TV
In an unusual incident, a court has decreed that a company reinstate a senior manager, who was dismissed after allegations of inappropriate conduct with a female colleague. Lin, accused of sexual misconduct after hugging and kissing a colleague named Shi on the office premises, challenged his dismissal in court.
Court Ruling and Context
In an unexpected turn, the court ruled in Lin's favour, requiring his reinstatement and compensation for lost wages, calculated at around Rs 1.34 crore (1.13 million yuan) per annum. This decision came as the court observed that the company's moral guidelines were not sufficiently binding and that Lin had not misused his authority for personal benefits.
The company, whose identity has not been disclosed, had previously relied on CCTV footage to substantiate its claims against Lin. However, the higher court found this insufficient, particularly after Shi defended Lin's conduct in court, asserting that their relationship was purely professional.
Implications and Comparisons with Indian Regulations
In India, such a case would be approached under the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act of 2013. The law mandates that an Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) should manage such allegations before any decision is made. An ICC might dismiss a case if the supposed victim, like Shi, testifies that the action was neither harassment nor an abuse of authority.
India's professional culture, which often frowns upon physical displays of affection in the workplace, might judge such actions harshly. Employees who feel unjustly dismissed can seek redress by taking legal action. While the judiciary may order compensation or reinstatement, the process can be protracted and arduous, and trade union influence in the private sector is limited.
Backstory and Legal Proceedings
The case dates back to 2017 when Lin first appealed against the initial lower court ruling supporting the company's decision. The Shanghai General Trade Union recently publicised this ruling to highlight labour rights awareness, though the reasons for the delayed disclosure remain unspecified.
