PRERNA MAKHIJANI ROLL NO. 29 PGDM IB

ETHICS IN HUMAN RESOURCE PROFESSION

Madras High CourtThe Arumuganeri Salt Workers Coop. Vs. The President on 22 July, 2011

The management of the Arumuganeri Salt Workers Coop. employed workers on daily wages. In the year 1992 the employers were giving a minimum daily wage of Rs.28 to male workers and Rs. 26 to female workers.

Next year, all of a sudden, without giving a prior notice to the workmen the minimum wages were reduced by a substantial amount. In 1993, the minimum wages for male workers were reduced to Rs.24.90 and for female workers it was reduced to Rs.22.90. The employers to stay on the safe side of the law made sure that the revised wages were in consonance with the Minimum Wages Act.

The workers were aggrieved over the sudden reduction of wages and the unwillingness of the management to hear out their woes. In order to get justice they approached the labour court. The labour court decided that the workers should be given the pay they were previously drawing considering the fact that it is illegal to reduce wages of any worker before giving prior notice of the same. So the labour court reinstated the wages already being given to both male and female workers.

The management of Arumuganeri Salt Workers Coop. were not satisfied with the decision and believed that the Labour court had made an error of judgment because according to the Minimum Wages Act of 1960, the minimum wages were fixed at Rs.24.90 and Rs.22.90 for males and females respectively. They approached the Madurai bench of Madras High Court to appeal again after several years.

The High court rightly did not interfere with the Labour court’s decision on several grounds. The High court agreed with the Labour Court, as no notice was given to the workers before reducing their wages. Also they believed that the Minimum Wages Act only stipulated the lowest wages that can be offered to a worker. This does not mean that the organization will rightfully pay lower wages. The employer is always open to pay higher wages to its employees.

The management thought that they could get away with a loophole in the Minimum wages Act of 1960, with unethical practices involving reduction of wages of unskilled labour. But the High Court rightly upheld the interests of the workers.

Source: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1405569

PRERNA MAKHIJANI ROLL NO. 29 PGDM IB

ETHICS IN MEDICAL PROFESSION

Madras High Court

M/S.Soni Hospital vs Arun Balakrishnan Iyer on 11 March, 2011

Meena Balakrishnan Iyer was admitted to Soni Hospital to be operated for an ovarian cyst. As it turns out during the course of the operation the doctor informed her husband Arun that the uterus also needs to be removed. Arun said he needs to seek permission from Meena but the doctor informed him that she was under anesthesia and he needed to take a decision there and then. Left with no option he let the doctors decide what’s best for her. Even after the operation Meena complained of severe stomach ache, dysentery, nausea and vomiting. The condition got deteriorated day-by-day inspite of the treatment given by the doctors. After approaching several physicians for a cure, none seemed to have diagnosed the problem correctly. Finally, in a Chennai nursing home barium x-ray test was done to reveal an enlarged intestine. A surgery was performed and to the shock and surprise, an abdominal pad measuring 12 inches x 12 inches was found lying inside the body in the junction of small and large intestine. The pad contained a label contained “Soni Hospital”. It was accordingly removed and a notice was served to Soni Hospital which did not respond to the notice.

Arun Balakrishnan Iyer demanded a total sum of Rs.1500000 for physical pain, mental agony and other expenses borne for the treatment which was required by Meena after the surgery took place. In defense, Soni hospital claimed that even though the surgery did take place, Meena did not complain of any stomach aches after the surgery. They also denied leaving the abdominal pad inside the intestine during the operation. They also wanted the appeal to be dismissed on grounds that there was a lack of territorial jurisdiction as the surgery to remove the pad was done in Jaipur. Further, the abdominal pad removed from the intestine was not submitted as evidence in the court and only photographs were taken which did not have negatives. The court did not accept photographs without negatives.

The doctor who operated on Meena in Jaipur, however, gave a written note explaining the situation and the peculiarity of the case. As this doctor had no enmity with the doctors at Soni hospital, the report was taken to be authentic.

So just on the basis of a report made by the doctor, the court awarded a compensation of Rs.355000 in all to Arun and Meena on the basis of medical negligence by Soni Hospital.

Source: http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/1722433/