After LLB what to do LLM or MBA

By A.N. Sabri

Although, advocacy is considered as a noble profession, some students pick law not as their first choice but as a last option. During the last semester such students get confuse about their career options. They perplexed many times while thinking what to do after completion of Law graduation.

Although, few want to do LLM some want to opt for MBA. I have been asked many questions from law students whether they should go for LLM or MBA. Some ask whether they should join practice or do LLM.

The choice depends on many factors. What is the in interest of the student and what he wants to do? While I was in my last semester of BALLB, Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M.Ahmadi ( Retd.) who was the Chief Justice of India, was Chief Guest of farewell party. I still recollect his words. He said now a days corporates are giving very lucrative packages, but always remember practice has its own charm. So, one should carefully choose his option. Now, I come to the main question, practice, LLM or MBA. As already stated above, it depends on the personally and interest of the student. One who wants to go into litigation LLM may not help a more. However, one who wants to go in academics LLM is must. Students who want to go for judiciary for them LLM may be a good option. While doing the LLM they can have ample time and opportunity to pursue their dream of judiciary.

The next question is LLM or MBA. To my understanding MBA is quite different thing. MBA in finance and marketing may not help. However, if someone has business background it may help. A student who want to start a corporate practice or wants to join corporate MBA can be a good option.  

Needless to say, after the Law graduation there are ample opportunities apart from the legal practice. Public Prosecutor, Judicial officer, Law officers in Govt. and Corporate, Bank and PSU are few glaring examples.

To sum up, I can say that before opting LLM or MBA all the factors stated above should be carefully considered.  



First Information Report (FIR)

First Information report commonly known as the FIR is the first report about the commission of the cognizable offence to the police officer, which is reduced to writing by such police officer. The offences have been divided in two categories i.e. cognizable offence and non -cognizable offence. Cognizable offences are those offences which are serious in nature and police may arrest the person without warrant. FIR can be lodge only in the cognizable offences. FIR is an important document which reaches the police first in point of time and set the criminal justice in motion and police starts investigation on it.
Normally the victim or his relatives lodge a complaint against offender. However, any person who has information regarding commission of a cognizable offence can lodge an FIR. Section 154 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973, prescribes the procedure to lodge an FIR. An FIR may be given orally or on telephone, but the same shall be reduced to writing by the police officer whom it is given. However, the rumors or the absurd information on telephone is not an FIR. The contents of the information must be clear giving the correct particulars about the time and place of incidence,  name of informant and name of offender, if the same are known. If the FIR is given orally by a person and reduced to writing by a police officer, the same shall be read over to the informant. The complaint should be signed or the thumb impression should be put on it. A Copy of the information is provided to the informant free of cost.
 The FIR should be given as soon as possible as the delay in the lodging of an FIR may go against the victim as the same raises doubts about the correctness of the facts stated in the FIR. The contents of FIR can be used in the evidence except for the purpose of corroborating and contradicting the informant.
If the information is not recorded by the officer in-charge of police station, the substance of such information in writing may be send to the superintendent of the police concerned by post and if he is satisfied with the complaint he can direct the investigation. If no action is taken by Superintendent of the police, complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C1973 can be filed before a magistrate stating the substance of FIR and remedy exhausted i.e. failure of police to registered the FIR. The magistrate, if satisfied that a prima facie case is made out on such complaint can pass an order for investigation and registration of FIR. A complaint to the human right Commission can also be made if the police failed to enforce the law or do it in the bias or corrupt manner.
Azeez Nazar Sabri

