract labor. And for this was one of the issue, now they're trying to correct themselves too late in the day because industrial relations could have taken a different turn altogether. Likewise, if you look into the various aspects of, for example, we had what is known as a public utility service. Now, in the new forward, they have done away with public utility service. So they have removed some of the good things. They may be public utility service was a good provision in the industry. Because it may be water supply. It may be road transport corporation. It may be corporation employees. Some notice was required to be given. Something had to be done. And he did his preferential treatment. Now, that is all to be taken away. Now, what do you do once it is taken away totally? Then, for example, if you go to the provisions pertaining to approval and permission, it's such a draconian provision that for every small thing, even for increment, you must run to the labor court and say, I want to punish him with one increment. We told him, give me approval or give me permission as the case may be. Was this the intention? Obviously not. Now, there was a lot of demand to make it make changes in this. What did they do? They did nothing of that sort. Then look at the development of industrial law, which is a subject which we are dealing with. For example, under the Red Union Act, if you see, there is no recognition of the Red Union, even after 1947 till date. There are a lot of agitation strikes, lockouts, damashas going on on the ground that employees refusing to recognize the Red Union. It is high time that they made a law that they should have made a law. Now, there have been demand by companies for the secret ballot. There have been demand by Congress by secret ballot and check off by the communist parties. Nothing has been done so much so that there are going to be serious fight amongst the Red Union, resulting in loss of production. The worst part of the development of industrial law has been the mischance is discipline. Indiscipline is the watchword today. Courts are so silent and so blind to what is happening in industry. Huge industrial establishments are closed for 50 days, 60 days, 70 days, 80 days. On flimsy grounds, look at what the government has done recently in Bangalore. Suspension of one or two office bearers lead to a strike by 4,000 employees and goes off on 91 day and loss of production. What is the primary street talking? That you manufacture for the world, that you do this. I invite people all over the world to come here without knowing what the labor loss of the country is. Many of our clients who had ideas of expansion have given up. And who is responsible for this indiscipline? The Supreme Court and the High Courts. They are responsible. If there is an absence of 30 days in a PS man of six months, the judge the other day asked me in the High Court, 30 days and not there is an absence of what is so big about it. 50 days absence of what is big about it, taking back and an employee writes 10 letters saying he is suffering from a certain disease which is incurable. And so on the ground of continued ill health, many services were terminated. The judge says it is your responsibility to keep such people with you. You should take them to the hospital. You must meet all the expenses. Then what are the social measures that they have taken? What are the ESI Act? Why are they collecting this money, Chanda? If everything has to be done by the employer, you give a role to the employer in the action against anyone. Somebody abuses the judge even at the highest level will say he was in a bad mood. He must have fought with his wife on that day. He must have abused. So what? These are not serious things. What is serious then? With the results, the trade union leaders today do on two fronts. One, if you are employing more than 100 workmen, you know what a trade union leader says. Tells his members, don't worry, this company cannot lay out. This company cannot retrain. This company cannot close. I take a case to the government where for three months I'm unable to give work and ask their permission to retrain. There's another foreign treatment, nothing, no permission will be given. And then they tell the officer, sir, if you don't give permission in another two months, it'll close down. He says, I don't care, you want to close, you can close and go, but I want to. All right, will you give me permission to close? Even that I will not give you. Do what you want. If you still close, I'll send you to the jail. So jails in India will not be filled by criminals, but by industrialists in course of time. Because for everything, you have prosecution. So what is the development of industrial law which I wanted to discuss with you? The virtually it's all pleasing one section of the society without understanding the ramifications, implications of such pleasing way of looking at things and passing judgments. There are hardly any Supreme Court judgment which says, no discipline is very important. We will not tolerate indiscipline. No indiscipline in the industry. Workmen who commit misconduct must be seriously punished. No, nobody wants to become unpopular. I'll give a simple example. Last year COVID, 52 days COVID holiday were declared. All the governments including the central government, everybody issues circular notification, a pandemic act, disaster management act, pay full wages, they'll impose two more tax on petrol, they'll collect money. If that is less, they'll impose another two rupees per litre, collect money. How many employees? So the employers went to the court. And you know what the court says? Very surprisingly, as these employers say, employees say like this, we are going to tell the government not to take coercive steps to implement this notification. So don't proceed against employers who do not abide by the notification. But both of you sit down and talk, arrive at a settlement. If you don't arrive at a settlement, let it go to reconciliation. Thereafter for adjudication, sheer abdication of the judicial responsibility. Now they say the banter is opposed to a further end. When it'll come up to five years. This is the kind of judiciary we'll have. Is it not a serious banter? On the other hand, somebody becomes a MP by fraud or other means or some MLA defects, defection of MLAs will be taken on top priority. Arrest of one of the leaders we will take on a top priority. But what matters the entire country is not taken on top priority. So judiciary, what did it do? In fact, in one case they say, yes, we understand it's a very, it's a very abusive language. Workmen should not have used it, taken supervised in the 200 shop floor. But the workman is not from a refined set of societies, from the lowest set of society. So if he abuses you, fine. You can't go to the extent of dismissing. So I always tell executives and officers, get ready to get abused if you want to continue in employment. You can't take them off. Fortunately, one or two judgments came in the later years, won by Justice Santoshakade. Where he said if a workman abuses a supervisor on the shop floor, in the presence of other workmen, other than employees, it's a good case for dismissal. Till then they never thought it was a good case. I'll show you cases where chaos or deceit conductors don't give ticket and the Supreme Court said after I have 5 rupees, 6 rupees, 10 rupees, 12 rupees. So it goes on in amount of that has been denied to the corporation. Only later judgments gave some little soccer to those judgments which sent all those things. Therefore, I'm not saying all this by myself because I know my limitation. I know the wonderful judges can call me up for contempt of fault. But this is what Supreme Court has said in one of the judgments. Where they say, we in the Supreme Court have been lacks. They admit, they agree that they were the people who are very lenient to the working class resulting in large scale indiscipline. Therefore, if you look at the development of industrial law, it has not developed in the way it should have developed from 1947 till today. It's all a one sided development, pleasing the labor all through. Now, with this, let's see what the industrial relations court has in store for us. Now, what are the things that should have been corrected? There are various things that should have been corrected, various things. Now I'll tell you some of the lacuna that have been created. First thing is, wages have been redefined. These were necessary because they were employers. In a total salary of 10,000 rupees will be basic and 9,000 rupees divided into other components and pay contribution only on 1000. Therefore, the Parliament taught to amend this and to say at least 50% of the gross salary must be given under the head basic wages and DNS allowance. This is quite right and I think a positive step after going through a lot of difficulties for a long time. And the second change that noticeable change in the definition of, I mean, is in the definition of wages is one, then there will be one more important definition which was changed. Now I'll come to that. I think it is not, I'm not immediately able to get, yes, I want to. There are no introduced a definition called fixed term employment. Now this is a fraud again. This is a total fraud again. What is fixed term employment? Employing an employee for a term of one year, two years, six months, three months for a job is called fixed term employment. And the entire government goes on saying we have brought revolutionary changes in industry. Now you can employ people for a fixed period and send them little realizing and then identical provision existed exists still in the industry. Under the caption section two OOBB, under section two OOBB, your employer is right to employ an employee for a fixed term. Somebody wants to start an industry, save it 500 workmen. Can you give an appointment later to all of them saying I'm up for two years and it'll end up two years and ask them to go home and appoint a first set of 200 people? Is it possible? Then why all these industrial law service lover years we have been doing volumes and volumes written by Supreme Court judges. What's the occasion to go through these two OOBB? And very rightly said no, no, this is only, this can be used only when the nature of its work itself gets over in the limited period. If the work continues and the employment it is about 100 machines in a plant. It takes about two years to make complete time so you tell them for engineers whom you recruit, you have to carry out the time study in our establishment and we are giving you two years offer and they accept. At the end of two years it is not a treatment they get terminated by a fixed time. That is acceptable because you don't appoint any new people to do the same job. But can you do in case of a welder? Even if you appoint a welder for two years and he goes can you stop the welding work in your plant? You need to carry out the welding work in your plant. Therefore, such appointment is not fixed term employment. To my mind, this is a fraud. They are trying to fool all of us by saying I'm also shocked that some of the consultants and professionals have also sent articles taking this fixed term appointment on the face value saying government has done a wonderful job by defining fixed term employment. Hereafter, we need not appoint people on permanent rows at all. We can go only by fixed term. So this is not obviously, this is a method of fooling the employers by saying I'm introducing fixed term appointment. And to add to that, they want to amend it to include termination of services on expiry of the fixed term employment as an exclusion, as an exclusion to the definition of workmen. I'm sorry, retrenchment. That's such a fraud. It's already interpreted by the Supreme Court. Where's the question of you're doing it again? Then you have another interesting provision in the court that pertains to contract labor. The contract labor is abolished. The central government found that neither itself nor the states are making use of Section 10 of the Existing Contract Labor Act. So they defined non-core activities, packing, security, gardening and similar things which are peripheral, canteen. They defined some 11 or 12 things, nature of work as non-core activities and said, in these areas you can have contract labor. Other than these areas you cannot have contract labor. We should obviously think it is a core activity. Now, the question will be, there also there is one small