Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Vicarious liability refers to the liability cast on the employers for the torts crime committed by his employee at the time of the employment. The two important/essentials pre-requisites to establish the vicarious liability are: the existence of an employer-employee relationship and commission of the tort by an employee while acting under the course of employment. Various bases on which the theory of vicarious liability has been justified are :
1. Facilitates access to the inside of an enterprise, ensuring that the victim is not deprived of any sort of compensation.
2. Doctrine of loss distribution; people benefited from the enterprise who gave rise to the cause of action is also made liable for bearing the losses too.
INDIAN SCENARIO
There has been no powerful authority to form the theoretical basis for vicarious liability in India. The close connection test laid down in Lister has been quoted and approved by Allahabad High Court as well as Chhattisgarh High Court. The Sexual Harassment of Women At Workplace(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Act 2013 needs to be examined to appreciate the developments in India. The act provides an elaborate definition of who an employee and employer are and what scenario conducts sexual harassment. But, no vicarious liability can be cast on an employer when an employee is found to be guilty of sexually harassing another employee in their workplace.
Section 19 of the Act specifies the duties of the employer under the Act. Specifically, Clause (a) of the Section 19 states than an employer should provide a safe working environment at the workplace which also includes safety from the persons coming into contact at the workplace. If an employer fails to follow the rules prescribed by the act then he is punished with fine which may extend to Rs. 50,000/- as per the Section 26.
Section 26 of the Act imposes a penalty on the employer for failure to adhere to any of its provisions. According to Section 19(a), a provision of a safe working environment is an employers responsibility. Thus, the joint reading of both these section indicates that a women employee can file an action on the employer if another employee sexually harasses her on the ground that the employer has failed his responsibility to provide the safe working environment.
In the case of M/s ISG Novasoft Technologies Ltd. V. Gayathri Balaswamy, the respondent had filed a complaint of sexual harassment against the CEO and Vice President of the appellant company. The argument raised by the appellants was that in the case of an employee harassing his co-worker, then the only offence was against the employee and nit the employer. The question raised was would there be any question of vicarious liability of an employer in such case or not. The division bench of Madras High Court upheld the ruling of the Single Judge and rendered that ruling out the vicarious liability of an employer would be contrary to the public policy prevailing in India. The court observed that an employer’s failure to constitute an Internal Complaints Committee made him Vicariously liable.
The decision emerges a concept from the Act that implies vicarious liability of an employer if he fails to adhere to the requirements prescribed by the act. In the above case, there was a clear violation of the Act.
One cannot undermine the authority or power that an employment confers on a party whereas evaluating whether or not the wrongdoing committed was inside the scope of employment or not. different jurisdictions have taken consciousness of this and are upholding the vicarious liability of employers once there's a misuse of authority by a worker to delight in molestation. Thus, it's timed for us to acknowledge the vicarious liability of employers once an employee’s conduct that ends up in statutory offence is engendered by employment. it's no doubt that an analysis of the extent to that every such actus reus conduct was engendered by employment would need a factual analysis of every case. however, holding employers vicariously liable in cases wherever molestation is attributed to employment- connected events can solely commence AN era of enlarged responsibleness and observation of labour surroundings which might, within the long-term, aid in transferral down instances of molestation at the geographical point.
86540
103860
630
114
59824