ASHWINI A. writes from Bangalore: Since the buck goes all the way to the top, those at the top cannot wash their hands off of what happens all the way down to the last man and woman. That’s the small but significant inference to make of a Supreme Court ruling, yesterday, permitting the prosecution of Hewlett-Packard managing director Som Mittal in the rape and murder of Pratibha Srikantamurthy.
When Pratibha, an employee of the BPO outfit HP Globalsoft had been abducted, raped and murdered by the driver of a cab hired by the company in December 2005, Mittal, then CEO of HP and now president of the industry umbrella body Nasscom, had arrogantly sought to behave as if neither he nor his company had any responsibility in the matter, since they had contracted out the transport of employees to an outside vendor.
“This has been a most unfortunate incident. It has nothing to do with the company. It is a stray, one-off incident. We are trying to strengthen the security for our employees in consultation with the police,” Mittal was quoted as saying by the New Indian Express.
When the metropolitan court in Bangalore, took cognisance of a complaint filed against Mittal, under sections 25 and 30 (3) of the Karnataka Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961, for allegedly showing laxity in safety and security of women workers deployed in night shifts, Mittal moved the High Court.
When the HC ruled against him, Mittal moved the Supreme Court. With the SC ruling against him, Mittal will now have to appear in court where he will doubtless underline the watertight steps taken by the company to make the workplace safer but which had been unfortunately breached in the case on hand.
The apex court has not commented on the merits of the case, but in decreeing that the top man of the company cannot escape scrutiny even if the transport was being handled by lower lings and outside contractors, the SC has sent a silent but stern message: that companies and their helmsmen are responsible for the acts and actions of even those to whom they contract work when it involves their employees.
At one level, the SC ruling is a nice wake-up for BPO, IT and ITES companies across the nation which contract out non-core tasks to outside contractors. Diligent readers will fondly remember T.K. Kurien, the chieftain of Wipro BPO had chosen to similarly deal with the abduction and death of a young employee Jyoti Chowdhary in Poona.
At another level, it brings to the fore another touchy issue: where does the blame rest for the acts and actions of the hired goons of private banks, who physically rough up defaulters, mentally torture their relatives, and often times even cause the deaths and suicides? Like, for example, you-know-who.
Corporate chiefs detest being hauled up for acts of omission and lawlessness by their employees or agents but have no qualms in profiting from their actions. The SC ruling puts the onus of responsibility and accountability on the CEOs—something they are moving heaven and earth to avoid.
Also read: For Wipro, is rape and murder a Sigma Six number?
Does anyone know of nationwide statistics for rape while commuting to/from work or at the work place. I suspect there might be a couple of industries like real estate, construction, tea/coffee and other farm labour, textile exports etc – i.e. ones with relatively higher percentage of female workers, where rape is not unheard of. Punishing HP or Som Mittal for their insensitive statements is not going to help women in those sectors. Nor does it help the reputation of the courts. The only people who will be happy will be the jholnawalas and middle aged ‘scotch’ socialist journalists (hint, hint).
I think women workers in garment companies are the exploited though am not sure of rape there…Also, its not about punishing Som Mittal or XYZ…but about CEOs being made to take responsibility to the to the crimes / offences committed by its staff or vendors they use.
If this is the case then why courts are silent on issues like train accidents, why not book a case against rail mantri? There are so many case of kidnapping, rape and death in PSU companies, why not haul up the respective mantri? For your information I am neither an engineer or associated with BPO/call centre.
Yes, there are many industries where women are exploited, and like Andy pointed out, the garment industry is a major one. That notwithstanding, punishing Mr. Mittal for his insensitivity at a point when he should have taken the moral responsibility, is huge. It is a prosecution of a celebrity if you will, to send a message.
Hopefully this will translate into tighter background checks and firmer measures. HP was lax in their vendor contracting and shares the responsibility for the mishap.
When Mr.Mittal rubs shoulders with the best in the world, the fact that the highest court in the state and then the country allowed his prosecution will be the elephant in the room. If I were dealing with a CEO and knew he sourced some areas of the development to vendors(say a critical hardware chip), something like this is a big red flag of how he will address issues arising out of it — pass the buck, try to wash hands off ?
I am relieved that the Supreme Court nailed the Corporate Mittal. This verdict ensures that MNCs cannot get away by ‘outsourcing’ their responsibilities. I believe all vehicles with employees riding on them now have a radio beacon and the drivers are supposed to sign in (radio call sign) at regular intervals.
On the social side of the problem, many of these ladies (girls) are vulnerable and these drivers are always on the ‘look out’. May be some social organization or help line should help them out. Or putting it simply do they want to have some one like a driver Sadiq or Kariayanna or Joesph in their lives for ever?
Just wondering if the same principle of justice holds good for the Ministers too! For example, if a similar incidence occurs in KSRTC, will the Transport Minister be held accountable?
seems to me like the supreme court is also full of doofuses
The law should take its course and this som mittal fellow should be nailed for his mistakes and put away in jail for at least a year
Beyond throwing the CEO’s schedule in a tizzy, appearing in court in this case or any other will do little to help matters. If a CEO is going to be answerable for every pick up and drop, for every lizard that dropped into a lunch, then CEOs will have to spend a tenth of their time in courts. Some of us may think they deserve it, but what after that?
