Connect with us

Top Stories

No Proposal To Increase Working Hours To 70 or 90 Hours Per Week: Centre

CHANNEL TODAY BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Published

on




New Delhi:

The government on Monday told Parliament that it is not considering any proposal to increase the maximum working hours to 70 or 90 hours a week.

Recently, some of the corporate leaders proposed to increase the maximum working hours to 70 and even 90 hours a week.

“No such proposal to increase the maximum working hours to 70 or 90 hours a week is under consideration of the government,” stated Minister of State for Labour & Employment Shobha Karandlaje in a written reply to the Lok Sabha.

She informed the House that labour being a subject under the Concurrent List, the enforcement of labour laws is done by state governments and the central government in their respective jurisdictions.

While in the Central sphere, the enforcement is done through the inspecting officers of the Central Industrial Relations Machinery (CIRM), the compliance in the states is ensured through their labour enforcement machineries, she stated.

As per the existing labour laws, working conditions, including working hours and overtime, are regulated through the provisions of the Factories Act 1948 and the Shops and Establishments Acts of the respective state governments.

Most of the establishments, including the corporate sector, are governed by the Shops and Establishments Act.

About the discourse over 70-90-hour work week, pre-Budget Economic Survey on Friday last had cited studies to state that spending over 60 hours a week on work could have adverse health effects.

The survey noted that spending long hours at one’s desk is detrimental to mental well-being, and individuals who spend 12 or more hours (per day) at a desk have distressed or struggling levels of mental well-being.

“While the hours spent at work are informally considered a measure of productivity, a previous study has documented adverse health effects when hours exceed 55-60 per week,” the survey said, citing findings by Pega F Nafradi B (2021) and ‘A systematic analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury’.

Citing data from a study done by Sapien Labs Centre for Human Brain and Mind, the economic survey, said, “Spending long hours at one’s desk is equally detrimental to mental well-being. Individuals who spend 12 or more hours at a desk have distressed/ struggling levels of mental well-being, with a mental well-being score approximately 100 points lower than those who spend less than or equal to two hours at a desk”.

Citing a study by WHO, the survey said globally, about 12 billion days are lost annually due to depression and anxiety, amounting to a financial loss of USD 1 trillion.

“In rupee terms, this translates to about Rs 7,000 per day,” it noted.

The take by the Economic Survey 2024-25 on work hour week had come weeks after Larsen & Toubro Ltd Chairman and Managing Director SN Subrahmanyan sparked off a raging debate on social media when he said employees should work 90-hour a week, including on Sundays rather than sit at home.

He followed Infosys co-founder Narayana Murthy’s suggestion of a 70-hour workweek and Adani Group chairman Gautam Adani’s “biwi bhaag jayegi (wife will run away)” remark if one spent more than eight hours at home.

However, Subrahmanyan drew criticism from some peers in the business community. RPG Group Chairman Harsh Goenka said longer working hours was a recipe for burnout and not success.

Mahindra Group Chairman Anand Mahindra also asserted that the focus should be on the quality of work and productivity rather than the amount of time spent working.

Similarly, ITC Ltd Chairman Sanjiv Puri stated that empowering employees to realise their potential and accomplish their jobs well was more important than the number of hours put in.

The work-life balance debate echoes a similar one in China where the so-called ‘996 culture’ – the three digits describe a punishing schedule of 9 am to 9 pm six days a week – is being hotly debated. 

(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)




Source link

Top Stories

Abhinav Chandrachud, Lawyer Representing Ranveer Allahbadia In Top Court

CHANNEL TODAY BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Published

on




New Delhi:

On Friday morning at 10:30 AM, Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna’s bench convened as usual to hear a series of cases. Among them was the high-profile ‘India’s Got Latent’ controversy, in which YouTuber and podcaster Ranveer Allahbadia or ‘BeerBiceps’ is involved.

As the proceedings began, the lawyer representing Mr Allahbadia appeared before the court. The man has not argued a case in the Supreme Court in the past eight years and six months but his presence caught everyone’s attention. He was Abhinav Chandrachud, a Bombay High Court lawyer and the son of former CJI DY Chandrachud. 

Who Is Abhinav Chandrachud

Abhinav Chandrachud’s family name carries weight in India’s judicial circles. His father was appointed Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court in May 2016 before becoming the Chief Justice of India. Despite his father’s towering position in the judiciary, Abhinav had never before presented a case in the Supreme Court during his father’s tenure.

At his farewell speech last year, Chief Justice (retd) Chandrachud shared an anecdote about his two sons, Abhinav and Chintan. He recalled how he had once asked them to appear in the Supreme Court, hoping to see them more often. Both, however, declined the offer, citing professional integrity concerns.

