Saudi Arabia eyes tourism growth; to begin issuing tourist visas soon

Dubai, Jun 9: Dubai's Emirates airline has begun laying off employees to reduce cost and save cash as the carrier looks to rightsize its workforce.

"We at Emirates have been doing everything possible to retain the talented people that make up our workforce for as long as we can. However, given the significant impact that the pandemic has had on our business, we simply cannot sustain excess resources and have to rightsize our workforce in line with our reduced operations. After reviewing all scenarios and options, we deeply regret that we have to let some of our people go," the spokesperson said in the statement.

Citing sources, Reuters and Bloomberg earlier reported that a majority of those being made redundant are cabin crew workers as well as a minority of its engineers and pilots, including those flew the Airbus A380.

"This was a very difficult decision and not one that we took lightly. The company is doing everything possible to protect the workforce wherever we can. Where we are forced to take tough decisions we will treat people with fairness and respect. We will work with impacted employees to provide them with all possible support," said the statement.

The spokesperson, however, didn't disclose how many employees are being made redundant in this latest round of rightsizing the workforce.

Emirates on Sunday confirmed that it extended the period of reduced pay for its staff for another three months till September. It had previously reduced basic wages by 25 to 50 per cent for three months from April, with junior employees exempted.

The airline had employed around 60,000 people at the end of its 2019-20 financial year.

Saj Ahmad, chief analyst at StrategicAero Research, said the announced job cuts at Emirates will likely not be the last given the unprecedented damage that Covid-19 has had not just on air travel, but on the entire aviation industry as a whole.

"Emirates' massive international network means that job reductions were always a last resort option as the company staves off cash burn and expenses at a time when revenues are dried up. While Emirates SkyCargo is enjoying a resurgence in activities, the reality is that this income will never offset the lost money from passenger operations," he added.

"Whilst some salary reduction schemes have prevented bigger job cuts for now, the absence of a cure or medicinal suppressant of Covid-19 means that air travel is unlikely to even reach pre-9/11 levels within 3-5 years, let alone pre-Covid-19 levels in that same time period. For that reason, Emirates' reduction in headcount is necessary to stay competitive, agile and be ready for when air travel can resume with a degree of normalcy that we have been accustomed to for decades," said Ahmad.

New Delhi, Jun 29: Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal on Monday paid tribute to the senior doctor of city government-run LNJP Hospital who died battling COVID-19, saying the society has "lost a very valuable fighter".

The 52-year-old doctor served in the front line of the war against the pandemic at the government facility, and died of novel coronavirus infection in an ICU of a private hospital on Sunday.

"Dr Aseem Gupta, a senior doctor of LNJP Hospital succumbed to Covid yday. He was known for going out of his way to serve his patients. We have lost a very valuable fighter. Delhi salutes his spirit and sacrifice...," Kejriwal tweeted.

The chief minister also said in his tweet that he has spoken to Dr Gupta''s wife and "offered my condolences and support".

LNJP Hospital is a dedicated COVID-19 facility under the Delhi government. It recently completed 100 days of being declared a coronavirus facility.

"LNJP Hospital has displayed great fortitude in the face of acute challenges. It''s recovery rate is going up, death rate is reducing, ICU capacity is being ramped up - the hospital is saving so many lives," the chief minister said.

A condolence meeting to pay respect to Dr Gupta has been scheduled at 1 pm in the office of the Medical Director of the hospital, a senior official said.

The doctor, a consultant anaesthesiologist died at the Max hospital, Saket in south Delhi, a private dedicated COVID-19 facility.

"He was a front line anaesthesia specialist who contracted COVID-19 infection while on duty. He tested positive on June 6, when he had mild symptoms and was shifted to a quarantine facility. His symptoms aggravated on June 7 and he was admitted in the Intensive Care Unit of the LNJP Hospital," the LNJP Hospital said in a statement on Sunday.

He was shifted to Max Hospital, Saket on June 8 on his request, it said.

The doctor was battling the disease for the last two weeks at Max Hospital, where he succumbed to the illness on Sunday, the statement said.

He was Specialist, Grade I, in the Department of Anaesthesia at the LNJP Hospital, the statement said.

Several hundreds of healthcare workers have been infected with COVID-19 till date in Delhi.