We live in the age of delegation. Companies recruit people, hire contractors, etc, in the belief that they know their job. Most times they do, sometimes they don’t. To hold the CEO responsible is downright silly because they cannot micromanage everything. What the courts should have been looking at is a more concrete solution to a problem that has become national. All it has done by sending Som Mittal to court is to puff up the chests of those who would like to see CEOs in the witness box.
WOW! It is a war on the Mythical Corporate Personhood!
The court has only asked him to explain things, he hasn’t been convicted or anything! What does he have to fear?
It is quite blatant that, to save dime a many, most of these BPOs do not spend on necessary stuff!
Justice must prevail.
But ensure NGOs, Press- sometimes funded by foreign bodies (to suit their interest) don’t go overboard and harm Indian BPO industry.
There are people, interest groups in the west, outside India who want to disrepute, destroy Indian BPO industry.
Any half witted lawyer can tell you this – In an agent (outsourcee) – owner (outsourcer) relationship, the owner is bound by as well as liable to all acts of that agent related to the owner’s business. That is the essence of an agency relationship.
Coming to this post’s 2nd topic of banks hiring goons to brutalize defaulters; such acts are endorsed by our Government of India, as is evident from the conferment of Padma Vibhushan to the headman of one such bank. Hope he will not be hauled to the court one of these days, lest the Padma Vibhushan be soiled, as the goon outsourcees may overdo their bit.
Atmasakshi,
The CEO is responsible for the actions and indirect side effects of his minions and outsourced parties. It is nothing to do with micromanagement.
So let say you outsource your work to a company which employs child labour. It is your duty to have a process to keep a track of this and prevent this from happening. This is what companies do worldwide. And are punished if they dont. Enron etc. and now Walmart etc. That is why a CEO is paid the kind of salary he is. Not to just be a figurehead and think his job is just to delegate everything and when something happens explain it away saying – ‘Oh me or my direct reportees didnt do it’.
What is the difference between an organized crime syndicate and a business. The crime boss can say – naan summe delegate maadthini, nam baaysu yella kelasa nodkondthare.
The final responsibility towards society lies with the management and the CEO. Of course internally the CEO can do anything – fire his operations guy, take the outsourced party to court if they are found lacking etc.
But looks like in the case of these BPOs – they just dont care as long as they can just wash the blood off their hands. Like dons.
And a rape and murder of an employee being sent home by company arranged accomodation – is not a lizard found in a lunch box…
This is exactly what I wrote when Wipro incident happened. As per factory act 1948 the factory manager can be booked for negligence on any incident one hour prior to, and one hour after, work time.
http://muthry4prez.wordpress.com/2007/11/06/numbers-are-wrong-mr-kurien/
Company CEO does not become responsible. It is the factory manager who becomes responsible. If HP did not have a factory manager then only CEO becomes responsible.
In fact manufacturing industries have always had to abide by these rules. It is only that IT industries that do not know the rules because most of head honchos in IT were never in manufacturing.
Traditionally manufacturing industries in India had a scape goat designation called Factory Manager cum Safety Officer. That is like CEO and Policeman in one post!!!
Narayana avre
This might be a stupid question but do BPOs fit into the definition of factories? Shouldn’t there be a manufacturing process for them to come under 1948 factories act?
Some interesting points are being made here. Of course, it could be argued that the CEO is responsible. But the question is to what extent he or she would be liable. It would be necessary to quantify that. I do not believe that is easy. Many years ago there was an explosion at a chemical factory. It was rumoured that someone (an attendant) lit a beedi somewhere in the premises which caused this. This was a clear case for the factory manager to be held responsible and liable. Fast forward to a few years ago where some employees in a BPO used financial information of clients and caused a lot of grief. Here too someone could be held directly accountable.
In the present example, I’m not sure if any rule specifies the liability of the head of the company for an act outside the premises that too by a third party contracted by the company. Direct punitive action may not be fair as it could be biased and somebody innocent could be made a scapegoat. The best action that could be taken in my opinion is imposition of a fine for the company, and harsher action against the third party in addition to the punishment for the culprit. The fine could be used to compensate the victim.
Aruna Avare,
When it comes to law anything gray is to be treated as Black.
I am not a lawyer. But I read here http://dgfasli.nic.in/working_group/chap_5.htm that software companies have to be registered with factories inspectorate.
I also remember seeing nameplates in many IT offices that were in the format prescribed by factories act.
Police do not arrest CEO but are supposed to arrest Factory Manager as mentioned in that Board. If the board is not present, CEO is charged..
A CEO of a software /BPO MNC should not be held accountable? Are they only reponsible for making profits and should not be disturbed with safety issues? Me has witnessed the blind attitude of managements who were only interested squeezing the penny when safety was concerned. The incident did serve as a wake up call, but even now hundreds of employees have to fend for themselves from muggers and rash driving cabs after working late to meet unrealistic deadlines and late night conference calls.
The CEO of a company, if he is outsourcing transport of his employees should bind the transporter into an SLA with penal clauses if he doesn’t ensure the safety of his employees. It’s good that Som Mital is being asked to go to court. His peers, if they are smart will learn the lesson
AlWAYS, but always nail the TOP guy. Only then will there be any improvement, accountability and “care”. Workers need to be cared for…HR is not a management monopoly. No HR department should exist without an employee/employees representative/representation…on a par with the HR chief. All letters of employment should explicitly take responsibility of an employee’s health, security and well-being in the course of work, travel to and fro and during other business transactions. You cannot outsource blame, I mean accountability.