'How long can you stare at wife?': L&T head suggests 90-hour work week
New Delhi, Jan 9: Larsen & Toubro (L&T) Chairman S N Subrahmanyan sparked an online outrage with his comments advocating a 90-hour work week and suggesting that employees should even give up Sundays.
"How long can you stare at your wife," he is heard saying in a purported video address to employees where he urged them to spend less time at home and more in the office.
His remarks reignited the work-life balance debate, first triggered by Infosys Co-Founder Narayana Murthy's suggestion of a 70-hour work week.
"I regret I am not able to make you work on Sundays. If I can make you work on Sundays, I will be more happy, because I work on Sundays," Subrahmanyan is heard saying in an undated video circulating on social media.
"What do you do sitting at home? How long can you stare at your wife? How long can the wives stare at their husbands? Come on, get to the office and start working," he further said.
His comments drew criticism on social media with some asking how long could "employees stare at screens and fat*** managers?"
Soon after, L&T issued a clarification saying the chairman's remarks were in the context of extraordinary efforts required for achieving extraordinary outcomes for the nation.
"We believe this is India's decade, a time demanding collective dedication and effort to drive progress and realise our shared vision of becoming a developed nation.
"The chairman's remarks reflect this larger ambition, emphasising that extraordinary effort," L&T spokesperson said in a brief statement.
Stating that nation-building is at the core of L&T's mandate, it said for over eight decades, the company has been shaping India's infrastructure, industries, and technological capabilities.
"At L&T, we remain committed to fostering a culture where passion, purpose, and performance drive us forward," the spokesperson added.
In the video, Sumeet Chatterjee, Chief Communications Officer at L&T, is seen asking the chairman, "Why are L&T employees asked to work on Saturdays despite being a top conglomerate?"
In response, the chairman says, "I regret I am not able to make you work on Sundays, to be honest. If I can make you work on Sundays, I will be more happy, because I work on Sundays also."
Subrahmanyan went on to share an anecdote. He cited a conversation he had with a Chinese person who said that China could surpass the US because of the country's strong work ethic.
According to Subrahmanyan, the Chinese person said, "Chinese people work 90 hours a week, while Americans work only 50 hours a week."
Drawing a parallel, Subrahmanyan encouraged L&T employees to follow a similar work regime.
"So that's the answer for you. If you have got to be on top of the world, you have to work 90 hours a week," he is heard saying in the video.
The video went viral quickly, attracting some nasty comments as well. "Another CEO promoting slavery shamelessly," one person commented.
Some questioned why highly paid CEOs with different job pressures expect the same level of commitment from less-paid employees.
Subrahmanyan's comments reignited the work-life balance debate that came into limelight in July last year following the death of a 26-year-old EY consultant.
Infosys Co-Founder Murthy, too, had a few months back advocated a 70-hour work week. "India's work productivity is one of the lowest in the world... my request is that our youngsters must say, 'this is my country, I want to work 70 hours a week'," Murthy had said.
Last month, billionaire Gautam Adani had also waded into the work-life balance debate when he said the spouse will leave if one was to spend eight hours with the family.
He had reportedly stated that work-life balance is a matter of personal choice. "Your idea of work-life balance should not be imposed on me and my idea shouldn't be imposed on you. Say, someone spends 4 hours with family and finds joy in it, or if someone else spends 8 hours and enjoys it, that is their work-life balance."
"Aath ghanta family ke saath bitayega tho biwi bhaag jaayegi (Wife will leave if one spends eight hours with family)," he had said.
L&T Chairman #SNSubrahmanyan wants employees to work 90 hours a week, because how long can you stare at your husband/wife.
— NDTV Profit (@NDTVProfitIndia) January 9, 2025
Is this toxic culture sustainable? @TamannaInamdar asks 'The Big Question'
Also read: https://t.co/qCiB0PQxcP pic.twitter.com/TS2BUe39ut
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
