Companies in the twenty-first century use unique workforce retention strategies, especially long-term incentives that involve direct/indirect co-employee ownership. This post aims to discuss the regulatory framework governing share-linked and share-based employee benefits that companies offer.[1]Continue Reading Reimagining Workforce Retention Strategies through Employee Co-Ownership
India has been preparing for the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPA”), for almost a year now. During this time, companies have realised that relying on consent as a long-term basis for processing may be difficult, and instead, using ‘legitimate uses’[1], as the bases for processing may be a better alternative.Continue Reading Handle with CARE: Relying on “Purposes of Employment” for Processing Employee Data
In August 2023, in Dr. Kavita Yadav v. The Secretary, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare Department and Ors. (“Kavita Yadav Case”),[1] the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) overruled the High Court of Delhi’s (“Delhi HC”) decision from 2019 in the same case (“Kavita Yadav Delhi HC Decision”) to hold that fixed-term employees would be entitled to full maternity benefits under Section 5 of the Maternity Benefit Act, 1961 (“Maternity Benefit Act”), even after the expiry of their contractual term. Continue Reading Maternity Benefits Granted Beyond the Contractual Term in Fixed Term Contracts
This post analyses the permissibility of and key legal considerations for share-based benefits/ incentives, like ESOPs, RSUs, SARs, etc., that foreign companies offer to the employees of their Indian group companies.Continue Reading Employee Share-based Incentives by foreign companies for employees of group companies in India: Should it be an ESOP, RSU, ESPS, SAR or Phantom Stock?
In the ever-evolving landscape of professional dynamics, a recent trend has emerged where employees have been publicly expressing their dissatisfaction and grievances with their employers after resigning from their jobs, often through social media platforms. This phenomenon has been termed as ‘loud quitting’. This practice marks a stark shift from the previous subtle ways that employees chose to express dissatisfaction about their work environments. Continue Reading Employer safeguards in the wake of ‘Loud Quitting’
In its recent judgment in Aureliano Fernandes Vs. State of Goa and Others(Civil Appeal No. 2482 of 2014), the Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”) observed that even after a decade of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“POSH Act”) being formulated, its implementation and enforcement is still inadequate. To remedy the situation, the Supreme Court issued various directions for effective implementation of the POSH Act. For reference, the POSH Act imposes an obligation on all employers, having 10 (ten) or more workers to set up an internal committee to look into sexual harassment complaints. It also lays down the procedure for conducting an inquiry into the complaints, amongst other things.Continue Reading Supreme Court’s landmark ruling : Directions for effective implementation of the POSH Act
In its recent judgment in State Bank of India vs Moser Baer Karamchari Union[1], the Apex court has reiterated the settled legal position of law pertaining to treatment of Employees’ provident fund, pension fund and gratuity Fund (“EPF Dues”) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“Code”). The primary reason for various interpretations of how PF dues are treated under the Code ensues from the overlapping nature of certain provisions within the Code itself, the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”) and the Companies Act, 2013. The article traces the judicial trend in treatment of EPF dues under the code and analyses the reasoning put forth by various adjudicating authorities in deciding on the rights of the employees of the corporate debtor.Continue Reading Treatment of Employees Provident Fund Dues under the IBC
The Parliament took 16 years to implement the directions issued by the Supreme Court of India in 1997, in the landmark case of Visakha vs. State of Rajasthan[1] (“Visakha Guidelines”) to enact a law for the prevention of sexual harassment of women at the workplace. The enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 (“Act”) and the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Rules, 2013 (“Rules”) was very late, but better so than never.Continue Reading POSH Act – Implementational Challenges
Moonlighting is the colloquial term used to refer to the practice of employees working a second job, in addition to their primary job. The last few weeks saw myriad news reports on this practice in start-ups and the IT/ITES industry. Most companies have released statements opposing the practice and some have even taken action against moonlighting employees. Some companies have, however, indicated that they are open to allowing employees to moonlight within a defined framework.Continue Reading Moonlighting – Legal Considerations and Contractual Regulation
Over the past couple of months, India Inc. has seen a spurt in employee downsizing, loosely termed as layoff. The impact is felt more prominently in the start-up sector where, in the face of reduced funding, there has been a significant cutback in the number of employees. The downsizing is done in a bid to save costs associated with employee expenses and to increase business profits.
Continue Reading Legal Framework and Mitigating Risks Associated with Employee Downsizing in India