Introduction The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is one of four Labour Codes included in the Central Government’s largest reform scheme in decades. It incorporates three major Central laws pertaining to industrial dispute resolution and collective bargaining arrangements, namely: The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The Trade Unions Act, 1926Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 aimed to provide workers with a mechanism that gives them relief against layoffs, retrenchment, and wrongful dismissal that is against the letter of the law. It also aimed to promote good labor relations by limiting the scope for illegal strikes and lockouts and penalizing unfair labor practices. As a result, it included a dispute resolution mechanism as well as restrictions on layoffs, retrenchment, and lockouts to ensure that collective bargaining could take place in a friendly environment. The Trade Unions Act, 1926 aimed to provide workers with better working conditions, higher wages, protection from predatory employment, and a fair share of the company’s profits, and to that end, it granted workers the right to form an association and bargain collectively. The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 aimed at providing standardized terms and conditions of work to all workmen in a particular establishment. As a result, the practice of having discriminatory employment contracts was abolished, and employees were made aware of their rights. It promoted industrial peace and harmony by ensuring fair labor practices for employers. Scope and Applicability of the Code The Industrial Relations Code, 2020 is intended to consolidate and amend the laws governing Trade Unionsworking conditions in Industrial Establishments, and the swift resolution of industrial disputes. The code regulates the subsequent areas: Registration of Trade UnionCancellation of Trade UnionAlteration in Name of Trade UnionFormation of Work CommitteeIncorporation of a Registered Trade UnionRecognition of Negotiating UnionPreparation of Standing OrderRegister of Standing OrderConstitution of

The Apex Court, while allowing an appeal, gave a wide interpretation to Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and made an observation that a “dependent” mother-in-law of a deceased can rightfully file motor accident claim petition. In the instant case, the High Court of Kerala had held that petitioner (mother-in-law) could not be entitled to be a legal representative under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act and thus dismissed her petition. The petitioner then approached the Supreme Court by way of an appeal. The counsel on behalf of petitioner contended that petitioner had been living with the deceased and his family members and thereby is entitled to be treated as a legal representative for the purpose of determining the compensation. The counsel further raised the issue whether the High Court had been justified in precluding petitioner as a legal representative of deceased. The bench addressed the issue by noting that Motor Vehicle Act does not explicitly define “legal representative.” The bench defined the term as person who has been legally empowered to represent the estate of deceased person and receive compensatory benefits. The bench clarified that a legal representative might not necessarily be a legal heir. Moreover, it emphasized on the fact that the term be given wider interpretative w.r.t the Chapter XII of Motor Vehicle Act and not be confined to spouse, parents and children of deceased. The bench highlighted the objective of this legislative, which is to provide monetary relief to the family of victims, and called for liberal interpretation in order to accomplish the underlying objective. The bench also observed that nowadays it is not uncommon for the Indian Society to see a mother-in-law residing with her daughter and son-in-law. It agreed to the fact that mother-in-law can be a dependent on her son-in-law for maintenance. The

The Supreme Court gave its order on the Pegasus Snooping case by stating that the petition raised an “Orwellian concern” about the alleged possibility of misusing the 21st century technology for the purpose of hearing, seeing and knowing information which had been supposed to be known by respective individual. The bench headed by Chief Justice of India had made several observations regarding the allegations against the government for intruding the privacy of general public. It observed that it is its duty to uphold the constitutional expectations, rule of law and principles of natural justice without being affected by political rhetoric. However, it clarified that political thicket would not under any circumstance prevent the judiciary from raising voice against abuse of fundamental rights. It addressed the issue of vulnerability of data stored in the cloud and stated that the technology can be useful and at the same time, might breach one’s private space by sharing the information with unauthorized authorities. The Apex Court’s take on breach of individual’s privacy included every citizen’s right to be protected against violations of privacy. The bench reiterated that restrictions, if any, should pass the constitutional scrutiny as the restrictions ought to bear reasonable explanation. Furthermore, the bench observed that surveillance is permitted, only when the statute provides so. Unless the surveillance runs on constitutional grounds, it could not be questioned by judiciary. However, the alleged intrusion/surveillance had been conducted without any mention of national security or national interest. The bench also highlighted the protection to journalistic sources as the same remains primary condition for the freedom of press. The snooping techniques had potential chilling effect and had raised grave allegation on the infringement of basic fundamental rights. The bench upheld the celebrated values like governmental transparency and openness as the same ensure free flow of

Ahlawat & Associates (“A&A”) has recently advised Dev Clever Holding PLC/ Dev Clever, a listed company established in UK, engaged in the business of designing and developing software and technology specialized in the use of lightweight integrations of cloud-based gamification and virtual reality technologies across both the commercial and education sectors (“Acquirer”), on the acquisition of Veative Labs Private Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Singapore based educational technology company i.e., Veative Labs Pte. Ltd. (“Singapore Holding Company”) involved in the business of delivering educational content through immersive technologies. The transaction was multi-geographical wherein the Acquirer being a listed company in the UK acquiring an Indian wholly-owned subsidiary from its Singapore Holding Company. A&A advised the Acquirer on the above transaction including conducting legal due diligence and closing of the transaction documents. The approximate deal value is INR 500 billion. A&A Team included Mr. Uday S. Ahlawat (Managing Partner), Ms. Kavita Patwardhan (Partner), Ms. Disha Toshniwal (Senior Associate), Mr. Aman Chadha (Senior Associate), Ms. Shramona Sarkar (Associate), Mr. Sarthak Chawla (Associate) and Mr. Garv Sood (Associate).  “This transaction was particularly interesting for us since it involved multiple parties from multiple jurisdictions and the brainstorming involved in structuring and closing the transaction documents. It was a wonderful experience to be leading this transaction.” Kavita Patwardhan, (Partner) Ahlawat & Associates The post Deal Update: A&A advises Dev Clever Holding PLC on the acquisition of Veative Labs Private Limited appeared first on LexForti . Did you miss our previous article… https://www.itcse.org/?p=322 Randy Reidwww.itcse.org