In a past interview with NDTV, former Chief Justice (retd) Chandrachud had also reflected on his own career. Between 1982 and 1985, he refrained from appearing in any Indian court while pursuing his studies at Harvard. His father, Justice YV Chandrachud, was India’s longest-serving Chief Justice.

Abhinav Chandrachud is also an accomplished academic and author. He holds a Doctor of the Science of Law (JSD) and a Master of the Science of Law (JSM) from Stanford Law School, where he was a Franklin Family Scholar.

According to his LinkedIn profile, he graduated from Government Law College, Mumbai, in 2008. He later pursued his Master of Laws (LLM) at Harvard Law School as a Dana Scholar. He has also worked as an associate attorney at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, an international law firm.

Beyond his legal practice, he has authored several books, including Republic of Rhetoric: Free Speech and the Constitution of India (2017) and Supreme Whispers: Conversations with Judges of the Supreme Court of India 1980-1989 (2018). His opinion pieces have been published in leading Indian newspapers.

The Ranveer Allahbadia Case

Mumbai Police have summoned Ranveer Allahbadia to appear for questioning on Saturday over controversial remarks he made during a YouTube show. The police had initially asked him to appear on Thursday, but when he failed to do so, they issued a second summons for Friday.

On Friday, police teams from both Mumbai and Assam arrived at Mr Allahbadia’s residence in Versova, only to find it locked.

The controversy stems from remarks made by Mr Allahbadia on comedian Samay Raina’s now-deleted YouTube show, ‘India’s Got Latent’. His comments, perceived as crude and offensive, triggered widespread outrage and multiple complaints.

The Assam Police team investigating the matter met with officials from Maharashtra’s Cyber Department on Thursday. They are particularly interested in questioning not only Allahbadia but also fellow YouTubers Ashish Chanchlani, Jaspreet Singh, and Apoorva Makhija, who were featured in the controversial episode.

The Supreme Court has yet to set a fixed date for hearing the petition in which Abhinav Chandrachud appeared virtually before Chief Justice Khanna. 




Source link

Continue Reading

Top Stories

US Senator Says Democracy Doesn’t Put Food On Table, S Jaishankar Reacts

CHANNEL TODAY BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Published

on




Munich:

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar on Friday took a dig at the West and said it treated democracy as a Western characteristic. Speaking during a panel discussion on ‘Live to Vote Another Day: Fortifying Democratic Resilience’ at the Munich Security Conference alongside Norway’s Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store, US Senator Elissa Slotkin and Warsaw Mayor Rafal Trzaskowsk, Mr Jaishankar said he differs in the view that democracy is in trouble globally and highlighted India’s democracy.

Asked about his thoughts on Western democracy, he said, “I think I appeared to be an optimist in what is relatively a pessimistic panel if not room. I will begin by sticking up my finger and don’t take it badly, it is the index finger. This, the mark you see on my nail, is a mark of a person who has just voted. We just had an election in my state (Delhi). Last year, we had a national election. In Indian elections, roughly two-thirds of the eligible voters vote. At the national elections, (out of) the electorate of about 900 million, about 700 million voted. We count the votes in a single day.”

“From the time we started voting in the modern era, 20 per cent of more people vote today than they did decades ago. So, the first message is that somehow democracy is in trouble globally, worldwide, I am sorry, I have to differ with it. I mean, right now, we are living well. We are voting well. We are optimistic about the direction of our democracy and for us democracy is actually delivered,” he added.

He also said that “nobody disputes” the result after it is announced.

Mr Jaishankar also responded to Senator Slotkin, who on the panel said that democracy “doesn’t put food on your table”.

“Actually, in my part of the world, it does because we are a democratic society, we give nutrition support, and food to 800 million people and for whom that is a matter of how healthy they are and how full their stomachs are. The point I want to make is look different parts of the world are going through different conversations. Please do not assume that this is a kind of universal phenomenon, it is not,” he said.

“There are parts where it is working well, maybe there are parts where it’s not and the parts which are not, I think people need to have honest conversations about why it is not,” he added.

Asked whether nations in the Global South still aspire to a democratic system and the model that would attract people, Mr Jaishankar said, “Look, to an extent, all big countries are unique to an extent. But, we would certainly hope, I mean to the extent, we think of democracy as a universal aspiration, ideally a reality, but at least an aspiration, in large part because India chose a democratic model after independence and it chose a democratic model because we had fundamentally a consultative pluralistic society.” 

He also said there was a time when the West “treated democracy as a Western characteristic” and “was busy encouraging” non-democratic forces in the Global South.

