Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc (INFINI.ng) listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange under the Banking sector has released it’s 2016 interim results for the third quarter.For more information about Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc (INFINI.ng) reports, abridged reports, interim earnings results and earnings presentations, visit the Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc (INFINI.ng) company page on AfricanFinancials.Document: Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc (INFINI.ng) 2016 interim results for the third quarter.Company ProfileInfinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc is a mortgage banking institution in Nigeria offering mortgage lending and lines of credit. The company’s head office is in Abuja, Nigeria. Infinity Trust Mortgage Bank Plc is listed on the Nigerian Stock Exchange
I would like to receive emails from you about product information and offers from The Fool and its business partners. Each of these emails will provide a link to unsubscribe from future emails. More information about how The Fool collects, stores, and handles personal data is available in its Privacy Statement. Jonathan Smith | Tuesday, 5th January, 2021 | More on: HSBA The HSBC (LSE:HSBA) share price was in the bottom 10% of FTSE 100 performers for last year. In 2020, the share price fell by almost 37% and it opened 2021 around 380p. As the largest bank within the FTSE 100, HSBC shares are bought and sold not only due to specific events. Broader changes in interest rates, economic growth and other metrics impact the share price too. Although my share price forecast for 2021 is positive, I think a lot of the drivers from 2020 will carry over into this year.What drove the HSBC share price in 2020?In my opinion, a large driver was the cut in global interest rates in Q1 of last year onwards. The US cut rates down to 0%, and here in the UK, rates fell to 0.1%. This made it hard for HSBC to generate profits as a traditional bank would. The difference from the interest rate HSBC pays savers versus the rate it charges by lending money out is the net interest margin. As of September, it stood at 1.2%. This is still a high rate (as the impact is delayed somewhat), but it was steadily decreasing in 2020. Lower margins ultimately mean lower profit, and a lower share price for HSBC.5G is here – and shares of this ‘sleeping giant’ could be a great way for you to potentially profit!According to one leading industry firm, the 5G boom could create a global industry worth US$12.3 TRILLION out of thin air…And if you click here we’ll show you something that could be key to unlocking 5G’s full potential…Another driver was the painful restructuring going on. Up to 35,000 jobs are in the process of being axed as the bank tries to cut costs. With this going on, costs and provisions also had to be set aside for bad debt due to the pandemic. These provisions, which stood at $7.7bn, obviously ate into the resources of HSBC. At a time when the bank was already trying to minimise risk, the pandemic didn’t help.Looking ahead for 2021My HSBC share price forecast for the end of this year is for circa 440p, an increase of 15% from current levels. I use this level as it’s where the stock traded for several months during early 2016 before moving higher. The jitters we saw in the stock market during the second half of 2015 and into 2016 do feel to be similar to what we experienced last year. This tied in with uncertainty over growth in China and concern over government debt levels in Europe.Aside from looking at the past, the prospects for this year also makes me optimistic for the HSBC share price. Firstly, the UK managed to achieve a deal with the EU, preventing a no-deal Brexit. This in itself is a positive for financial services in 2021. In a recent trading update, HSBC’s CEO said: “We are accelerating the transformation of the group, moving our focus from interest-rate sensitive business lines towards fee-generating businesses, and further reducing our operating costs.” This addresses a lot of the issues I mentioned that meant 2020 wasn’t good for the HSBC share price. The fact that management is aware of this, and is looking to change, leads me to a positive share price forecast for the bank this year. jonathansmith1 has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has recommended HSBC Holdings. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. “This Stock Could Be Like Buying Amazon in 1997” See all posts by Jonathan Smith The HSBC share price: here’s my forecast for 2021 Image source: Getty Images. Simply click below to discover how you can take advantage of this. Enter Your Email Address I’m sure you’ll agree that’s quite the statement from Motley Fool Co-Founder Tom Gardner.But since our US analyst team first recommended shares in this unique tech stock back in 2016, the value has soared.What’s more, we firmly believe there’s still plenty of upside in its future. In fact, even throughout the current coronavirus crisis, its performance has been beating Wall St expectations.And right now, we’re giving you a chance to discover exactly what has got our analysts all fired up about this niche industry phenomenon, in our FREE special report, A Top US Share From The Motley Fool. Our 6 ‘Best Buys Now’ Shares Click here to claim your copy now — and we’ll tell you the name of this Top US Share… free of charge! Renowned stock-picker Mark Rogers and his analyst team at The Motley Fool UK have named 6 shares that they believe UK investors should consider buying NOW.So if you’re looking for more stock ideas to try and best position your portfolio today, then it might be a good day for you. Because we’re offering a full 33% off your first year of membership to our flagship share-tipping service, backed by our ‘no quibbles’ 30-day subscription fee refund guarantee.
Web design agency Baigent has revamped the British Red Cross’ website, introducing a cleaner style together with the first of some new features.Baigent has translated the British Red Cross’ recent rebranding to the web, presenting an easy-to-use page layout using just red, white and dark grey.Prominent on the front page is a new feature, ‘Red Cross in Your Area’. This enables visitors to enter their postcode to find their nearest Red Cross shop, and associated local news or events. Advertisement Baigent redesigns British Red Cross’ website About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving. Howard Lake | 20 January 2005 | News 26 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Online shopping and course booking are some of the new features to be introduced shortly.Baigent has been working with the British Red Cross since 2001, and won this redesign commission last year, competing against seven other design agencies.Although the front page features a request for volunteers, there is no prominent request for funds, apart from the “Give” link in the top navigation bar. AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis Tagged with: Consulting & Agencies Digital Volunteering
26 total views, 1 views today AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis The Scottish Braille Press has begun a £2 million appeal to re-house one of the nation’s leading Braille printing presses. It coincides with National Braille Week (4-10 Jan 2009), which this year marks the 200th anniversary of the birth of Louis Braille, the inventer of the embossed dots writing system.Ian Rankin, author of the ‘Inspector Rebus’ novels, is lending his support to the campaign. His son is a pupil at the Royal Blind School, also run by Royal Blind.One of Rankin’s best-selling Rebus books is Fleshmarket Close, named after a real passageway in Edinburgh’s Old Town. Today he was there to unveil 12 pages from the novel, which have been translated into Braille and mounted on the walls of the passageway itself.Rankin is calling for more creative works to be made available to people with reading difficulties. To mark the appeal, the Press is printing a Braille version of Rankin’s Death is Not the End and the author visited the Press to see the first printed copies.Braille books, magazines and other materials are produced by the Scottish Braille Press. It is part of the national charity Royal Blind, that provides services for the blind and the press specialises in the high quality production of Braille, large print and audio, providing a transcription service since 1891.“Although equipped with state of the art printing equipment the building itself needs to be rebuilt” said Richard Hellewell, chief executive of Royal Blind, “and this is why we are campaigning to raise £2 million.”The printing press, run and managed by Royal Blind, was built in the sixties and will be completely rebuilt.www.royalblind.org Tagged with: Capital appeal Celebrity Scotland Howard Lake | 14 January 2009 | News AddThis Sharing ButtonsShare to TwitterTwitterShare to FacebookFacebookShare to LinkedInLinkedInShare to EmailEmailShare to WhatsAppWhatsAppShare to MessengerMessengerShare to MoreAddThis ‘Rebus’ author launches £2m drive to rebuild the Scottish Braille Press About Howard Lake Howard Lake is a digital fundraising entrepreneur. Publisher of UK Fundraising, the world’s first web resource for professional fundraisers, since 1994. Trainer and consultant in digital fundraising. Founder of Fundraising Camp and co-founder of GoodJobs.org.uk. Researching massive growth in giving.
