MAM
Urban Company and Talented release ‘Dignity of Labour’ series’ third film
Mumbai: Urban Company has been on a mission to bridge the respect gap between India’s white and blue-collar workers over the past year. After Chhota Kaam, and Chhoti Soch, their third film in the series speaks about this subtle yet insidious prejudice, brought to life in conversation between a father and daughter.
Around this time each year, LinkedIn is flooded with chatter about leadership in workplaces- good managers, bad managers, toxic managers, handing out peanuts in the name of increment managers. However, the very same employees who engage in discourse around leadership styles, work-life balance and mental health, often don’t make the best employers, at home.
Urban Company senior brand manager Kartik Ahuja said, “Over the last 10 years, Urban Company has been instrumental in reshaping India’s access to blue-collared services. We have two constituents, our customers and our partners, and in order to create a mutually beneficial platform, a conversation around the dignity of labour isn’t just a communication platform, but a business necessity that ensures consistent year-on-year earnings growth for our partners, safety nets in the form of insurance and medical cover, Over 57,000 Urban Company professionals have benefitted from skill training programs and accreditations, climbing the ladder to upward social mobility. With this work, our intent is to nudge society to see our partners the way we see them – as professionals.”
Through hours of interviewing UC professionals, the creative team at Talented derived insights about the various ways in which the respect gap between blue and white-collar workers has widened. This bank of biases highlighted that the limited glass-cabin’ view of workplaces excludes the very environment that millions of UC professionals work in every day – our homes. Thus the mutual respect, irrespective of the stature or nature of work, that forms the bedrock of dignity, doesn’t permeate these glass borders.
Talented’s Aakash Desai added, “We all wax eloquent about mental health at the workplace and what we expect from our managers within the contours of Corporate India. We have an expansive vocabulary to talk about what makes a “toxic” workplace; and yet we often forget that our homes are the workplaces for UC Professionals and other support staff -that we are their managers. How do our actions at home weigh against our ideas of creating a conducive environment for someone to do their life’s best work? In our third film in the series, we attempt to bridge the respect gap between white and blue-collar workers, to reflect UC customers being allies to UC Pros.”
Superfly founder and director Kopal Naithani said, “The film is a slice-of-life, everyday conversation between a father and a daughter a casual chat that takes an unexpected turn and pushes the father to counter an unspoken prejudice. Our biases against blue-collar workers are seldom verbalised it is complex, rooted in class-based ‘othering’ and passed down generations. Therefore the only way to break these intergenerational cycles of bias, is to pause, recognise and question them.”
Brands
Maharashtra panel orders Lodha to refund Rs 5 crore to homebuyers
Consumer court flags unfair practices in long-running property dispute case
MUMBAI: In a sharp rebuke to one of India’s biggest real estate players, the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has directed Macrotech Developers to refund nearly Rs 5 crore to a senior citizen couple, Uttam and Anindita Chatterjee. The ruling, delivered on March 13, 2026, calls out the developer for “deficiency in service” and “unfair trade practices”, bringing closure to a dispute that has stretched over a decade.
The case traces back to 2015, when the couple booked a 3-BHK flat at World Towers in Lower Parel for Rs 12.22 crore, with possession promised within a year. What followed was a series of changes that complicated matters. After deciding to exit the project, they were persuaded to shift to a 4-BHK in another development priced at Rs 8 crore, with delivery scheduled for 2018. However, within months, the price was allegedly increased to Rs 10 crore. After demonetisation reshaped the market, similar flats were reportedly being offered at lower prices, but the couple were not given the benefit.
Despite paying over Rs 2.83 crore, the couple neither received possession nor clarity. Instead, in 2018, the developer unilaterally cancelled the booking, retained part of the amount as earnest money, and argued that the buyers were investors rather than consumers. The commission rejected this claim, observing that casual references to “investment” do not take away consumer rights when the purchase intent is residential.
The bench also held that the developer could not penalise buyers for payment delays while failing to meet its own delivery commitments. It noted the lack of formal documentation for revised terms and termed the prolonged retention of funds without delivering a home as exploitative.
As part of its order, the commission directed the developer to refund Rs 2.83 crore paid by the couple, along with interest at 10 per cent per annum, amounting to around Rs 2.12 crore. In addition, Rs 1 lakh has been awarded for mental agony and Rs 50,000 towards litigation costs, taking the total payout to over Rs 5 crore. The developer has been asked to comply within two months.
For now, the ruling serves as a reminder that in real estate, shifting terms and delayed promises can carry a significant cost.