“It (West) still does. I can point to some very recent ones where everything that you say you value at home, you don’t practice abroad. So, I do think the rest of the Global South will view the successes, shortcomings and the responses of other countries,” he said.

He also said India, despite “all the challenges” it faced, even at a low income, “stayed true” to the democratic model. 

“When you look at our part of the world, we are pretty much the only country that has done that. So, I think this is something the West should look at because if you do want democracy eventually to prevail, it important the West also embraces the successful models outside the West,” he said.






Source link

Continue Reading

Top Stories

Top Defence Expert To NDTV

CHANNEL TODAY BROADCASTING CORPORATION

Published

on



After Donald Trump announced his plans to initiate peace talks between  Russia and Ukraine following his phone calls with leaders of the respective countries, US Vice President JD Vance met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference on Friday and said Washington is targeting a “durable and lasting peace” in Ukraine.

NDTV spoke to the defence editor of The Economist, Shashank Joshi, one of the closest observers of the ongoing war, to understand how the peace talks are likely to progress as well as their larger geopolitical ramifications. 

To a question on where Russia stands on the deal, Mr Joshi replied, “So far, the good news for the Russians is that they have had a series of unilateral concessions upfront from the Americans – No NATO membership in Ukraine, no US support for European troops in Ukraine and no NATO Article 5 support for those troops.”

Article 5 of US-led NATO provides that if an ally is the victim of an armed attack, every other member of the alliance will consider this act of violence an armed attack against all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the ally attacked.

Mr Joshi said Trump saying we should have Russia back in the G7 has made Kremlin “delighted”. However, Mr Joshi said at the Munich Security Conference, “JD Vance will deliver a message that says to the Russians as well if you don’t play nice, we can also up the pressure on you.” 

To a question on what lies for Ukraine in the US-brokered deal, he said, They recognise they’re not going to get Crimea back. For them, what is more, important than getting Donetsk, Luhansk and Donbas back is the security guarantee. He said for Ukraine, territory is not the core of the discussion, even though it is profoundly important to them but how to ensure Russia never invades them again will be central to the peace deal.

After meeting the Ukrainian President, US Vice President JD Vance said, “We want the war to come to a close, we want the killing to stop, but we want to achieve a durable, lasting peace, not the kind of peace that’s going to have Eastern Europe in conflict just a couple years down the road.”

Zelensky called it a “good conversation”, saying the encounter with Vance was “our first meeting, not last, I’m sure”. “We are ready to move as quickly as possible towards a real and guaranteed peace,” Zelensky wrote later on X, adding that an envoy from Washington would visit Kyiv. 

Options For Ukraine?

The defence expert said it would leave Zelensky casting around some other options. He said “The Americans seem to be ruling out NATO membership, although, with Trump, you never say never,” adding that he “wouldn’t rule out the option of European troops in Ukraine as the French are pushing for it.” 

Earlier, Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth appeared to rule out Ukraine joining NATO or retaking all of its territory.

Despite scepticism from some countries, the option of European troops in Ukraine is on the table, Mr Joshi said.

“But I think we’re probably heading towards the third option, which is we are not going to give you Article 5 NATO-type security guarantees that say we will come to your aid and intervene, but we will arm you very heavily with billions of dollars worth of weapons so you can defend yourself against Russia,” he added.

Political Implication On Zelensky?

Mr Joshi said Zelensky is in trouble since he is struggling politically inside Ukraine and the Americans are pushing the idea of early elections, which also “horrifies” many in the Ukrainian opposition who know this would be “exploited by the Russians”. 

“If a bad deal is imposed on Zelensky by the US on the pain of withdrawal of aid, the Ukrainian President could find himself in a difficult spot and could face grave political difficulty and his government could fall. We could see a protest, and dissent from the Ukrainian armed forces as well,” he added.

European nations are worried about being frozen out of talks to end the war, Mr Joshi said, adding that “the great worry for them is that Trump will begin talking to the Russians before he has even spoken to the Ukrainians and them.”

Speaking earlier in the day, JD Vance said, “Of course, they should be at the table”. He added, however, that European nations needed to share more of the burden for Europe’s defence.

The president is not going to go in this (the peace talks) with blinders on,” Vance was quoted as saying in the Wall Street Journal. “He’s going to say, ‘Everything is on the table, let’s make a deal,'” US Vice President added.

Zelensky has played down the fear that Trump was leaving Kyiv in the cold and said the US President had given him his personal number when they spoke.

“If he will choose our side, and if he will not be in the middle, I think he will pressure and he will push Putin to stop the war,” Zelensky said. 

Kyiv has held talks over granting access to its rare mineral deposits in return for future US security support in a bid to keep the US close




Source link

Continue Reading

Trending