HC Relief For Wipro Chairman Azim Premji In Labour Law Case

google preferred source
x

The Allahabad high court has provided relief to Wipro Chairman Azim Premji by quashing criminal proceedings against him in a labour law violation case, citing a lack of direct involvement.

Azim Premji

IMAGE: Wipro Chairman. Azim Premji. Photograph: Anushree Fadnavis/Reuters

Key Points

  • Allahabad high court quashes criminal proceedings against Wipro Chairman Azim Premji.
  • The case involved alleged violations of labour laws at Wipro's Ghaziabad office.
  • The court set aside summons issued by a magistrate court to Premji and other officials.
  • The high court observed that top executives cannot be held criminally liable for technical violations without specific evidence of direct involvement.
  • The court found that the magistrate had not properly examined the factual aspects before issuing summons.
 

The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on Wednesday quashed criminal proceedings against Wipro Chairman Azim Premji and other senior company officials, initiated in connection with alleged violations of labour laws.

The court also set aside the summons issued by a magistrate court in the matter. The order was passed by Justice Jafeer Ahmad on a petition filed by Premji and others.

The case originated from a complaint filed by the labour department, alleging non-compliance with labour laws at Wipro's Ghaziabad office.

Acting on the complaint, a local magistrate court issued a summons to Premji and a few other company officials, following which the order was challenged before the high court.

In its judgment, the high court observed that in matters relating to technical violations of labour laws, top executives, such as a company chairman, cannot be held criminally liable unless there are specific allegations showing their direct involvement.

The court noted that the complaint failed to specify the chairman's role in the day-to-day functioning of the company or in ensuring labour law compliance.

The court, according to the order, held that the magistrate had not properly examined the factual aspects of the case before issuing the summons.