- Login | Register
- Current Issue
- Most Read
- Back Issues
The Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) is preparing to bid farewell to Lucknow as the staff members on Wednesday claimed they
Infosys Co-Founder and investor Kris Gopalakrishnan today said the country may see 10,000 to 1 lakh jobs being created in
Technology giant Microsoft is undertaking a major reorganisation in its sales and marketing units that will likely see the
The Supreme Court on Thursday held that government jobs or admissions secured under reserved category by using forged cast
Despite the government seeking to deflect criticism that higher economic growth is not creating jobs, the labour departmen
The US has started rolling out for India its Global Entry programme which allows for expedited clearance of pre-approved,
US President Donald Trump today said a recent order for 100 new aircraft placed by an Indian airline will create thousands
Nike wants to be more nimble on its feet.
The sneaker maker said today that it plans to sell more shoes directly to
Job market activity registered a decline of 4 per cent in May led by the IT-software industry that was hit the most and th
The Congress today hit out at the BJP-led NDA government at the Centre, on its third anniversary, accusing it of having fa
P. Sainath in the Hindu
In a complex and layered verdict driven by many factors, one factor seems clear: most governments that stressed welfarist measures — particularly cheap rice and employment — gained in last month’s election results. This was regardless of which party was leading them — the Congress, the BJP, the BJD, the DMK or any other. Some of these measures might not have led to large numbers of people going out to vote for those governments. But they at least lowered hostility levels amongst the voters in a hungry nation. As Madhura Swaminathan points out, the FAO data confirm that “no country comes close to India in terms of the absolute number of people living in chronic hunger.”
Am really kicking myself that it did not occur to me to check who had decided a moustache case that had provided much mirth in our office.
And to think that it was decided, or at least reported, just a day after the controversial beard case, by the same SC bench with presumably the same Justice Katju acting as the spokesperson.
Totally escaped me. Here it is. At least, the judges are consistent in their rulings:
"If it is your family custom, keep it within the family. But when you have joined an organisation you have to to follow ," a bench of Justices RV Raveendran and Markandeya Katju quipped, dismissing Victor De's petition challenging his termination by the public sector airlines authorities.
...The apex court rejected counsel Sanjiv Sen's argument that Victor De cannot be discriminated against by the national carrier as the operation manuals of the Aircraft Act 1953 permitted the members of the Sikh community to sport beards and moustache.
"For the Sikhs sporting a moustache or beard is an indispensable part of his religion. But not for you," the bench observed.
The bench said that the airline has every right to insist that the flight crew follow certain etiquette and dress code for presenting a smart appearance before the passengers in the aircraft.
According to the apex court, even hostesses are not permitted to leave open their plait lest hair find their way into the food and beverages served to passengers. "There is nothing wrong in such rules otherwise some hair might even fall on the food served to the passengers," the bench said.
The apex court also said sporting a long moustache could intimidate children travelling in the aircraft. "There is also a feeling of children being apprehensive of the person," the apex court said.
See here: A Moustache Can Cost You Your Job