February 10, 2021 Find out more “The end of Index.hu as an independent news website is a cruel reminder of the difficult environment for independent media and the constant decline of press freedom in Hungary,” said Pavol Szalai, the head of RSF’s European Union and Balkans desk. “Under its exclusive competence with regard to competition, the European Commission should urgently examine the unfair and non-transparent distribution of state advertising, while the Council of the EU should agree to European funds being clearly conditioned on respect for the rule of law, as the European Parliament requested after the latest European summit.” When 80 of Index.hu’s 90 journalists resigned on 24 July in response to editor Szabolcs Dull’s dismissal, they were in tears. But signs of hope ensued: thousands of people rallied to their support that evening in Budapest, chanting, “Free country, free media,” while 200,000 people became followers of their new Facebook page during the weekend. Dull’s dismissal on 22 July came after one businessman allied with Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government became a major shareholder in Index.hu’s advertising company, while another one joined the website’s management. Follow the news on Hungary After almost all the journalists at Index.hu, Hungary’s leading independent news website, resigned rather than accept mounting governmental pressure, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) calls on the European Union to clearly condition access to EU funds on respect for the rule of law and to examine unfair distribution of state advertisement to the media. Discriminatory policyThree quarters of the advertising by public entities, which is worth hundreds of millions of euros, is placed with pro-government media. Index.hu received only 4.5% of the state’s online advertising in 2017 while Origo, its pro-government rival, which has a comparable number of readers, received 44.5%. This highly discriminatory policy, whose effects are being exacerbated by the economic crisis resulting from the coronavirus pandemic, continues to handicap the handful of independent media outlets and will clearly make any attempt to launch a new one much more difficult. European Commission Vice-President for Values and Transparency Věra Jourová says she is ready to “support” the Index.hu journalists, but the EU officials working for her colleague in charge of the competition portfolio, Margrethe Vestager, have so far turned a blind eye to the complaint filed in January 2019 by the NGO Mérték Media Monitor, a radio station and a Hungarian MEP about this illegal state aid, despite a reminder from RSF and its partners last December. Use the Digital Services Act to make democracy prevail over platform interests, RSF tells EU June 2, 2021 Find out more Help by sharing this information News At this point, it’s not known whether the journalists who have left Index.hu – which was launched in 1999 and was visited by a million readers a day in a country with 10 million inhabitants – will launch a new media outlet, seek work with existing ones or abandon journalism altogether. What is clear, however, is that if they want to continue working for independent media in Hungary, they face increasingly difficult conditions that include not only hate campaigns against critical journalists, judicial harassment and restricted access to state-held information, but also systematic distortion of the media market by means of unfair allocation of state advertising. May 4, 2021 Find out more HungaryEurope – Central Asia Protecting journalistsMedia independenceInternational bodies Freedom of expressionEconomic pressureJudicial harassment Organisation Hungary is ranked 89th out of 180 countries in RSF’s 2020 World Press Freedom Index. Receive email alerts to go further News News July 28, 2020 Hungary: Urgent EU response needed to leading independent news site’s demise RSF_en Swedish Reporters Without Borders awards press freedom prize to a Hungarian news site News HungaryEurope – Central Asia Protecting journalistsMedia independenceInternational bodies Freedom of expressionEconomic pressureJudicial harassment Hungary’s leading independent radio station taken off the air Photo: János Bődey, Index.hu
News Help by sharing this information Organisation RSF_en March 28, 2011 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Khaled Al-Hariri arrested Khaled Al-Hariri, 50, a Damascus-based Syrian photographer working for Reuters, was arrested and then held for a week, more than twice as long as the other Reuters journalists who were arrested around this time.
Case against Amadou Vamoulké baseless, French lawyers tell Cameroon court Cameroonian journalist Paul Chouta sentenced and fined in defamation case CameroonAfrica News to go further News CameroonAfrica News Organisation May 19, 2021 Find out more What is hate media? In Rwanda it was the racist weekly Kangura and the sinister Radiotélévision libre des mille collines (RTLM). Until 1994, in its columns and on air, paranoid extremist Hutus wound people up to commit a generalised massacre of the Tutsi “cockroaches”. In Cote d’Ivoire, it is screaming giant headlines in newspapers that meekly bent to the will of ambitious and violent politician. In the ex-Yugoslavia, it was the voices of belligerent Serbian, Croatian or Bosnian voices which galvanised their respective killers. In the Middle East, it is newspapers or TV for whom nothing but a pitiless and total war can resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.In Cameroon today, newspaper editors have for the past few weeks been boosting their business through outrage, denunciation and stigmatisation of individuals. Reporters Without Borders is worried that this public admonition and personal attacks carry a whiff of hatred. We are concerned because trials are being prepared and they are in danger of damaging a profession that is already in poor shape.Embellishing their pages with allusive articles, citing obscure “well informed sources” and vague “indiscretions”, newspapers have published “the complete list of the homosexuals of the Republic” public figure by public figure. They say they are just providing a public health service, since homosexuality is a crime in Cameroon. As an organisation that defends freedom of the press, Reporters Without Borders will refrain from detailing how severely it views a law on homosexuality such as exists in Cameroon. That is not its role. However, we can say exactly how bad we think is the practise of journalism that lends itself to releasing anonymous tracts or score settling, but not to the essential freedom to criticise that media should enjoy in democratic societies.But this sordid case in which Cameroon has become mired should serve some worthwhile purpose. To do justice to those journalists who are responsible and to clean up a media landscape where literally anything goes, there is no alternative: The press should be reformed and an independent regulatory body for the media should be established.Even in the face of this scandalous behaviour, it is essential to abolish prison sentences for press offences to create a democracy worthy of the name. This statement is not a paradox. The failure exposed by this case of the so-called “homosexuals of the Republic” reveals the bankruptcy of the current system. First of all, there is a raft of sanctions that could genuinely repair the prejudice possibly done by the press. Fines, publication of court judgements, right of reply, and corrections are fair because they appear in the same context, are seen by the same public and speak with the same voice as that of those who caused the offence. Obliging a newspaper to publicly admit that it has made a mistake is a satisfactory form of redress, but throwing a man in prison does not in any way provide justice to the person libelled. On the contrary, sent to prison, these mercenaries of journalism serve their sentence and come out crowned with all the glory of a martyr to freedom. Finally, free of the harshness manifested by some and the suffering inflicted by imprisoning others, relations between the powerful and journalists are no longer imprinted with this idea of revenge that hamper so many emerging democracies. As very often in democratic reform movements, lawyers have a crucial role to play in Cameroon today. Thus in the case of the so-called “homosexuals of the Republic”, if they want to help us to convince the Cameroon government, deputies and prosecutors of the validity of our arguments, those appearing for plaintiffs should show inventiveness and systematically plead only for fair and appropriate penalties.In any case, the recourse to the courts should only be a last resort, when professional routes have been exhausted. Finally there should be a self-regulating council for the media, representative of the profession and independent of the levers of power. The government cannot call on the press to be responsible while at the same time denying it all power to exercise responsibility. By providing itself with a council from its own number, the press will be obliged to respect the laws and charters that it institutes. Journalism is no exception to a number of other professions. Far more than any punishment handed down by a court, the sanction of one’s peers is genuinely shaming. And then finally, Cameroon’s courts would no longer be overloaded with cases of a highly political nature.Reporters Without Borders has for more than ten years condemned “criminals of the public word”, hate media, bogus journalists and professional racketeers. Our organisation refuses and will always refuse to defend those who use the media to incite violence or to attack people by name. Because they too, like some presidents, ministers, warlords, militiamen, businessmen or police, violate press freedom. But confronted by the existing situation, we urge President Paul Biya to finally listen to us. After this absurd and dangerous case, the Cameroon press must have the right to regulate itself, for the good of all, government and journalists, but above all for its citizens.Robert Ménard, Secretary General Receive email alerts April 23, 2021 Find out more RSF_en Help by sharing this information February 16, 2006 – Updated on January 20, 2016 Scandal of the so-called “homosexuals of the Republic”: the bankruptcy of a draconian system Cameroonian reporter jailed since August, abandoned by justice system Follow the news on Cameroon May 31, 2021 Find out more News
