Wednesday 11 November 2020

Code on Wages restricts sexual harassment

 

Code on Wages restricts sexual harassment

  • Those indulging in sexual harassment of any form could run the risk of losing out on bonus dues from
  • their employers, thanks to a provision in the Code on Wages that the government is currently framing rules for
  • Among other things, the Code on Wages lays down norms for annual bonus dues that accrue to employees, replacing the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The new Code, expected to become operational once the government notifies the rules, includes ‘conviction for sexual harassment’ as a ground for denying bonus payouts to employees. 
  • As per the extant law, bonus dues are barred only in case of employees dismissed for fraud, violent conduct, and theft, or sabotage.
  • As per the PoSH law guidelines, firms are required to form an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) to inquire into complaints. The Committee is required to make recommendations to employers on the action required under its inquiry in such complaints. 
  • ICC has the power to decide if someone is guilty and report it further to the police, though not all sexual harassment cases translate into a police case. 
  • The rules under the Code on Wages should clarify whether the conviction would cover cases of outcomes of the investigation by the Internal Complaints Committee arriving at a conclusion to pay
  • compensation to the victim or not.” While the other disqualification triggers for withholding bonus dues, like theft and violent conduct are explicitly restricted to actions on an employer's premises of the employer, the trigger referring to conviction under sexual harassment doesn’t include such a condition about the location of the incident. 
  • At this point, it is not clear if sexual harassment incidents or related crimes against women outside the workplace could lead to dismissal of employees with loss of bonus payments. But yes, harassing a co­worker irrespective of where it is done, should come under this provision's purview
Source: The Hindu

No comments: