Blog

Covid Control Measures to deal with Covid 2.0 with Special Emphasis on How to Immunize Large Parts of Population in India

ESIC has issued a Press Release dated 29th April 2021 announcing medical care, sickness benefits, unemployment benefits for insured persons.

Ministry of Health & Family Welfare has issued revisd guidelines in supersession to the guidelines issued on the subject on 2nd July, 2020..As per the guidelines, the patients who are clinically assigned to be mild /asymptomatic are recommended for home isolation.

The orders dated 28th April 2021, inter alia, state:
(i) The National Directives for COVID-19 Management, as specified in Annexure Il, shall continue to be strictly followed throughout the country.
(ii) All the District Magistrates shall strictly enforce the containment measures taken by States/ UTS and the National Directives.
(iii) Any person violating these measures will be liable to be proceeded against as per the provisions of Section 51 to 60 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, besides legal action under Section 188 of the IPC, and other legal provisions as applicable.

NATIONAL DIRECTIVES FOR COVID-19 MANAGEMENT : 
1. Face coverings: Wearing of face cover is compulsory in public places; in workplaces; and during transport.
2. Social distancing: Individuals must maintain a minimum distance of 6 feet (2 gaz ki doori) in public places.
Shops will ensure physical distancing among customers.
3. Spitting in public places will be punishable with fine, as may be prescribed by the State/ UT local authority in accordance with its laws, rules or regulations.

Additional directives for Work Places
4. Work from home (WfH): As far as possible the practice of Wfl-l should be followed.
5. Staggering of work business hours will be followed in offices, work places, shops, markets and industrial & commercial establishments.
6. Screening & hygiene: Provision for thermal scanning, hand wash or sanitizer will be made at all entry points and of hand wash or sanitizer at exit points and common areas.
7. Frequent sanitization of entire workplace, common facilities and all points which come into human contact e.g. door handles etc., will be ensured, including between shifts.
8. Social distancing: All persons in charge of work places will ensure adequate distance between workers and other staff

The petitioner, who is a Chartered Accountant registered with the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India, is aggrieved by the refusal of the Institute to register his sole proprietorship on its website. The Institute declined to register his firm as the Petitioner’s retirement was not cleared in his earlier firm. While allowing the petition, the High Court held as follows:-

“33. The forcible continuance of the petitioner, as a partner of a Firm which is loaded with partnership disputes, has civil consequences also on the petitioner. As per the general decisions taken by the Council, the Council will not only record in their registers that the partnership is under dispute, but will communicate the said fact C & A.G. and Reserve Bank of India, while furnishing the particulars of a Firm for empanelment of Bank/C&AG audits. Such recording and communication will indeed affect the chances of the petitioner to get audit assignments.

34. The decision of the 1st respondent-Institute not to recognise and record the retirement of the petitioner from ‘M/s. R. Kumar and Associates’ will therefore cause unnecessary and unwarranted hindrance to the professional advancement of the petitioner. It will offend the fundamental right of the petitioner to practice a profession freely, guaranteed to him under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.”

Copy the judgement

Inputs from Bombay Chambers to the Finance Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman on Covid Control Measures to deal with Covid 2.0

The Ministry of Corporate Affairs has issued a circular stating that companies may undertake Covid care activities in consultation with State Governments subject to fulfillment of Companies (CSR Policy) Rules, 2014 and the circulars related to CSR issued by this Ministry from time to time.

“The facts of the case disclose a sorry picture of what can be described as a ‘system generated harassment’ aggravated by non application of mind by officials who leave everything to be dealt with by the system, thereby putting the common man to an agonising phase of suffering, where he is condemned to deal with faceless men and machines”

Copy of the judgement

A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has ruled that an administrator of Whatsapp group can be held criminally liable for objectionable post of its member for committing offences punishable under sections 354-A(1)(iv) , 509 and 107 of the Indian Penal Code and section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The High court further held that an Administrator of a Whatsapp group does not have power to regulate, moderate or censor the content before it is posted on the group. But, if a member of the Whatsapp group posts any content, which is actionable under law, such person can be held liable under relevant provisions of law. In theabsence of specific penal provision creating vicarious liability, an administrator of a Whatsapp group cannot be held liable for objectionable content posted by a member of a group. A group administrator cannot be held vicariously liable for an act of member of the group, who posts objectionable content, unless it is shown that there was common intention or pre-arranged plan acting in concert pursuant to such plan by such member of a Whatsapp group and the administrator. Common intention cannot be established in a case of Whatsapp service user merely acting as a group administrator. When a person creates a Whatsapp group, he cannot be expected to presume or to have advance knowledge of the criminal acts of the member of the group.

Copy of the judgement

A notification was published, by a Public Sector Undertaking, inviting applications for the post of a Safety Officer. However, it was stated in the notification that only male candidates need apply for the post.

The petitioner, a female, approached the Kerala High Court challenging the said provision in the notification on the ground that it is discriminatory and that the right of the petitioner for being considered for appointment as Safety Officer is violated due to the said provision.

While quashing the ‘male only’ condition, the High Court held as follows:

‘Apparently, the World has moved forward and women who were relegated to the roles of home makers during the times when the enactment had been framed have

taken up much more demanding roles in society as well as in economic spheres. We have reached a stage where the contributions made by women in the spheres of economic development cannot be ignored by any industry. Women are being engaged to work during all hours in several industries including Health Care, Aviation and Information Technology. Women have been engaged in several

professions requiring round the clock labour and have proved themselves quite capable of facing the challenges of such engagement”

“The decision in HindustanLatex Ltd.’s case cited supra and the subsequent laying down of the law by the Apex Court would make it abundantly clear that a woman who is fully qualified cannot be denied of her right to be considered for employment only on the basis of her gender. It is the bounden duty of the respondents who are Government and Government functionaries to take all appropriate steps to see that a woman is able to carry out the duties assigned to her at all hours, safely andconveniently. If that be so, there would be no reason for denying

appointment to a qualified hand only on the ground that she is a woman and because the nature of the employment would require her to work during night hours.”

Copy of the judgement