explanation or a gap where they say in certain activities, in external activities, there comes a something where permission can be that is only to make money. That is not a serious thing. Now it depends on the officer what he thinks about it. What happens from tomorrow if a court of court on wages is brought into effect? What will happen from tomorrow? There are public sector companies, private companies which have some of them have 70% of their labor forced through contract labor and some of them have 50%, some of them 60%. Violence to a great extent in many places is because of that contract labor and the law says they must get equal work, equal wages how many people are doing it? Not many people are following this at all and now in one stroke if you abolish, how should the industry run? Yes, it should be abolished. I agree with that because employers have exploited contract in the name of contract labor, exploited labor. There's no opinion. Whatever employers may say, even after 47 years of working for employers, I emphatically say this is not a real provision. There must be a abolition of contract labor. There must be a flexibility in employment in the form of if I surplus, I will retrench. If I want, I will recruit. Place and embargo on retrenchment. He said, all right, somebody will work for five years and you're retrenching them, pay them four months salary, five months salary, six months to five. But you don't tell them, look, you can't engage contract labor in core activities. You can't engage permanent workmen for that because when they become surplus, you have no way to get rid of them. How to operate them? So that's one thing they have brought and now I do not know what they want to do with it. Then I have another amendment to be shared with you. I'm not exactly amendment, another change brought about, but which is a very positive change and that is with regard to standing orders. Now, standing orders, before I go to that, let me go to this retrenchment back for a moment because it comes under Industrial Disputes Act and that is instead of 100 workmen for coverage under Chapter 5B, they have raised it to 300. Yes, this helps MSMEs quite a lot, but MSMEs get into trouble only because the large industry gets into trouble. Who is MSMEs? A person who produces the goods for a larger industry and gives it to them, what we used earlier called as ancillary units, if it is in the same company. Who are MSMEs? Now, for example, take the example of a company like Toyota. They have got about 100 MSMEs working for them, medium and small enterprises. And the main unit gets into trouble where will these MSMEs get work? So now we are allowed MSMEs to exist. Something is better than nothing. With all this, there is still a lurking fear in the employers that it is difficult to run the plant with these kind of interventions. The other day, I got a call three days back, a revenue officer is directed by Thashildal to close down a pharma plant which employs about 1200 people on the ground that some of its employees were COVID positive. Tell me one industrial establishment in the country where no workmen of the establishment has tested COVID positive. So power is given in the hands of Thashildas, what should happen to the country? Even here, they don't rectify these things. The same mistakes which were there continues to be still operating against the employer. I am changing, no doubt. I also agree that under this industrial core, relations core, some good things have come. For example, the cognition of trade union, where there is only one trade union in establishment, it is automatic recognition. Where there is more than one trade union, the union which gets the support of 51% of the workforce will be the only union to be recognized and it will be the sole negotiating union. Where there are two or more trade unions, a trade union which has the support of 20% of the workforce will get one seat in what they call as negotiating council. About four trade unions, each one of them get 20, 21, 22%. Each one will have one member in the negotiating council. Now what happens? Philosophies of the trade unions differ. So it makes negotiations more difficult. One more thing which I want to draw your attention here is the grievance redressal procedure in the code. You will be surprised when you are shocked to know that grievance redressal procedure, any workmen can approach this grievance redressal committee with an application. Say for example saying that I have not got one increment and the grievance redressal committee comes to the conclusion that there is no such injustice caused. The workmen may directly approach the conciliation officer. One conciliation after 45 days and the conciliation officer will conciliate if no settlement is allowed he will refer it to court. Then what for the trade unions? The idea of calling a dispute of the industry as he put is that a substantial number of workmen should be interested in the dispute. In a factory of 500 people if two workmen go and say sir they have not properly calculated my bonus, they have not done this. Unless the union is satisfied it will not take up the cause. Individual workmen will not have a right to raise the dispute straight away against the employer. What happens tomorrow? 100 more keys will not be sufficient to manage the number of disputes that are going to be raised in the years to come. Each workmen will have individual grievances and all of us know that and most of the good trade unions and the individual worker goes to them. They don't straight away pass a resolution to take up his cause. They will themselves verify the facts and then if they are satisfied they will tell him sorry you don't have a good case let us not take it up as an interstellar dispute. Otherwise every case can go up. Every case can go up. Even the smallest no need for support of other workmen. Till now there was no need of support of other workmen to challenge only in the case of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment. Now for every small thing it can become a dispute to be referred for adjudication. What have they achieved in the process? More industry disputes to capital to say that instead of one labor court to judge labor court is abolished there will be only