ColumnsRe-visiting ‘Reinstatement’: The Vacillatting Interpretations Of ‘Reinstatement’ Abhishek Puri ,Surbhi Gupta13 March 2021 3:16 AMShare This – xThe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at Section 11A confers upon Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals (collectively referred to as ‘Tribunals’) the power to “set aside an order of discharge or dismissal of workmen and direct reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit”. The recently enacted Industrial Relations…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 at Section 11A confers upon Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals (collectively referred to as ‘Tribunals’) the power to “set aside an order of discharge or dismissal of workmen and direct reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit”. The recently enacted Industrial Relations Code, 2020 which will replace the 1947 Act upon coming into force, also confers the same powers in the very same terms (under Section 50 of the Code), on the new Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunal which will replace the Tribunals under the old Act. However, much like the old Act, the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020 does not define the term ‘reinstatement’ and therefore, the task of judicially interpreting this term would fall upon the Constitutional Courts. Over the years, the predominant trend followed by the Supreme Court of India, in a plethora of cases[i] under the 1947 Act, has been to interpret the term ‘reinstatement’ on a case-to-case basis and to decide such cases based on moral considerations, with the intent to balance mutual equities between industry and workmen. As per the law laid down in these judgments, an order of reinstatement passed by the Tribunals does not ipso-facto entail grant of back-wages, continuous service, or consequential benefits upon reinstatement, unless the Tribunals specifically grant these reliefs. The onus of proof has also been placed on the workman’s door to specifically plead and prove that he is entitled to back-wages, continuous service, or consequential benefits even when the order of termination is found to be illegal and is set aside, and reinstatement is granted. However, departing from the predominant trend, the Supreme Court in certain landmark cases, namely, Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court [(1980) 4 SCC 443 (‘Surendra Kumar Verma’) and Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors.[(2013) 10 SCC 324] (‘Deepali Gundu Surwase’) has adopted a positivist approach while dealing with the scope of orders of reinstatement and has given the term ‘reinstatement’ its ordinary dictionary meaning. The Supreme Court in these cases has held that relief of reinstatement as per its ordinary dictionary meaning entails “restoring to a former position”, which would necessarily include a grant of back-wages, benefits, etc. to the workmen from the date with effect from which order of reinstatement is granted unless these are specifically denied by the Tribunals. The judgments passed in Surendra Kumar Verma and Deepali Gundu Surwase stand as an exception to the general norm. This tug-of-war between the varying approaches of the Supreme Court to orders of reinstatement is almost reminiscent of the Hart-Fuller debate[ii] of judicial interpretation of the law. Considering the enactment of a new Industrial Relations Code, it is extremely relevant that this conundrum in interpretation of the term ‘reinstatement’ is resolved at the earliest by the Supreme Court. However, what is of much larger relevance considering the on-going trend of varying judicial interpretations, is to analyse the relative benefits of adopting a positivist approach to the interpretation of law as opposed to the ‘inner/ inherent morality’ approach. The varying judicial interpretations of the term ‘re-instatement’ serve as an important reminder for the need of adopting a positivist approach to judicial interpretation.I.THE STATUTORY FRAMEWORK Before we enter into the issue of interpretation of the term ‘reinstatement’, it may be necessary to first understand the legal rule/ provision in which the said term under consideration has been used. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, post its amendment in 1956 (‘ID Act’) provided a mechanism for an appeal by the aggrieved workmen against a decision of the Employer by way of reference of the prescribed industrial disputes to Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Industrial Tribunals.[iii] The ID Act accords power to these Tribunals to, inter-alia, adjudicate upon matters referable to the Second Schedule of the ID Act, including those relating to “Discharge or dismissal of workmen including reinstatement of, or grant of relief to, workmen wrongfully dismissed”.[iv] However, as early as 1958, the power accorded to Tribunals to grant reinstatement under the ID Act was greatly circumscribed by the Supreme Court, inter-alia, in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited v. Workmen [AIR 1958 SC 130] (‘Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited’) by holding that in cases involving dismissal on misconduct, the Tribunal cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the management and can only interfere, “(i) when there is want of good faith; (ii) when there is victimisation or unfair labour practice; (iii) when the management has been guilty of a basic error or violation of a principle of natural justice, and (iv)when on the materials the finding is completely baseless or perverse…”. In response to the Judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited, the Legislature enacted the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1971 with the objective of ensuring “that the Tribunal’s power in an adjudication proceeding relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman should not be limited and that the Tribunal should have the power in cases wherever necessary to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other reliefs to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require.”[v] With this objective, by way of Section 3 of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1971, Section 11A was incorporated in the ID Act, which provides that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award, “set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit, or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require”. Upon coming into force of Section 11A of the ID Act, the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen v. Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co. of India (P) Ltd. [(1973) 1 SCC 813] held that the newly introduced Section 11A did indicate a change in law from the position laid down in Indian Iron and Steel Company Limited. It further held that under Section 11A, the Industrial Tribunal, “in the course of such adjudication, has to be satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified. If it comes to such a conclusion, the Tribunal has to set aside the order and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms as it thinks fit. The Tribunal has also power to give any other relief to the workman including the imposing of a lesser punishment having due regard to the circumstances…” However, neither the 1947 Act, nor the new Industrial Relations Code, 2020 defines the term ‘reinstatement’ and therefore, the task of judicially interpreting this term has fallen upon the Constitutional Courts. IV. DIFFERENT JURISPRUDENTIAL APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES The different jurisprudential approaches to judicial interpretation of statutes/ legal rules are best exemplified by the popular conundrum of a legal rule prohibiting vehicles in a public park. This hypothetical legal rule was first used by Professor Hart in his famous essay of “Positivism and Separation of Law and Morals”[vi] and reads as follows: “A legal rule forbids you to take a vehicle into the public park. Plainly this forbids an automobile, but what about bicycles, roller skates, toy automobiles? What about airplanes? Are these, as we say, to be called “vehicles” for the purpose of the rule or not?”. Using this example of a legal rule prohibiting “vehicles in a public park”, Professor Hart attempted to explain the true nature of a positivist approach to interpretation of a legal statue/ rule. In essence, Professor Hart opined that while interpreting general words such as ‘vehicles’ used in such a legal rule/ statute, Judges are faced with “standard instances” as also “a penumbra of debatable cases”. The positivist approach requires that Judges apply the ‘core’ or ‘settled meaning’ of the general word in judicial interpretation to “standard instances in which no doubts are felt about its application”. However, this does not restrict Judges from making creative choices while dealing with problems of penumbra, and rather Professor Hart advised that Judges should not decide the problems of penumbra “mechanically but in light of aims, purposes, and policies, though not necessarily in light of anything we would call moral principles”. In response to Professor Hart, Professor Lon L. Fuller, in the same edition of Harvard Law Review, published the essay of “Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart”[vii] (It is relevant to mention that this Article has, inter-alia, been quoted by the Supreme Court in its judgment of Anuradha Bhasin v Union of India also) . He criticised this positivist approach, firstly, on the ground that in the case of statutes, interpretation may not often be of a single word but a sentence, paragraph, or a whole page or more of text. Furthermore, he felt that, even in determination of cases where rules can be applied without asking what its purpose is, it is not because the words present a clear directive arrangement but because we know “without thinking” the objective of the Statute or what the rule “is aiming at in general”. Using the example of the same legal rule of no vehicles in a park, Professor Fuller opined that, “Whether the rule be intended to preserve quiet in the park, or to save carefree strollers from injury, we know, “without thinking,” that a noisy automobile must be excluded.” He, then, furthered the example so as to enquire: “What would Professor Hart say if some local patriots wanted to mount on a pedestal in the park a truck used in World War II, while other citizens, regarding the proposed memorial as an eyesore, support their stand by the “no vehicle” rule? Does this truck, in perfect working order, fall within the core or the penumbra?”. He, therefore, questioned whether it was ever possible to interpret a word of a statute without knowing the aim of the Statute. Based upon such enquiries, Professor Fuller concluded that, “it is in light of ‘ought’ that we decide what the rule ‘is'” and that “inner morality” is a key characteristic inherent in laws. Applying this Legal Positivist Approach to interpretation of the word “reinstatement”, the ordinary meaning/ settled meaning of the term ‘Reinstatement’ appears to be as follows:- As per Shorter Oxford English Dictionary[viii], the word “reinstate” means to “reinstall or re-establish (a person or thing in a place, station, condition, etc.); to restore to its proper or original state; to reinstate afresh and the word ‘reinstatement’ means the action of reinstating; re-establishment”. As per Black’s Law Dictionary[ix], “reinstate” means “to place again in a former state or position; to restore”. The prefix ‘re’ is ordinarily used to indicate ‘again’.[x] From its ordinary/ settled meaning, the word ‘reinstatement’, therefore, seems to indicate that the workman must be restored to his original state of employment upon passing of an order of reinstatement. This literal definition or settled meaning of ‘reinstatement’ also finds support in the provisions of ID Act. Section 11A of the ID Act specifically accords the Industrial Tribunal the power to “set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions if any, as it thinks fit or award lesser punishment in lieu of discharge of dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require”. Therefore, the Tribunal has the power to issue such ‘terms and conditions’ accompanying the direction of reinstatement or to award lesser punishment, as it deems fit. Viewed in this light, it appears that the term ‘reinstatement’ as per its ordinary meaning itself is necessarily retrospective in nature and therefore, ought to entail grant of all back-wages, benefits etc. from the date when such reinstatement retrospectively comes into effect, unless such back-wages, benefits, etc. are expressly excluded by the Tribunal by way of ‘terms and conditions’ passed as per Section 11A of the ID Act. However, starkly in contrast with the ordinary/ settled meaning of ‘reinstatement’, Indian Courts have predominantly adopted the ‘inner morality’ approach to judicial interpretation, to interpret the term ‘reinstatement’ based on their differing equity or policy or moral views. Nonetheless, there do stand some few but strong exceptions where while interpreting the term ‘reinstatement’, the Supreme Court has adopted the positivist approach to the interpretation of law as propounded by Professor Hart and has applied the ordinary meaning/ settled meaning of ‘reinstatement’. Accordingly, some of the pertinent Judgments passed by the Supreme Court are culled out in the next part. V. THE ‘INNER MORALITY’ APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURTA.The 1970s to 1980s- Judicial interpretation of ‘Reinstatement’ based on moral consideration of protection of workman. One of the first few cases wherein the Supreme Court was faced with the issue of what relief is a workman entitled to upon reinstatement is Workmen v. Employees, Calcutta Dock Labour Board[(1974) 3 SCC 216] . In this case, the workmen were removed from service by the Employer while they had been detained under the Defence of India Rules. The Workmen challenged the Order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, inter-alia, on the ground that they were denied the relief of back-wages while being granted reinstatement. The Supreme Court chose not to delve into the meaning of the term ‘reinstatement’ and rather, took a morality-based approach to the issue, holding that “If the view taken by the appellant’s officers who tried the disciplinary proceedings is accepted, it would follow that if a citizen is detained and his detention is confirmed by the State Government, his services would be terminated merely and solely by reason of such detention. In our opinion, such a position is obviously and demonstrably inconsistent with the elementary concept of the rule of law on which our Constitution is founded…”. Applying this rationale, the Court upheld that the grant of reinstatement with back-wages, which was granted by the Tribunals. Thereafter, the issue of the scope of the grant of ‘reinstatement’ again came up before a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Tin Works v. Employees [(1979) 2 SCC 80] (‘Hindustan Tin Works’), wherein the Court held that, the relief of reinstatement with full back wages ought to be granted as a normal rule where termination of service is found to be illegal. The rationale employed for laying down this principle of law was the moral consideration, that: “Any other view would be a premium on the unwarranted litigative activity of the employer… If the services were not terminated the workmen ordinarily would have continued to work and would have earned their wages.” However, the Supreme Court in the same breath was also quick to hold that: “there cannot be a strait-jacket formula for awarding relief of back wages. All relevant considerations will enter the verdict. More or less, it would be a motion addressed to the discretion of the Tribunal. Full back wages would be the normal rule and the party objecting to it must establish the circumstances necessitating departure. At that stage the Tribunal will exercise its discretion keeping in view all the relevant circumstances. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and judicious manner.” Applying these moral considerations, the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works eventually granted 75% of the back-wages to the workmen. The Supreme Court, however, did not enter into any enquiry into the ordinary meaning of the relief of ‘reinstatement’ which, in itself, means to restore back to a former place or position. The rationale applied by the Supreme Court for laying down the law as it stands in Hindustan Tin Works was again clarified in much greater detail by the Court in a subsequent judgment of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha [(1980) 2 SCC 593] (‘Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd.’) passed by a Three-judge bench [comprising of two judges from the earlier bench which passed the judgment in Hindustan Tin Works]. In this case of Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., the Supreme Court admitted that the law in Hindustan Tin Works had been laid down to provide reliefs based on mutual equities to both the workmen and the employer, however, it added that even if “some of the workmen during the long years of desperate litigation, might have sought jobs elsewhere and most of them perhaps have, for sheer survival, made at least a starving wage during the prolonged idle interval”, this factor too is “a weak consideration” to deny back-wages upon reinstatement. There is no question that the ideals behind the aforementioned Judgments were indeed noble. However, it is a sad irony that the very moral ideals of protection of workman and discouragement of protracted litigation in Labour law matters and of balancing of equities, which was sought to be furthered by the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works and in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. have now led to flooding of matters before the Supreme Court, wherein the issue of grant of back-wages accompanying a direction of Re-instatement passed by an Industrial Tribunal are examined on a case to case basis.B.2001 to date – The change in the judicial interpretation of ‘Reinstatement’ based on new moral considerations of ‘no work no pay’, ‘alternate gainful employment’ etc. Since 1979, the law laid down in the landmark case of Hindustan Tin Works has been relied upon in several subsequent decisions[xi]. However, the moral considerations applied in Hindustan Tin Works have been whittled down, most notably, in the case of P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research v. Raj Kumar[(2001) 2 SCC 54][ link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/888315/ ], by selectively relying on only a portion of the judgment, to hold that back-wages is a discretionary element and may not necessarily follow upon reinstatement. It is also noteworthy that, both in Hindustan Tin Works and in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd., the Supreme Court had held that the factor that the workman had during the idle interval sought jobs elsewhere, was too weak a consideration for denying a workman back-wages upon reinstatement. However, to the contrary, in the subsequent case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya[(2002) 6 SCC 41] (‘Hindustan Motors Ltd.’) this factor became a major consideration for the Court while deciding the entitlement of a workman to back-wages upon reinstatement. In the Hindustan Motors Ltd. case, an order of termination had been set aside by the Tribunal, but the workman had not pleaded before the Industrial Tribunal as to whether he was employed elsewhere. The Supreme Court placed the complete onus of proving entitlement to back-wages on the Workman and held that since there was no reasoning contained in the Impugned Order of the Tribunal justifying grant of back-wages and there was “no pleading or evidence whatsoever on the aspect whether the respondent (workman) was employed elsewhere during this long interregnum”, the workman would only be entitled to 50% of the back-wages upon reinstatement. Following the judgment in Hindustan Motors Ltd., many other factors have been expounded on a case-to-case basis by the Supreme Court[xii] to hold that back-wages could not have been granted upon the direction of reinstatement and the onus of proof has been placed at the door of the workman to specifically plead and prove that he is entitled to back-wages even where the order of termination is found to be illegal and is set aside, and reinstatement is granted. This trend is best exemplified by the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation vs. Uday Narain Pandey [(2006) 1 SCC 479][link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1102187/ ] (‘U.P. State Brassware’) wherein the Supreme Court further evolved the law regarding ‘reinstatement’ by applying a completely different moral consideration to the issue. This new moral consideration applied in U.P. State Brassware was that: “Although direction to pay full back wages on a declaration that the order of termination was invalid used to be the usual result, but now, with the passage of time, a pragmatic view of the matter is being taken by the Court realising that an industry may not be compelled to pay to the workman for the period during which he apparently contributed little or nothing at all to it and/or for a period that was spent unproductively as a result whereof the employer would be compelled to go back to a situation which prevailed many years ago, namely, when the workman was retrenched. The changes brought about by the subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court, probably having regard to the changes in the policy decisions of the Government in the wake of prevailing market economy, globalisation, privatisation and outsourcing, is evident…” A very interesting observation regarding justice was also made in the said judgment that: “When justice is the buzzword in the matter of adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, it would be wholly improper on the part of the superior courts to make them apply the cold letter of the statutes to act mechanically. Rendition of justice would bring within its purview giving a person what is due to him and not what can be given to him in law. A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so. If that principle is applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose much of their significance…” Applying these moral considerations, the Supreme Court in U.P. State Brassware, laid down a new principle of law which is being followed by the Courts till date, which is that grant of back-wages upon termination being declared illegal is not “automatic” or a “natural consequence”. The Court further acknowledged that although earlier the Supreme Court had held that it was for the employer to raise the plea of gainful employment of the workman before the Tribunal, “but having regard to the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act or the provisions analogous thereto, such a plea should be raised by the workman.” The scope of ‘reinstatement’, thereafter, has further been narrowed down, not only to exclude back-wages but also continuity of service, consequential benefits, etc. The Supreme Court, in the case of APSRTC & Anr. v. S. Narsagoud[(2003) 2 SCC 212] (‘Narsagoud’), differentiated between an order of Reinstatement with consequential benefits and an order of Reinstatement with continuity of service, by holding that “There is a difference between an order of reinstatement accompanied by a simple direction for continuity of service and a direction where reinstatement is accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits, which necessarily flow from reinstatement or accompanied by a specific direction that the employee shall be entitled to the benefit of the increments earned during the period of absence.” However, the Supreme Court in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and Anr [(2007) 2 SCC 433] (‘J.K. Synthetics’), by adverting to the statutory provisions of Section 11A of the ID Act, did attempt to reconcile, for the first time, the changing position of law from Hindustan Tin Works to Narsagoud. The Judgment distinguished the cases where the Tribunal “set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit” from the cases where the Tribunal awarded “lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require.”. For cases falling under the latter category, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal while granting lesser punishment was merely exercising a discretionary power and, “is not holding that the employer was in the wrong or that the dismissal was illegal and invalid.”. Therefore, where reinstatement is a consequence of the imposition of a lesser punishment, neither back wages nor continuity of service nor consequential benefits follow as a natural or necessary consequence of such reinstatement. This Rule was, however, subject to the following two exceptions: – “The first is where the Court sets aside the termination as a consequence of employee being exonerated or being found not guilty of the misconduct. Second is where the Court reaches a conclusion that the inquiry was held in respect of a frivolous issue or petty misconduct, as a camouflage to get rid of the employee or victimise him, and the disproportionately excessive punishment is a result of such scheme or intention. In such cases, the principles relating to back wages, etc. will be the same as those applied in the cases of an illegal termination.” While dealing with the former category of cases where the Tribunals “set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workmen on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit”, the judgment in J.K. Synthetics followed the approach in U.P. State Brassware and held that: “the manner in which “back wages” is viewed, has undergone a significant change in the last two decades. They are no longer considered to be an automatic or natural consequence of reinstatement… There is also a misconception that whenever reinstatement is directed, ‘continuity of service’ and ‘consequential benefits’ should follow, as a matter of course…. Whenever courts or Tribunals direct reinstatement, they should apply their judicial mind to the facts and circumstances to decide whether ‘continuity of service’ and/or ‘consequential benefits’ should also be directed.” The case laws of J.K. Synthetics and Narsagoud effectively lay down that any award reinstating the employee with the term of ‘consequential benefit’ would not be interpreted to mean that the Court has granted continuous service upon reinstatement, or the other way round; and that a specific direction by the Court to grant ‘continuous service’ and/ or ‘consequential benefit’ upon reinstatement, may have to be passed. Though it is clarified here that the Judgement passed by the Supreme Court in Deepali Gundu Surwase has since then held J.K. Synthetics to be per-incuriam on this point, however, the judgment passed in Narsagoud was neither noticed nor dealt with. Furthermore, the judgments of J.K. Synthetics and Narsagoud have continued to be followed by the Supreme Court in subsequent cases, including in Metropolitan Transport Corporation v V. Venkatesan [2009 9 SCC 601]; and most recently, in Om pal Singh v Disciplinary Authority and Ors. [ 2020 3 SCC 103].VI.THE FALLACY OF ADOPTING THE ‘INNER MORALITY’ APPROACH TO JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION The approach of our Courts in the aforementioned cases echoes the famous words of O.W. Holmes that “The life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience.” (link: https://www.livelaw.in/columns/reading-the-path-of-the-law-on-justice-holmes-birthday-170795) [xiii] But what if we, for a moment, were to shed our roles as lawyers who, as the Realists contend, see law as the judges make it and largely rely on precedents and experiences? Viewing these judgments from a jurisprudential lens, one could definitely see the concerns which arise when Courts abandon a positivist analytical view and judgments are rather rendered based on different ideas of ‘inner morality’. Some of these concerns are that: First, adopting abstract concepts of morality, without recognizing and identifying settled cases and assigning the ordinary meaning/ core meaning to general words, introduces uncertainty in the letter of law and causes all cases to be treated as ‘problems of the penumbra’. As per Professor Hart, the insistence on assigning a core meaning to general terms used in a legal provision/ rule is to emphasise that this is “what the law is” in a centrally important sense and to ensure that, “even if there are borderlines, there must first be lines”. For example, in Hindustan Tin Works, the Court did lay down that the ordinary rule/ normal rule is that of the grant of back-wages accompanying an order of reinstatement; however, it held so based on moral considerations which aimed towards mutual equities and to discourage protracted litigation. By defining the settled meaning/ ordinary meaning of the legal rule purely on moral considerations, the judgment of Hindustan Tin Works failed to establish a concrete law which is evident from the fact than in the subsequent cases, amongst others, of Hindustan Motors Ltd. and U.P. State Brassware, Division Benches of the Supreme Court have distinguished the ratio laid down in Hindustan Tin Works by citing different moral considerations. This is the foremost criticism to interpreting terms which otherwise have an unambiguous meaning, based on moral considerations instead, since it renders all questions of law open to reconsideration by different Judges. In the words of Professor Hart, the result of such an approach is that there remains “no central element of actual law (which) could be seen in the core of the central meaning which rules have”, and rules cease to have any authority/ force, till they are not interpreted to apply in a fact situation by the Courts. Second, moral considerations may render the actual letter of a legal rule/ statute absolutely meaningless without actually setting aside the law/ legal rule. Section 11A of the ID Act specifically grants the Tribunal the power to set aside termination orders and grant the relief of reinstatement on such terms and conditions as it may deem fit. ‘Reinstatement’ as per its ordinary dictionary sense would mean the restoration of the workman to his former position and back-wages, benefits, etc. would naturally emanate from the date with effect from which reinstatement is granted. However, by reinterpreting the meaning of reinstatement based on moral considerations as elaborated above, the Supreme Court has excluded from the term ‘reinstatement’, back-wages, consequential benefits, continuity of service, etc., thus, rendering the term ‘reinstatement’ itself meaningless. Instead, the term ‘reinstatement’ has been given a different colour of ‘instating’ the workmen, thus, doing great injustice to the ordinary meaning of the word. Moreover, the concept of ‘consequential benefits’ is also a judicial creation, and therefore, what is included within consequential benefits is in itself marred with uncertainty. This is best brought out by the case of Ram Kishan v Tarun Bajaj and Ors.[ (2014) 16 SCC 204], wherein a contempt was filed on the ground that, “all consequential benefits” upon reinstatement as directed by the Supreme Court had not been provided, for the reason that the benefit of redesignated pay/post and the pay scale of a higher post had not been given. The Supreme Court, however, expressed that it was uncertain as to whether “consequential benefits” would also mean “that the applicant could claim post revision and benefits of the higher post without being considered for the said post”. Since different interpretations were possible with respect to this issue, the Court held that denial of such benefits by the employer was not a contumacious action and, therefore, declined to initiate contempt proceedings against the employer. Third, the problem with basing decisions purely on moral considerations is that not all the values that we cherish neatly fit into a single system without inconsistencies. This moral quandary is also best exemplified by the judgment passed in Hindustan Tin Works, and in Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. While applying this ordinary rule of back-wages even for settled cases, the Supreme Court battled with two differing moral considerations, i.e. (a) protection of workmen and discouraging protracted litigation and (b) the need to balance mutual equities between employers and workmen without imposing such orders of reinstatement which would have the effect of debilitating the industry. To achieve this purpose, it held that a motion for back-wages would have to be specifically preferred before and determined by the Industrial Tribunal, even where an order of termination is set aside, and reinstatement is being granted. By selectively relying on the ratio laid down in Hindustan Tin Works, as elaborated above, the Courts in subsequent cases have placed the onus of proof on the door of the workman to specifically plead and prove that he is entitled to back-wages even when the order of termination is found to be illegal and is set aside and reinstatement is granted. Clearly, seen in this light, the ordinary rule of grant of back-wages to workmen save in exceptional fact situations, has been rendered naught, and rather than the Industry showing which exceptional fact situations arise for denial of back-wages upon reinstatement, an onerous burden has been placed on the Workman to prove that it is entitled to back-wages. An important question to ask at this stage, is whether the Supreme Court was required, at the first instance, to enter into such a moral quandary while deciding the legal rule regarding reinstatement? If rather, a positivist approach had been applied in this case, and the term ‘reinstatement’ had been viewed in terms of its ordinary meaning and in view of the wordings used in Section 11A of the ID Act, it would make it clear that ‘reinstatement’ in itself is a relief and back-wages, benefits, etc. naturally emanate out of such a decision to reinstate. While passing a judicial order of reinstatement with terms and conditions, the Industrial Tribunal would naturally have to determine whether back-wages, benefits, etc. are to be granted for the period when the employee was unable to work on account of termination. However, to mandate that a fresh motion be preferred on this aspect would not follow from a positivist approach, and this is precisely what has led to diluting the meaning of the words ‘reinstatement’ to the extent that an order of reinstatement now, rather, only has the effect of ‘instating’ the workmen. Fourth, even while deciding problems of penumbra, Professor Hart emphasised that the one must not do so mechanically but in light of aims, purposes, and policies- which he differentiated from moral principles. On the other hand, Professor Fuller approached the process of judicial interpretation as that of Judges deciding cases on some higher moral pedestal and in a particular case “doing something about it, treating it, if you will”. Aims, purposes, and policies of a rule are borne out by a contextual and wholesome interpretation of the Statute in question; meanwhile, morals are a product of one’s notion of right or wrong or common conceptions or culturally conditioned prejudices. One person’s morality may not be liked by another or may not be a welcome consideration for another. Therefore, infusing morality with law comes with its own dangers. This is best exemplified by the case of “re-instatement” where the Supreme Court, by applying vacillating moral considerations, has not only diluted the ordinary meaning of the term ‘reinstatement’ but has also given a go by to the legislative intent behind the Industrial Disputes Act, 1946, which is social welfare legislation enacted to, “protect workmen from arbitrary termination, lay-offs or retrenchments by the employers who are in a position of power”. Fifth, if the scope of an order of ‘reinstatement’ is given its meaning as provided in Section 11A of the ID Act, it would discourage illegal termination of workmen and render justice to the workmen vis-à-vis the employer (who is clearly in a position of power). However, in U.P. State Brassware, the Court discouraged application of the letter of law as provided in ID Act and held that “Rendition of justice would bring within its purview giving a person what is due to him and not what can be given to him in law….A person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so.” The assessment of justice, however, is in itself challenging in as much as it may often vary with the fundamental moral outlook of a given person.[xiv] In this case, for instance, from the moral outlook of the workman, not giving him the full extent that the relief of reinstatement would carry, may be considered as great injustice to him since, despite having been illegally terminated, he would still have to bear the economic brunt of such termination. One may also contend that it is immoral that mutual equities be invoked in favour of the employer/ industry who has carried out the illegality and that such an approach would tantamount to giving a premium to the wrong-doer. Moreover, the Court, in this case, seems to counter-assert a different idea of justice inspired by a different morality as against the justice sought to be achieved by social welfare legislation, i.e., the ID Act. In our opinion, it would be a better approach for Courts to avoid applying abstract concepts like justice and morals or to at least specify for what purposes at hand, is the Statute considered as ‘unjust’ and what justice is sought to be supplanted. A Judge’s morality, no matter how noble, should not be the rationale relied upon for passing judgments because there is always the risk that the same may result in injustice unto another. This is not to say that every judgment passed by the Supreme Court has followed the same jurisprudential approach of ‘inner morality’. Rather, the judgments set out in the next part show that the term ‘reinstatement’ has been given its ordinary meaning in some cases, where the Supreme Court has adopted a positivist approach.VII. THE POSITIVIST APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE SUPREME COURT One of the earliest examples of a positivist approach being adopted by the Supreme Court with respect to this issue was merely a year after passing of the judgment in Hindustan Tin Works, by another three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court [(1980) 4 SCC 443] (‘ Surendra Kumar Verma’). The Supreme Court held that in plain common-sense, “removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too.” Even while carving out an exception for extraordinary cases or ‘problems of the penumbra’ as Professor Hart would put it, the Supreme Court clarified that the Industrial Tribunal in such cases would have the power to deny full back-wages. While both in Hindustan Tin Works as also in Surendra Kumar Verma, the ratio is that the ordinary rule is the grant of back-wages upon reinstatement, the judgment passed in Surendra Kumar Verma is marked by the distinction that it held that the Court may deny the grant of back-wages while passing an order for reinstatement in exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, as per the law laid down in Hindustan Tin Works, the workman for grant of back-wages would have to show that a motion for payment of back-wages has been made by him and has been decided upon by the Industrial Tribunal, even where the order of termination is set aside, and the relief of reinstatement without any exclusion has been granted. In fact, in another case Mohan Lal v. Bharat Electronics Ltd. [(1981) 3 SCC 225], the Supreme Court took the rationale in Surendra Kumar Verma even further and held that when the termination of service is declared ab initio void and inoperative, not even an order of reinstatement is required because there is no cessation of service and a mere declaration that the workman continues to be in service with all consequential benefits, would suffice. This, however, seems to be another end of the extreme and leaves no discretion for the Tribunals to specify such ‘terms and conditions as it deems fit’ while setting aside the termination for being illegal and granting reinstatement in terms of Section 11A of ID Act. A landmark case in which the Supreme Court has adopted a strong positivist approach to judicial interpretation is Deepali Gundu Surwase v. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya and Ors[(2013) 10 SCC 324] (‘ Deepali Gundu Surwase’). In this case, the Supreme Court was determining the meaning of the term ‘reinstatement’ and the onus of proof with respect to the grant of back-wages, in the context of an Order granting reinstatement passed by a Tribunal under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Supreme Court entered into the enquiry of the ordinary meaning of the word reinstatement and found that various authorities/ dictionaries such as Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Law Lexicon, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and Black’s Law Dictionary have a common thread of defining the word “reinstate” to mean “to place again (as in possession or in a former position)/ to restore to a previous effective state”. Upon arriving at this finding, the Supreme Court set out the ‘settled situations’ in which the ordinary meaning of reinstatement would apply, as also determined the scope of the Tribunal’s power under Section 11A of the ID Act. It then reconciled the differences between various judgments passed by the Supreme Court and in the process (at Para 38 of the Judgment) declared J.K. Synthetics (supra) as per-incuriam, holding that: “The observation made in J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal [(2007) 2 SCC 433 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 651] that on reinstatement the employee/workman cannot claim continuity of service as of right is contrary to the ratio of the judgments of three-Judge Benches [Hindustan Tin Works (P) Ltd. v. Employees, (1979) 2 SCC 80 : 1979 SCC (L&S) 53] , [Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] referred to hereinabove and cannot be treated as good law. This part of the judgment is also against the very concept of reinstatement of an employee/workman.” In the author’s opinion, the Judgment in Deepali Gundu Surwase clearly recognizes and addresses the law with respect to both the ‘settled instances’ as also largely, the ‘problems of penumbra’. The positivist view taken in this judgment was also followed in subsequent cases largely till 2015- 2016, including in the case of State of UP v Charan Singh [ link: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-384164.pdf ].[xv] However, in 2018, in a subsequent case of Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D v their Workmen[2018 SCC Online SC 1587] (‘ Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D’) , the Supreme Court, again, while distinguishing Deepali Gundu Surwase and relying upon J.K. Synthetics, held that even in cases where termination has been set aside, the ratio laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase would have to be applied, only in light of the facts of the particular case in hand. Furthermore, in the Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D case, the Court, contrary to the ratio laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase, rather held that: – “In our considered opinion, the Courts below completely failed to see that the back wages could not be awarded by the Court as of right to the workman consequent upon setting aside his dismissal/termination order. In other words, a workman has no right to claim back wages from his employer as of right only because the Court has set aside his dismissal order in his favour and directed his reinstatement in service…. It is necessary for the workman in such cases to plead and prove with the aid of evidence that after his dismissal from the service, he was not gainfully employed anywhere and had no earning to maintain himself or/and his family. The employer is also entitled to prove it otherwise against the employee, namely, that the employee was gainfully employed during the relevant period and hence not entitled to claim any back wages. Initial burden is, however, on the employee… ” Again, in Rajasthan SRTC v. Phool Chand[(2018) 18 SCC 299] (‘Rajasthan SRTC’) the view set out in the Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D case was reiterated. In the author’s opinion, the ratio in Deepali Gundu Surwase had been passed by giving full meaning to the decisions of the three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works and Surendra Kumar Verma (which had been whittled down in subsequent decisions passed by division Benches of the Supreme Court). Seen in this light, the judgments passed in Management of Regional Chief Engineer P.H.E.D and Rajasthan SRTC are not only contrary to the ratio laid down in Deepali Gundu Surwase but also to the ratio laid down by three-judge Benches of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Tin Works and Surendra Kumar Verma and hence, are clearly per-incuriam. In a more recent judgment of Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel v Municipal Council, Narkhed and Others [(2019)SCC OnLine SC 1071], a Division Bench of the Supreme Court has applied the position of law as stated in Hindustan Tin Works, Surendra Kumar Verma and Deepali Gundu Surwase. However, while doing so, the judgments of the past which had distinguished the ratio laid down in the aforementioned cases, have not been considered.VIII.CONCLUSION The above discussion shows that there is no standard pattern of directing as to what benefits are to be given to a reinstated employee upon employment and as to whether ‘reinstatement’ by itself would include ‘back-wages’, ‘continuous service’, ‘consequential benefits’ or a specific direction in this regard needs to be passed. There is also great uncertainty with respect to whether the onus of proving entitlement to back-wages upon reinstatement when the termination is set aside for being illegal, ought to be placed upon the workman or the employer. These grey areas exist largely due to the differing moral considerations based upon which Judges have determined the scope of the relief of reinstatement over the years. The issue highlighted in the present column is only one such example of the consequences which entail when Judgments are passed based solely on moral considerations, irrespective of how noble these considerations may be. The authors feel that by consistently adopting a positivist approach to the interpretation of not just the term ‘reinstatement’ in the context of the ID Act, but also while dealing with other constitutional and statutory interpretations, the Supreme Court could help bring greater certainty to Law and could help avoid protracted litigation. The need for Supreme Court to conclusively determine the scope of orders of ‘reinstatement’ arises now more than ever, with sudden laying off of workmen and/ or withholding of wages due to closure of industries and the economic slow-down on account of the Covid-19 pandemic. A Three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court is already adjudicating upon the issue of balancing the right of employers to lay off/withhold salaries with the protection of employees during the Covid-19 pandemic in a batch of Writ Petitions titled “Ficus Pax Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v Union of India & Ors”[(2020) 4 SCC 810 ]. Inevitably, several orders of termination or dismissal issued by industries are also likely to be challenged by the workmen before the Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act. In addition, if this issue of interpretation of “re-instatement” is not conclusively decided by the Supreme Court, the uncertainty in law is likely to permeate into the regime under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020 as and when it comes into force. Hence, the time is ripe that the uncertainty regarding the scope of orders of reinstatement is finally settled by reference to a larger bench of the Supreme Court Views are personalAuthors are advocates practising in New Delhi END NOTES: Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya,(2002) 6 SCC 41; P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research v. Raj Kumar, (2001) 2 SCC 54; P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. v. Mahendra Ram, (2009) 5 SCC 705; U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479; Divisional Controller, Gujarat SRTC v. Kadarbhai J. Suthar, (2007) 10 SCC 561; APSRTC & Anr. v. S. Narsagoud (2003) 2 SCC 212; J.K. Synthetics Ltd. v. K.P. Agrawal and Anr (2007) 2 SCC 433 The “Hart-Fuller Debate” emerged out of essentially 2 papers published in 1958 in Harvard law review- one by Professor H.L.A. Hart titled ”Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ wherein Professor Hart defended the legal positivist school of jurisprudence and another by Professor Lon L. Fuller titled ‘Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart’ criticizing the legal positivist school of jurisprudence and advocating for the “inner morality” approach i.e. that all decisions by Judges ought to be based upon the “inner morality” inherent in the law. This debate amongst other things focused upon the role of judges in interpretation of law. P.G.I. of Medical Education & Research v. Raj Kumar, (2001) 2 SCC 54, P.V.K. Distillery Ltd. v. Mahendra Ram, (2009) 5 SCC 705; U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. v. Uday Narain Pandey, (2006) 1 SCC 479; Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya, (2002) 6 SCC 41; Reetu Marbles v. Prabhakant Shukla, (2010) 2 SCC 70; Divisional Controller, Gujarat SRTC v. Kadarbhai J. Suthar, (2007) 10 SCC 561 Allahabad Jal Sansthan v. Daya Shankar Rai (2005) 5 SCC 124; Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. S.C. Sharma (2005) 2 SCC 363; G.M., Haryana Roadways v. Rudhan Singh (2005) 5 SCC 591 HLA Hart, ‘The Concept of Law’ (2nd edn, Clarendon Press 1994) 219 Tapash Kumar Paul v. BSNL, (2014) 15 SCC 313; Raghubir Singh v. Haryana Roadways, (2014) 10 SCC 301; Jasmer Singh v. State of Haryana, (2015) 4 SCC 458; Raj Kumar Dixit v. Vijay Kumar Gauri Shanker, (2015) 9 SCC 345; Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Mackinnon Employees Union, (2015) 4 SCC 544; Raj Kumar v. Director of Education, (2016) 6 SCC 541 Next Story
pictore/iStockBy William Mansell, ABC News (COLUMBUS, Ohio) — At least eight people are injured, two critically, following an explosion and fire at a paint manufacturing plant overnight Thursday in Columbus, Ohio.Another person is unaccounted for, according to Columbus Fire Battalion Chief Steve Martin.At 12:05 a.m., authorities got a call of an explosion at 1920 Leonard Ave. As firefighters pulled up to the second alarm fire at Yenkin-Majestic Paints, they were met by employees exiting the building.Five people were wounded and taken to local hospitals, Martin said. They are in stable condition.“Two other employees were trapped inside the building and had to be rescued. They are in critical condition at OSU Main,” Martin said.All of the victims are employees at the plant.As of 1:41 a.m. local time, authorities said crews were still working to put out the fire and still searching for other employees that may be inside the building.“Our hazmat teams are here to assist in case we have any contamination issue,” Martin said.Martin said the fire is still burning, but in a controlled area where they plan to essentially let the fire burn out.The cause of the fire is under investigation.Copyright © 2021, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.
FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailLAS VEGAS (AP) — Bryce Hamilton had 14 points, eight assists and five steals as UNLV narrowly beat Utah State 59-56.Marco Anthony led the Aggies with 18 points and nine rebounds. Associated Press January 25, 2021 /Sports News – Local Hamilton scores 14 to lead UNLV over Utah St. 59-56 Tags: Bryce Hamilton/UNLV Rebels/Utah State Aggies Basketball Written by
QL Capital Partners enters into partnership with Devon Energy to fund Delaware Basin gas gathering infrastructure. Photo: courtesy of Robert-Owen-Wahl from Pixabay. QL Capital Partners, LP (“QLCP”) and Devon Energy Corporation (NYSE:DVN) (“Devon”, “DVN” or “the Company”) have entered into an agreement to create a new partnership to fund selected gas gathering and compression assets owned by Devon in the Company’s highly productive “Cotton Draw” development area within the Delaware Basin.As part of the transaction, Devon will contribute its existing gas gathering and compression infrastructure within an area of mutual interest to Cotton Draw Midstream, LLC (“the Partnership”), a newly formed partnership which Devon will continue to operate pursuant to a management services agreement. Devon will dedicate to the Partnership approximately 24,000 gross upstream acres for gathering and compression on the Partnership’s system. Per the terms of the agreements, QLCP will fund a $100 MM distribution to Devon, and will also fund the majority of incremental Partnership capital to build out the Cotton Draw midstream assets over the next several years.Ajay Khurana, Managing Partner of QLCP, stated, “QL Capital Partners was formed to provide constructive capital solutions to some of the best energy companies in North America. Our partnership with Devon is a great reflection of our strategy. Devon has a long and successful track record of developing high quality upstream and midstream assets in the Permian. We are excited to provide the expansion capital for Cotton Draw Midstream as Devon continues to develop this world class asset.”Kirkland & Ellis served as legal counsel to QLCP and Vinson & Elkins served as legal counsel to Devon. Source: Company Press Release Per the terms of the agreements, QLCP will fund a $100 MM distribution to Devon, and will also fund the majority of incremental Partnership capital to build out the Cotton Draw midstream assets over the next several years
The second allegation, by former Union Press Officer Daniil Ukhorskiy constitutes an accusation that Lee Chin Wee deliberately hindered the Returning Officer in the conduct of his duties, and that McGrath aided Lee in doing this. “An election in which one side is allowed to throw such allegations around with no evidence or substantiation, beyond spurious claims about condiment stains, does not have a level playing field.” The two allegations of electoral malpractice were announcedby the Union’s Returning Officer thisevening, and detail claims of electoral malpractice by Ayman D’Souza, Lee Chin Wee, and BrendanMcGrath. Two challenges to the results of Thursday’s Oxford Union elections may see President-ElectBrendan McGrath unable to take up the Union Presidency in Michaelmas, whilstthe election of Lee Chin Wee to the position of Secretary may also bechallenged. “Mr D’Souza’s troubling allegations of a conspiracy to derail his nomination through forgery, casting insulting aspersions on his opponents and the integrity of the electoral system, fall under this category. Daniil Ukhorskiy told Cherwell: “I can confirm I made an allegation of electoral malpractice under rule 33(a)(i)(16): deliberately hindering or attempting to hinder the Returning Officer in the discharge of their duties as well as 33(a)(i)(24): aiding and abetting such an offence. In an electoral tribunal, the latter allegation could see McGrathremoved from office as President-Elect, whilst the election for Secretary couldbe re-polled. “There is a procedure for dealing with the sorts of behaviour he claimed occurred, and that is not making utterly unsubstantiated comments in a public forum. While Mr D’Souza was of course not elected treasurer, I firmly believe that the rules must be upheld and a strong precedent set for future elections. Similarly Samuel Burns said “The Union’s electoral rules explicitly forbid the making of unscrutinised factual statements for electoral gain. The first allegation could further see a tribunal rule that the conduct of Sara Dube’s ‘RISE’ campaign had compromised the integrity of Thursday’s elections. This could lead to a rerun of the entire election. “The tribunal panel will meet sometime this weekend, given the fact that this is an ongoing allegation I do not wish to comment further on the substance of the the allegation.” The first allegation, lodged by ‘Unlock the Union’ campaign manager Sam Burns, deals with a claim that Ayman D’Souza made an “unsubstantiated factual claim” in the run-up to the election. Cherwell understands that this refers to D’Souza’s accusation that a piece of incorrectly filled out paperwork which prevented him from running for Librarian had been forged. The Oxford Union, RISE, and Brendan McGrath have been contacted for comment. The Returning Officer declined to comment.
2) Governor, Lieutenant Governor Visit Historic Corydon // April 5, 2016. As Indiana celebrates its bicentennial year, Governor Mike Pence and Lieutenant Governor Eric Holcomb visit Corydon, Indiana, the capital of the Hoosier state until the city of Indianapolis took the role in 1825. 1) Governor Pence Ceremonially Signs Regional Cities Bill in Evansville // April 5, 2016. Governor Mike Pence joins regional leaders in Southwest Indiana to ceremonially sign House Enrolled Act (HEA) 1001, which provides full funding for the Regional Cities initiatives, at the Signature School’s Robert L. Koch II Science Center in Evansville. Indiana’s Great Southwest plan encompasses 19 projects that focus on strengthening the heart of the region by leveraging the new Indiana University academic medical education and research center, improving livability and connectivity, and attracting talent and workforce to the community. FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail 4) Governor Pence Ceremonially Signs ‘Kirk’s Law’ // April 6, 2016. Governor Mike Pence ceremonially signs Senate Enrolled Act 357, or “Kirk’s Law,” in Middlebury, Ind. “Kirk’s Law” requires the Division of State Court Administration to create a registry of individuals convicted of a crime of child abuse. The registry will be searchable and available to the public. “Kirk’s Law” is named after 19-month-old Kirk Coleman, who prosecutors say died in the care of a provider who had a previous record of child abuse. 3) Governor Pence Ceremonially Signs Regional Cities Bill in Goshen // April 6, 2016. Governor Mike Pence joins regional leaders in North Central Indiana to ceremonially sign House Enrolled Act 1001, which provides full funding for the Regional Cities initiatives. The North Central region’s plan, Innovate Indiana, includes 39 projects aimed at establishing a Regional Innovation District Network, which will help achieve the region’s vision of establishing world-class higher education and community partnerships, access and connectivity, and high-performing communities. 6) Governor Pence Visits Crisis Pregnancy Center // April 7, 2016. Governor Mike Pence visits with staff and tours Wabash Valley Crisis Pregnancy Center in Terre Haute, Ind. 5) Governor Pence Ceremonially Signs Next Generation Hoosier Educators Scholarship Bill // April 7, 2016. Governor Mike Pence joins Speaker of the House Brian Bosma (R – Indianapolis) to ceremonially sign House Enrolled Act 1002, which establishes the Next Generation Hoosier Educators Scholarship fund. In the fall of 2017, top-performing students who commit to teaching in Indiana for at least five years, could receive up to $7,500 per year to cover college tuition as they pursue their degree. 7) Governor Pence Ceremonially Signs Bills Aimed at Helping Hoosier Farmers and Businesses // April 8, 2016. Governor Mike Pence joins representatives from the agriculture community to ceremonially sign Senate Enrolled Act (SEA) 308 and SEA 238 at the Statehouse. SEA 308 provides property tax relief for farmers. SEA 238 will help make local soil and water conservation districts more impactful when it comes to watersheds and areas of conservation.
There was a very positive view reported in British Baker recently from Investec that consumers value premium plant bread and I think that applies to baked goods generally. There is a bit of doom and gloom out there that the multiple grocers are the bad guys. I think there is a big opportunity for the craft baking industry – the trends in the marketplace are actually going in our favour. There is a rise in affluence and bakery fits the megatrends of health, convenience and indulgence. It’s a really positive place to be right now. My hope this year is that the key players in the industry really grasp that opportunity and we can continue to accord the value to our products that they deserve. That’s true demonstrably of bread and Warburtons are leading the challenge. But within the craft sector there is a great opportunity to create that point of difference, to be proud of the products we make, and, importantly, to charge the consumer a full price for them. The craft sector needs a wee bit of confidence. It needs to look to its customers in 2006 and ask how it can create a point of difference and actively market these products. There are some cracking people out there doing great things with bread. The drivers of the high street are the likes of Pret A Manger, Starbucks and Costa. And what are they selling? Baked goods! This may be about creating ambiance, point of sale, or just putting a ticket next to the product. Connected to that are the continued fears about the erosion of the high street. I hope that the various industry associations help raise awareness and momentum picks up on this issue.Health could present big opportunities this year. But when you hear things like half the population don’t understand what a percentage is, then I think the government has a responsibility to address the issue.
You can watch the band rehearse for the themed Halloween run and get the low down on the Mixtape from vocalist Lyle Divinsky in the video below:The Motet have also assembled a special Mixtape 1979 playlist to get fans prepared for the second half of their Halloween run, which hits Suwannee Hulaween and Asheville, NC’s The Orange Peel after tonight’s performance in New Orleans. Listen to the sounds of 1979 below, courtesy of The Motet:And if all that isn’t enough to get you excited for Mixtape 1979, check out some videos of the band’s Mixtape performance at Dallas, TX’s Gas Monkey from Wednesday night:Tickets for The Motet’s Mixtape 1979 run finale in Asheville on Monday night are available now via the band’s website. You can also enter to win tickets to their Halloween blowout via their Facebook page: Colorado funk force The Motet is off and running on their Mixtape 1979 Halloween run. After smokin’ shows in Dallas, Houston, and Austin the last three nights, the band will continue to spin Mixtape 1979 tonight along with a monstrous supergroup featuring Bernard Purdie, Leo Nocentelli, Ivan Neville, Oteil Burbridge & The Dirty Dozen Brass Band horns as part of Monsters Of Funk at New Orleans’ Joy Theater.