Matter of Principle

The registered case under section 25 read with 30(1), talks about the company providing inadequate security to the employee. The CEO is held against this as he is the top official of the company. the security rules were in place stating the employee to confirm with the 24*7 help desk on a new driver, but this rule was obviously not followed and hence the mishap. The company went ahead following the law and giving the next of kin, Gowramma, the mother of the deceased employees, the usual statutory payments and further conferred on her a range of benefits on compassionate grounds - a onetime payment of Rs. 11 lakh and a monthly annuity of Rs. 15,000/- for rest of her life. This act taken up by the company was ethically justified as the loss of a life can never be bartered with monetary benefits, but the maximum comfort could be provided to the family in this circumstance.
As per the case registered by the Karnataka shops and commercial establishment act, holding the CEO Mr. Som Mittal responsible for inadequate security to the employee, the penalty fees is illogical as the necessary action towards providing relief and statutory payments to the deceased family was already furnished. The is apparently a convincing clause in Karnataka shops and commercial establishment act, section 3, which states that nothing in this act shall apply to (among others) a person occupying positions of management in any establishment. Adhering to the above stated part of the act, The CEO is supporting himself in not paying the fine against the law as ethically he isn't held responsible for the lapse of security and thereby the