Labour Cess under BOCW Act,1996

The Building and other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and The Building and other construction workers’ Welfare Cess Act, 1996 were passed by the Parliament in the year 1996 and subsequently “the building and other construction workers’ (Regulation of employment and conditions of service) central Rules and The Building and other construction workers welfare Cess Rules were framed.
In building and other construction works more than tens of millions of workers are engaged, who are exposed to higher risk of life and limb. These workers are one of the most vulnerable segments of the unorganized labour and don’t get basic amenities and social security. These twin Acts were enacted with an object to regulate the employment and conditions of the service of building and other construction workers and to provide for their safety, health and welfare measures.
The scheme of the BOCW (Regulation of Employment and conditions of Service) Act, 1996 is that it empowers the Central Government and the State Governments to constitute Welfare Boards to provide and monitor social security schemes and welfare measures for the benefit of the building and other construction workers. As per the section 1(4) the BOCW Act applies to every establishment which employs, or had employed on any day of the preceding twelve months, ten or more building workers in any building or construction work. Section 2 (d) of the Act defines “the building and other construction works”. Section 7 of the Act requires every employer in relation to an establishment to which the BOCW Act applies to get such establishment registered. Section 10 makes this requirement mandatory and therefore, without such registration, the employer of an establishment, to which the BOCW Act applies, cannot employ building workers.
Chapter IV of the BOCW Act contains provisions stipulating the registration of building workers as beneficiaries and requires certain contributions to be made by such beneficiary at such rate per month as may be specified by the State Government. Where the worker is unable to pay his contribution due to any financial hardship, the Board can waive the payment of such contribution for a period not exceeding three months at a time.
Section 18 sets out the constitution of State Welfare board. Under the provision of the section 18 every State Govt. is required to constitute the Welfare Board. Section 22 stipulates the provisions regarding functions of the Building and Other Construction Workers’ Welfare Boards. Section 24 sets out the provision for the constitution of the Welfare Fund and its application.
Chapter VI of the BOCW Act contains provisions relating to the safety, health and welfare of the construction workers.
The Building and other construction workers’ welfare Cess Act’1996 was enacted with an object to provide for the levy and collection of a Cess on the cost of construction incurred by the employers with a view to augmenting the resources of the Building and other construction Workers’ welfare Boards constituted under the section 18 of the Building and other construction Workers’ (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act’1996.
Section 3 of the BOCW Cess Act setout the provisions for levy and collection of Cess at such rate not exceeding two percent, but not less than one percent of the cost of the construction incurred by the Employer. Rule 4 of the Building and other construction workers’ welfare Cess Rules, 1998 makes it mandatory for deduction of Cess payable at the notified rates from the bills paid for the building and other construction work of a Government or a Public Sector Undertaking. Rule 5 prescribes the manner in which the proceeds of Cess collected under Rule 4 shall be transferred by such Government office, Public Sector Undertakings, local authority, or Cess collector, to the Board. The powers of the Assessing Officer and the Board of Assessment are enumerated in Rules 7 to 14 of the Cess Rules.
Although the twin Acts were enacted in 1996, but a majority of states failed to implement the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Condition of Service) Act, 1996, and the Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Cess Act, 1996 untill 2002, when Government of NCT of Delhi constituted the Delhi Building and Other Construction Workers Welfare Board vide Notification No. DLC/CLA/BCW/02/596 dated 2nd September, 2002. A PIL was filed by an NGO National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour’ (NCC-CL) in the Supreme Court for implementation of the Twin Acts.
On the direction of the Supreme Court issued in the matter of National Campaign Committee for Central Legislation on Construction Labour’ (NCC-CL) most of the states has constituted the Labour Welfare Board and started collecting Cess @ 1% of the Construction Cost where the construction cost is more than 10 Lacs.
The constitutional validity of the BOCW Act was also challenged by the Builders Association in the Builders Association of India vs Union of India, (2007) 139 DLT 578. The Division of the Delhi High court upheld that the BOCW Act, the Cess Act, 1998 Central Rules and the 2002 Delhi Rules were constitutionally valid.
The supreme court of India in civil appeal no. 1830 0f 2008 entitled M/S. Dewan Chand Builders Contractors versus Union of India  has also upheld the constitutional validity of the twin Acts.
Although the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional validity of the twin Acts but the issue regarding effective date of the Cess Act is still unresolved. The Supreme Court in Dewan Chand Builder Case a view has been taken that the Cess Act and the Cess Rules are operative in the whole of NCT of Delhi w.e.f. January, 2002. But in SLP (C) 33486-33488 of 2011 Supreme Court has observed that the as per Section 1(3) of BOCW Act provides that the Act shall be deemed to have been come into force on 1st day of March’1996.
Although BOCW Acts came into force in 1996 but due to late implementation of the same by states on different dates has given rise to various disputes between principle employer and contractors  regarding liability of Cess on the ground of subsequent legislation. The contention of the Principle Employers is that the Act came into force on 01st March, 1996 and after this date it was duly of the Contractor to pay Cess, except otherwise agreed in contract,  even the same was notified by the States on later date. On the other side contention of the Contractors is that the reckoning date should be from the date of Sates notified the same. The matter is still pending in the Supreme Court.

Azeez Nazar Sabri

After LLB what to do LLM or MBA

By A.N. Sabri Although, advocacy is considered as a noble profession, some students pick law not as their first choice but as a last optio...