Supreme Court: Non-Signatory Can Be Bound By an Agreement if Involved in Performing the Contract  ||  Supreme Court: 'Washed-Off Theory' Inapplicable in Assessing Employee Retention Suitability  ||  SC Directs States/UTs to Grant Ex-Servicemen Quota to Cadets Disabled 40% or More in Training  ||  Delhi High Court Quashed Cases over Allegations of Excess Lead Content in Maggi Noodles  ||  Madras High Court: Advocates Cannot Hinder Police From Producing Arrested Lawyers Before a Court  ||  Allahabad HC Awarded Rs. 4.75 Lakh Compensation Over Illegal Vehicle Confiscation in a Beef Case  ||  Allahabad High Court: Strong Suspicion, Not Proof of Guilt, is Sufficient to Frame Charges  ||  Delhi HC: Prior Sanction Not Required Where Cognizance Preceded 2018 PC Act Amendment  ||  Bombay High Court: The Notion of a "Perfect Victim" in Rape Cases is a Myth  ||  Allahabad High Court: Prior Agreement With Inquiry Report Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings    

MHA clarifies Misplaced Apprehensions of Industry Associations regarding Legal liability on Company CEOs, if employees found COVID-19 positive- (Press Information Bureau) (23 Apr 2020)

MANU/PIBU/1022/2020

Civil

No Separate/Fresh Permissions required from Authorities for Industries already permitted to operate prior to 15.04.2020, in areas falling outside Containment Zones Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), on 15.04.2020, had issued an order to exempt certain activities under the consolidated revised guidelines to fight COVID-19, in certain areas not included in hotspots/containment zones.

Along with these guidelines, National Directives for COVID-19 Management and Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for social distancing and hygiene measures to be followed by offices, workplaces, factories and other establishments have also been specified. The workplaces and industrial and commercial establishments are required to follow these guidelines, as well as standard health protocols as notified by Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW).

Some apprehensions, based on wrong interpretation of the guidelines, have been raised in the media and by some companies having manufacturing facilities. Some of these are as under:

States may take legal action, including imprisonment of CEO, in case a COVID-19 positive employee is found in the factory.

In Such a situation, the premises Of the factory would be sealed for 3 months.

In case of non-compliance of precautionary measures, the factory may be closed down for 2 days and may be allowed to restart after full compliance.

It is clarified that there is no such clause in the consolidated revised guidelines and therefore there is no basis for such misplaced apprehensions. It is further clarified that the activities allowed under the consolidated revised guidelines dated 15.04.2020 have subsumed all the earlier activities that were permitted under the earlier guidelines issued on 24.03. 2020 (including those permitted under the addendums), in addition to certain new activities that have also been permitted. Hence, the consolidated revised guidelines do not curtail the exemptions already provided earlier, unless the exempted activity falls within a containment zone.

Therefore, no separate/ fresh permissions are required from authorities for industries already permitted to operate prior to 15.04.2020, in areas falling outside containment zones. It is emphasized that subject to compliance with the SOP on social distancing, no fresh license or statutory approval is required for resumption of permitted activities during the lockdown period.

MHA in a communication to all States/UTs has requested them that the industrial field establishments and field offices may be apprised of the guidelines of lockdown measures, which should be followed to prevent the spread of epidemic. It has also been directed that these should not be misused to harass the management of any manufacturing/ commercial establishments.

Tags : CLARIFICATION   APPREHENSIONS   LEGAL LIABILITY   COMPANY CEOS  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved