Firms responsible for employee security

MUMBAI, INDIA: December 13, 2005 would be etched in the memory of Som Mittal, the Chief of NASSCOM (National Association of Software and Services Companies).

It was on that day that Pratibha Srikanth Murthy -- an employee in Hewlett Packard GlobalSoft, where Mittal was serving as the Managing Director -- was raped and killed.

This gruesome episode brought out the susceptibility and deficiency of personal safety of employees in the BPO domain.

The union government revised the Factories Act during that year to facilitate female employees to work in night shifts at SEZ (Special Economic Zones).

The Factories Act Amendment permits women employees to work from 10 pm to 6 am but asks the employer to ensure the safety of the employees at work and during commuting.

In Pratibha’s case, she was tricked by her driver Shiv Kumar, who drove her to a remote area and killed her after raping her in the wee hours of the day.

The company had categorically denied that the accused was part of its driver fleet but the police have blamed the company for not providing sufficient protection.

Susant Mahapatra, Inspector General of Police-Economic Offences—Government of Karnataka had then said, “We had requested the BPO companies to avoid women working in the night shift.”

Mahapatra added that Information Technology Act doesn’t contain any security measures for IT employees.

In this entire affair, HP was accused for breaching a Karnataka Government order of 2002, which bans employing women in night shifts. Karnataka High Court had then ordered Mittal’s trial in the case.

Mittal then appealed in the Supreme Court, which rejected it on Thursday. This would mean that the police now have the required license to go ahead with an FIR against Mittal and get him prosecuted.

What the experts say?



Speaking to CyberMedia News, Ananth Narasimha Sastry, Senior Advocate, Karnataka High Court said, “The security by the company according to the rules is provided between the transits- that is between the cross where one is picked till the office. If one deviates from this route, company is not responsible for an individual security. This comes under workable compensation act.”

He added: “In Pratibha murder case this rule was violated. Looks like she walked into the trap. The driver was changed, she didn’t even do regular security check like asking ID card of the driver and other details.”

Remember Jyoti Chaudhury?



It may be recalled that Jyoti Chaudhury, an employee with Wipro Spectramind, was allegedly assaulted sexually and killed, and her body was later found off the Mumbai-Pune highway in November 2007.

What next?

HP is leaving no stone unturned to come clean in this event and came out with a statement following the ruling of the SC which read: “HP India would like to clarify that the Supreme Court has not pronounced either Mittal or HP guilty on any count. It has only directed Mittal to urge all contentions as available under law before the trial court. Since the matter is sub-judice, HP would not like to comment on any specifics related to the case”

Officials from NASSCOM did not want to comment on this and industry experts are playing the let-the-law-takes-its-course game.

But that did not deter Arisha, a BPO employee with a prominent BPO entity in Mumbai to maintain, “The top management is primarily responsible for such mishaps and this is a lesson for those who take things for granted!”

This whole incident must be an eye-opener not just for the organizations in the BPO space but companies in general to provide ample security for their employees in the policy level as well as at the implementation level.

(With inputs from Dheeksha Rabindra in Bangalore)