Saturday, 22nd July, 2017
Snippets

Court allows women to gossip at work, men can join in too

08, Mar 2011 By Pagal Patrakar

New Delhi. On international Women’s Day, the Supreme Court of India has passed a historical judgment that will now allow employees, especially women, to gossip while working. In fact, the apex court has asked the HR department of companies to encourage “corporate gossiping and bitching” to improve working conditions and general well-being of the working class. The verdict came during the hearing of Shraddha Kumar vs. Pappu Plastic Works Private Limited.

“Criticizing a third person brings two people really close,” Justice Makarand Katju noted, “People share happiness and camaraderie when they come together to criticize someone else. All of us do this all the time. This can only improve teamwork at a workplace.”

Justice Katju also pointed out that one of the reasons Indian cricket team does well as a unit is because most of them gossip about Sreesanth and bitch about his ways in open.

Gossiping at work
Now employees would be able to gossip in open

“A company should not mind till such practices are improving the productivity of majority of the employees,” the verdict advised private and public sector undertakings to encourage corporate gossiping and bitching among their employees.

The court delivered the verdict while ruling in favor of an employee Shraddha Kumar, 28, who was laid off by her employer Pappu Plastic Works (PPW) for constantly gossiping about a senior manager in the company. PPW claimed that employee morale and trust had taken a hit due to actions of Shraddha, who told every employee in the company that the concerned manager used to smell his own socks while in his cabin.

“Forget about that manager; can you imagine how much happiness employees would have derived by just imagining the manager doing the act inside his cabin. Do you think their productivity would have taken a hit?” the court argued, “Yes, the productivity of the manager might have gone down a bit, but you should see the larger picture; overall the company benefits.”

The court clarified that even though the plaintiff in this case was a woman, the judgment was applicable and binding on men as well.