Kolkata, Mar 1: The Calcutta High Court has ruled that it is not mandatory for foreigners to produce a valid passport and its particulars for processing of application for grant of Indian citizenship if he is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non-availability of the document.

Justice Sabysachi Bhattacharya passed the order while disposing off a petition by granting the petitioner liberty to file an application before the authority "as contemplated in Rule 11 of the Citizenship Rules 2009, upon furnishing explanation as to the non-availability of the passport".

Bismillah Khan had filed the petition saying he was being denied the citizenship of India because of his inability to file an application under Section 5 (1) (c) of the Citizenship Act, 1955, apparently due to the mandatory requirement of furnishing a copy of the passport for such application.

The petitioner's counsel submitted that Khan was a Pakhtoon citizen and due to political turmoil in the said state, which subsequently merged partially into Afghanistan and partially into Pakistan, he, as a five-year old, had to migrate to India with his father in 1973.

Under such circumstances, the petitioner could not have any opportunity of having a valid passport, since they were refugees under distress, the counsel said.

The petitioner had previously approached a coordinate Bench of the court, wherein a single judge, passed an order on July 25, 2018, directing him to comply with the formalities required, as communicated by the secretary to the Government of India to the Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Home), vide a letter dated December 7, 2017.

The court had then also given liberty to the petitioner to apply afresh before the appropriate authority under Section 5(1)(c) of the 1955 Act, having complied with all the formalities.

The petitioner then moved Bhattacharya's court submitting that a complete application as directed by the Coordinate Bench cannot be possibly filed by his client due to the mandatory requirement of uploading a copy of his passport, which the petitioner does not have due to reasons beyond his control.

The counsel said Khan is married to an Indian citizen, has a daughter and living in India for close to half a century.

The counsel for the union of India submitted that in view of no application having been filed by the petitioner, there is no scope of granting such proposed application at the present juncture for the Union.

The counsel argued that it is mandatory to file an application in Form III for the application of the petitioner under Section 5(1)(c) of the Act to be considered at all.

In view of the petitioner not complying with the mandatory requirement of submitting a copy of his passport, the state government cannot, under the law, forward such application to the union government.

After hearing all sides, Justice Bhattacharya said although the rule "contemplates that an application shall not be entertained unless the application is made in Form III, such provision ipso facto does not make the availability of a passport a mandatory requirement".

"..the Form given with the Rules or the Rules themselves cannot override the provision of the statute itself, under which the said Rules are framed, which does not stipulate such a mandate on the applicants for citizenship under Section 5 (1)(c) of the 1955 Act mandatorily to carry a passport".

The court said although such provision is included in the Form, which has to be complied with by the applicant, "it is nowhere indicated in such Form that all the relevant particulars, including the particulars regarding passport of the petitioner have to be furnished mandatorily, along with a copy of a valid foreign passport, even in the event the petitioner, for valid reasons, is not in a position to produce such passport".

Justice Bhattacharya ruled that under such circumstances, it cannot be held that the provision of producing a passport and its particulars is mandatory in nature and there has to be a relaxation in such requirement "in case the petitioner is able to satisfy the appropriate authorities the reasons for non- availability of such passport".

"Unless such a leeway is given to the applicants, genuine persons who otherwise have all the formal documents indicating that they have been residing in India for a long time and have married a resident of India would also be unable to apply for Indian Citizenship despite having lived their entire lives and contributed to the economy and diverse culture of this country."

He said such a scenario would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

"In such view of the matter, the requirement of having a passport has to be read as optional in Form III of the Citizenship Rules, 2009 and the authorities are deemed to have the power to relax such 6 requirement in the event the applicant satisfied the authorities for genuine reasons why the applicant is not in a position to produce such passport," the February 24 order said.

The court ruled that despite the provision of making applications online, a provision has to be made for persons who do not have all the particulars of their passport, which is read as optional, to file applications manually, which are to be treated as valid applications under Rule 5 of the Citizenship Rules, 2009.

The court also ordered that alternatively the necessary software be amended so that the online applications can be presented with or without passports, in the latter case furnishing detailed reasons as to non-furnishing of passports.

"Sanctioning of such forms, however, will be conditional upon the satisfaction of the relevant authorities about the reasons for the applicant not being able to produce her/his passport," the order said.