<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Lawmatters.in &#187; Employment and Labour</title>
	<atom:link href="http://lawmatters.in/content/category/employment-and-labour/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://lawmatters.in</link>
	<description>Things that matter in law and more</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:25:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Shipyard Slavery?</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/shipyard-slavery-473</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/shipyard-slavery-473#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Jun 2008 08:27:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment and Labour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Delhi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Human Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/shipyard-slavery-473.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reportedly, Signal International, a marine fabrication company, apparently recruited about 590 Indian workers though a Mumbai-based Dewan Consultants Pvt. Ltd.. About one hundred and twenty of these workers who went to the US later alleged that they had been treated &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/shipyard-slavery-473">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/shipyard-slavery-473/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Case of the Overweight Air Hostesses</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/the-case-of-the-overweight-air-hostesses</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/the-case-of-the-overweight-air-hostesses#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contracts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment and Labour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Delhi]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://beta.lawmatters.in/?p=351</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Four air hostesses, Sheela Joshi, Shivani Mathur, Anne Patricia Dyook and Kiran Chaudhary filed writ petitions against Indian Airlines Ltd. which had grounded them for being overweight and told them that they would be treated on leave if there is &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/the-case-of-the-overweight-air-hostesses">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/the-case-of-the-overweight-air-hostesses/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Govt. Officer Not Paid Extra for Extra Duties</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/govt-officer-not-paid-extra-for-extra-duties-453</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/govt-officer-not-paid-extra-for-extra-duties-453#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:45:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment and Labour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of India]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/govt-officer-not-paid-extra-for-extra-duties-453.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the case of C N Vasudevan v. Union of India decided on May 7, 2008, a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Sema and Katju denied a Government Officer any honorarium or remuneration for taking on additional duties &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/govt-officer-not-paid-extra-for-extra-duties-453">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/govt-officer-not-paid-extra-for-extra-duties-453/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What Constitutes 100% Disability?</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/what-constitutes-100-disability-437</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/what-constitutes-100-disability-437#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 May 2008 04:22:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment and Labour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of India]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/what-constitutes-100-disability-437.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[An amputation of the right leg up to the knee joint amounts to 100% disability ruled a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices Harjit Singh Bedi and Tarun Chatterjee in the case of K Janardhan v. United India Insurance &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/what-constitutes-100-disability-437">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/what-constitutes-100-disability-437/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No Arbitrary Punishments to Employees</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/no-arbitrary-punishments-to-employees-424</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/no-arbitrary-punishments-to-employees-424#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 May 2008 02:04:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cases]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment and Labour]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court of India]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/no-arbitrary-punishments-to-employees-424.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A (State) employer cannot award an arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable punishment to an employee ruled a Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices S. B. Sinha and Lokeshwar Singh Panta in the case of Man Singh v. State of Haryana &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/no-arbitrary-punishments-to-employees-424">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/no-arbitrary-punishments-to-employees-424/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Smoke-Free Laws and Employee Turnover</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/smokefree-laws-and-employee-turnover-150</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/smokefree-laws-and-employee-turnover-150#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 May 2008 10:41:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment and Labour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/smokefree-laws-and-employee-turnover-150.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A report in Contemporary Economic Policy examines the impact of smoke-free rules on the restaurant labor market according to the Hindu. While there have been a number of studies which show that smoke free rules do not hurt business, what &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/smokefree-laws-and-employee-turnover-150">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/smokefree-laws-and-employee-turnover-150/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employee Handbook</title>
		<link>http://lawmatters.in/content/employee-handbook-87</link>
		<comments>http://lawmatters.in/content/employee-handbook-87#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 04:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Law Matters</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Employment and Labour]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lawmatters.in/content/employee-handbook-87.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Extracts from the Employee Handbook of the LA Times: Rule 1. Use your best judgment. Rule 2. See Rule 1. Rule 7.1. If you use or abuse alcohol or drugs and fail to perform the duties required by your job &#8230; <a href="http://lawmatters.in/content/employee-handbook-87">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://lawmatters.in/content/employee-handbook-87/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

