The lack of a legal enforcement mechanism, combined with a strong conciliation framework, has rendered the mediation regime in India ineffective and unnecessary. This gives the parties opting for mediation in India a significant lack of confidence and uncertainty. Only a comprehensive law, the Indian Mediation Act, such as an arbitration and conciliation law, can drain muddy waters). Countries such as Singapore can offer the model for the development of mediation law in India. > all rights relating to discrimination, equal pay and family holiday rights. These include discriminatory claims based on sex, skin colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origin, disability, family or transgender status, sexual orientation, sexual orientation, Religion or beliefs, age, motherhood, paternity and pregnancy (although there are no compensation rights – see below) and less favourable treatment for part-time and fixed term > all rights arising from collective consultation laws and TUPE regulations that may be revoked (see below for exceptions) >A new employer and worker may also wish for some comfort, that neither the existence, terms of the agreement nor the circumstances governing their negotiation be disclosed. A “No der derogatory Comments” clause is also often included for the benefit of one or both parties. In light of the recent review of the use of certain confidentiality agreements or conditions in transaction agreements, in order to prevent allegations of misconduct from being reported to the appropriate authorities, the scope of such a clause should be carefully considered, given that the Indian regime distinguishes between conciliation and conciliation, it is inevitable that the act places the two provisions on an equal footing with respect to uniform application and recognition. Mediation will only function as a viable REL process if it is on an equal footing with conciliation and arbitration. Finally, when drafting a mediation law, Parliament must also ensure that it limits the scope of the challenge to transaction agreements. Or even if they are treated as arbitration awards, they are rendered unusable.
> contribution to the employee`s legal fees. Given the importance of ensuring the validity of a transaction contract, it is likely that the employer will agree to pay a certain amount for the fees of an independent lawyer/adviser for the worker (although this is not legally necessary). This would be documented in the agreement, as well as the necessary confirmation that the terms of the transaction agreements were met “without prejudice”, meaning that statements made during the negotiations cannot be used as evidence against the party that made them (for example. B as an admission of guilt) in a court proceeding. It is important to note that the “no prejudice” rule applies only if the discussions are a genuine attempt to resolve an existing dispute between the parties. For example, hon`ble Delhi High Court in Surinder Kumar Beri v. Deepak Beri – Anr. 2018 (171) DRJ 414, cancelled a transaction agreement under Section 34 of the Act on the grounds that it was contrary to India`s public policy.