industrial tribunals. There will be two judges one an IS officer at the secretary level another is a judicial officer you are further ruining the adjudication methodology. Adjudication process is going to be totally ruined by this industrial relations go with whom they consulted why they did that nobody knows they're going to further delay the whole process. What an IS officer at the secretary level coming and sitting under industrial to adjudicate industries when the labor court judges who have senior judges who have been judges for 20 30 years are incapable of understanding and passing correct orders in industrial matters. Till today I have not seen a labor court judge who had experience with labor laws who were able to understand and dispose of cases. When such is the situation you are going to bring this where are you going to land us all into one other factor before I give time for uh uh Mr. Vikas five more minutes I suppose is okay five more minutes for my talk yeah uh is that uh there have been a large-scale complaints in respect of certification of standing orders bureaucracy at its top level. So what the parliament has done is to raise the limit for applicability of requirement to have standing orders to 300 from the existing 50 or 100 different states of different numbers. Most important in the chain they have brought is when you submit a certificate standing order for certification and or modification and if no decision is taken or no order is passed by the end of 60 days the draft that you have given for certification is deemed to have been certified or modification is deemed to have been certified. This is extremely important amendment uh in fact instead of 300 they should have made it 500 it's all that at least they have made it 300 because I remember for a pharma company I had to go to court to the high court saying that I've submitted the draft standing order seven years back and the officer is still not certified. The reasons are obvious he want he has some demand which I can't meet. Then the high court said you certify the standing orders in 30 days. From such pathetic situation do you call that a development of industrial law? It's only development of bureaucrats and development of officers of the department. What should I have been the law labor law by this time in this country when you are getting so many foreign universities to come. Many of them have come to me and said sir we have totally disappointed we have come from Germany we have come from France we have people coming from UK we have people coming Scandinavian countries we have people coming from Sweden we have people coming from United States all of them have a common grievance that they have made a mistake. I wish prime minister if this is brought to the notice of the prime minister as to what is the it's all right if we get five industry or five hundred billion dollars if your laws were to be all right possibly would have five thousand billion dollars. What is the big achievement otherwise? China was not even at our level in 1947 where are they today? Germany population of seven crores France population of six crores UK population of 3.5 crores where are they all gone with such small number of labor available where are they and where are we? All this is because there is no hard-run development you know entrepreneurship it is telling like telling the farmers don't work we will waive all your loans telling the workmen don't work we'll tell the employer to pay you salary telling the bureaucrats you can do any plunder no action will be taken. Industrial law has also suffered in the same way we have missed the bus according to me we are unlikely to catch up because the new court is equally bad we want competent people to run the labor courts run the judiciary and also those in bureaucracy who are given the power to deal with certain aspects of industrial law to update their knowledge about industrial law. All that they know is small violation goes to the commissioner he will call the employer and say I will prosecute your managing director I'll prosecute your directors he will not try to find out what the problem is union says you're violated I also say there is violation I'll prosecute as all the employers are coming here into country only to get prosecuted. This attitude must change unless this attitude changes whatever you may ask in any number of seminars you may have on development of industrial law there is no development of industrial law there is no development in the positive thinking line it is all who gets what in the market employers who can exploit are comfortably exploiting and they have got good support from all sectors honest employers are being threatened of being sent to jail unfortunately the quality of trade union leaders just as the quality of management consultant if I say trade union leaders trade union you say what about you fellows what advice are you giving I always tell my friends in the trade union if you advise workmen listen to you if I advise by my employers don't listen to us lack of proper industrial relations advise or advise an industrial law is one factor for this kind of handicap growth unfortunately employers don't buy and large and there are exceptions everywhere but what I'm saying buy and learn they don't seem to be serious about these things they come to know what are the consequences of non-compliance if we say anything more they say that law is in the book we know tell us how not to complicate it without getting into problem and that because possibly is the merit of the consultant trade union leaders there are no trade union leaders I have told all of them you are only led by your office bearers local office bearers of the union you in fact they tell me sadly I know what this union is doing is wrong but those local office bearers don't listen to me but he's the president of the union so there is a deterioration in the standards of trade union leaders and people I can see that Simon or MS Christian or Raj Gopal to what they are today possibly they may say there's a deterioration in the management also to some extent may be true also therefore I was only trying to tell you development of industrial law is there but not does not show any sign of a positive development it's all one-sided give them this give them that do this do that for example take this book now bonus there's a bonus that will be paid on the basis of minimum wages minimum wages differ from state to state I have what establishments in different states so I must pay different points how can I I have only one balance sheet if I go by the balance sheet it gives me a certain indicates a certain percentage no amount will differ again though the percentage is small whatever you are nobody thinks whether such a thing is practical and resulting in this situation the unfortunate I think I have passed my time by five minutes Mr. Vikas it's open to you thank you very much for all those who have been listening so patiently Mr. Vikas yes sir you are done and mute yeah we have unmuted we don't want you to that the people get distracted towards us they should have the spotlight on the main speaker or no yeah sir we will ask someone who can if anyone has any question they can post it one question is difference between an employee workmen and an employee difference between you see though they have defined workmen and employee wherever it is necessary they use the word that is necessary they use the word employee when it comes to employee state product product they put the definition of employee there where it comes to workmen in the provisions with regard to the present industrial law they have put the definition of workmen so workmen is defined for the purposes of industrial district and maybe one or two enactment but most of them like for example payment opponents it goes by the word employees definition employees brought in for it goes by the definition of employee employee who may not be a workmen is also an employee so they have put both the whole thing I said I told you is a mess up to my mind it looks like this there may have been certain good officers there with no work in the Shamma Bhavan or whatever it is Shamik Bhavan or whatever it is they have brought 24 books divided into four pros to make one book that is exactly what will happen because nobody has applied their mind to some of these things sir this is Basmaraj Virayal the division bench of the Kanata Kahai court last week held that the software employees of course they declared that the in Texas instrument case that the software employees are also workmen within the meaning of industrial districts in 1947 what would be scenario under the new court sir same thing no difference word to word same and second one is one of the second is one of the advocate commented that the code is a immediate reaction to the covid scenario and it may not be ever notified at all because of the opposition and all what it's your takes around that what is the court will not be being of the court is a some sort of a knee jerk reaction to the covid scenario and it may not be the light of the day it may not be notified that's what I don't know I don't have much idea about it it's an immediate reaction to the code scenario just to the balance the things and if the things improve the code may not be notified or it may go substantial changes to bring back to the original scenario that's what they say you're talking from 24th onwards is it not the code is it sorry sorry I couldn't hear you but please if the code does not bring in no the the comments are not reacted to code it is the code itself you're talking about the not being brought the the comment your question is no they're disturbing I'll repeat the question sir yeah please repeat but then it cuts it cuts please go ahead and slowly tell me yes this is is there any special provisions to the employees engaged by an e-commerce giants special provision for a e-commerce giants no not at all okay can you clarify about the pendency of the dispute and whether individual disputes also amount to pendency of disputes under section 33 sub clause 2 sub clause 2 sub clause b no individual dispute in the individual dispute even though they are taken up by the union and called as an industrial dispute it is only for the purposes of the matter being taken up by the court that's all only for the purposes of individual purpose to challenge the dismissal discharge etc so individual disputes become the industrial dispute only to the extent of that matter being taken up by the court but it will not be so for the purpose of section 33 to be or 33 1 or 33 3 whatever the provision permission and approval yes so there is no question I'll ask Mr. Basur Raj the daksha legal person to express his views before we conclude for the day Mr. Basur Raj of course Mr. Esan Murthy sir is one of the most respected senior advocates who has a who is considered as an authority on the labour law and the management side that's what and it's a privilege to have him here today and thank you for the wonderful speech sir it's a thought-provoking speech and also very critical analysis of the entire scenario so hope we'd meet again with another seminar on a equally mind-blowing or thought-provoking subject yeah and Mr. Basur Raj could you just share your thoughts also on the social distancing and COVID-19 how you should be protected but my repeating every time that we are masked suddenly I'm without notice I must speak so you do it yeah so thank you friends and overall first of all we would like to thank Mr. Esan Murthy the senior advocate from Karnataka Bar to share his knowledge on the topic which we all would have loved to hear and as it rightly said the first session and the second sessions had different parameters and a different prism of thought process and before we part for the day tomorrow do stay connected with us to have the different perspectives under the criminal law while we will having we'll be having Mr. Ujwal Nagam the senior council who is also presentry on the session of trial of 26 November 2008 terror attack on Mumbai do stay connected with us tomorrow at 5 p.m. everyone stay safe stay blessed and again keep on wearing the mask maintain social distancing and those who have not got vaccinated go for that it's in the interest of your good self as well as your near and dears and thank you sir for giving your time and giving the insights in a very lucid and a clear manner thank you and thank you to your daughter who has helped us to connect thank you thank you