Latest news with #G.Sampath
The Hindu
11 hours ago
- Business
- The Hindu
Madras High Court grants interim stay to G.O. on minimum wages for hosiery workers
The Madras High Court has granted interim stay to implementation of a government order issued by the Tamil Nadu government in February this year regarding minimum wages for workers in the garment industries in Tiruppur. Trade union sources said the Hosiery Minimum Wages Act 1960 was revised in 2016 and in 2018 a clause of domestic knitwear workers was added to it. In January last year, the government issued a draft on fixing minimum wages for the garment unit workers based on the Hosiery Minimum Wages Act. The final order was released in February this year. However, according to the new order, the workers will suffer a DA reduction of ₹1,700 a month. The trade unions challenged this order in the High Court and the Court has issued a stay. The CITU banian worker union general secretary in Tiruppur G. Sampath said the garment unit workers were mostly paid based on a tripartite wage agreement involving the managements and the trade unions. However, there were issues in the way the minimum wages had been calculated. The new order was applicable to workers in the domestic and export units. Since a monthly reduction of ₹1,700 would hit the workers, it was decided to go to the court. 'We need to follow up the case closely and ensure that the workers get the right wages,' he said.
The Hindu
02-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Is a candidate winning an election ‘unopposed' unconstitutional?
Is a candidate winning an election 'unopposed' unconstitutional? According to Section 53 (2) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, if there is only candidate contesting an election, then she can be declared elected unopposed. Now a legal think tank, the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy has filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of this provision. It cites the 2013 order of the Supreme Court which held that the right to cast a negative vote by choosing 'NOTA' was protected under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. It argues that this right is independent of how many candidates are contesting – therefore, not holding the election on the grounds that there is only one candidate deprives voters of this right. Last week, the Supreme Court, while hearing this petition, suggested that in cases where there is only one candidate, there could be a requirement that the candidate should win a prescribed minimum of vote share – be it 20% or 25% or whatever – in order to be declared as elected. But the Election Commission seems keen to retain the status quo, arguing that cases of candidates winning unopposed are rare and therefore the court should not entertain such a petition. Is the Election Commission right? What if the phenomenon of candidates standing unopposed becomes more widespread in the future? What happens to the NOTA option then? Guest: Arghya Sengupta, Founder and Research Director at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, Delhi. Host: G. Sampath, Social Affairs Editor, The Hindu. Edited by Shivaraj S and Sharada Venkatasubramnian Listen to more In Focus podcasts:
