hi can a woman be rejected in medical if she is pregnant (1 month)
From India, Ernakulam
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
3From India, Ernakulam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
my friend is waiting for her medical test in SBI she passed test and interview.now she is 1 month pregnant .pls help...
From India, Ernakulam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Ernakulam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Medical is done only to see any disease you have which can make you unfit for the job but pregnancy is no reason to declare you unfit. Rajeev Kumar Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Only some private companies reject the candidates if they are preganant before recruitment just to evade monetary liabilities. I don’t think SBI will reject on account of pregnancy. Pon
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Lucknow
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Aami_Gmail,
Your friend hasn't been rejected. The reason can be interpreted in various ways. I support the opinions provided above by our eligible members. Additionally, by her 4th month, she should have completed 80 calendar days of work within the last 12 months. Therefore, she would be eligible for maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act.
Thank you.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your friend hasn't been rejected. The reason can be interpreted in various ways. I support the opinions provided above by our eligible members. Additionally, by her 4th month, she should have completed 80 calendar days of work within the last 12 months. Therefore, she would be eligible for maternity leave under the Maternity Benefit Act.
Thank you.
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friends, Employers reject such candidates only to aviod future liabilities,As per my knowledge there is no leagal provision in industrial laws which states for rejection such candidates. Thanks
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Any reputable organization will not reject. Since it is SBI, your friend can rest assured that she will not be rejected. As my friend has mentioned, pregnancy is not a disease. So, congratulate her and give her strength and confidence.
T. Chandran
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
T. Chandran
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ami, No ,legally speaking, a lady cannot be rejected for being pregnant. It amounts to discrimination based on sex.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Aami,
Greetings.
Already, you have received answers - can't reject a lady on the grounds that she is pregnant. Maternity benefits can be denied or disallowed. Please take up the matter with the concerned SBI officials.
Instead of worrying about the medical results, concentrate on motherhood to have a nice, intelligent baby.
With best wishes,
Ramgopal K. S.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings.
Already, you have received answers - can't reject a lady on the grounds that she is pregnant. Maternity benefits can be denied or disallowed. Please take up the matter with the concerned SBI officials.
Instead of worrying about the medical results, concentrate on motherhood to have a nice, intelligent baby.
With best wishes,
Ramgopal K. S.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Aami,
One of my friends informed me that there is no provision in the service rules of SBI to reject someone on the grounds of pregnancy. As many of my colleagues have mentioned, pregnancy is not a disease, so there is no need to worry.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
One of my friends informed me that there is no provision in the service rules of SBI to reject someone on the grounds of pregnancy. As many of my colleagues have mentioned, pregnancy is not a disease, so there is no need to worry.
Thank you.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
As everybody has said, pregnancy should not be a criterion for rejecting a candidacy. There is also no law that states pregnancy at the time of joining is a disqualification. However, if an employer still rejects a candidacy on these grounds, what can be done? Discussing this question can be interesting.
Thanks with regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
[Shantadurgaent.com](http://www.shantadurgaent.com) - Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and Salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI Registration, NOC from
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As everybody has said, pregnancy should not be a criterion for rejecting a candidacy. There is also no law that states pregnancy at the time of joining is a disqualification. However, if an employer still rejects a candidacy on these grounds, what can be done? Discussing this question can be interesting.
Thanks with regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
[Shantadurgaent.com](http://www.shantadurgaent.com) - Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and Salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI Registration, NOC from
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Motherhood is not a medical disqualification for a job, especially in a public sector undertaking like SBI, which is considered a model employer. As it is only one month since she became pregnant, she can very well join duty subject to medical advice. All the best.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
B. Saikumar
HR & Labour Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saikumar ji,
I do agree with you and everybody said the same thing. I also say the same thing. But, Joining the new employment is not in the hands of the candidate. Suppose I am the employer and I reject the candidature on the grounds that she is pregnant. Even if I give a reason for rejection, what can you do? I invite discussions on this question. According to me, there is no legal protection for pregnant women from the rejection of their candidature for new employment.
Thanks and regards,
Kashav Korgaonkar
www.shantadurgaent.com
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I do agree with you and everybody said the same thing. I also say the same thing. But, Joining the new employment is not in the hands of the candidate. Suppose I am the employer and I reject the candidature on the grounds that she is pregnant. Even if I give a reason for rejection, what can you do? I invite discussions on this question. According to me, there is no legal protection for pregnant women from the rejection of their candidature for new employment.
Thanks and regards,
Kashav Korgaonkar
www.shantadurgaent.com
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, it's correct that she cannot be rejected on grounds of pregnancy, but maternity leave cannot be taken for granted since she will be on probation for a certain period depending on the grade she is joining - clerk, PO, or management trainee. Additionally, there is no paid leave during probation.
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi, along with that, Can any one explain on Pregnancy Benefits. How many months of leave can avail a Pregnant woman? and how will be the pay structure in IT firms.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Aami,
Companies do check up on shortlisted candidates to see if they suffer from any severe diseases. In routine, these tests do not confirm pregnancy because that is a completely different test. Mrs. Das has been cleared, and the company is obligated to provide maternity benefits.
Pregnancy issues will not affect the selection process in esteemed organizations like SBI. Please tell your friend to be happy.
Regards,
Aniruddha Jadhav A.M Legal, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Companies do check up on shortlisted candidates to see if they suffer from any severe diseases. In routine, these tests do not confirm pregnancy because that is a completely different test. Mrs. Das has been cleared, and the company is obligated to provide maternity benefits.
Pregnancy issues will not affect the selection process in esteemed organizations like SBI. Please tell your friend to be happy.
Regards,
Aniruddha Jadhav A.M Legal, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Aami,
Here is the legal position on this query:-
The Law governing this situation is maternity benefit act. the act has only one condition when you cannot engage a woman in your establishment which is given under section 4 of the act, also reproduced below.
"4. Employment of or work by, women prohibited during certain periods.—(1) No employer shall knowingly employ a woman in any establishment during the six weeks immediately following the day of her delivery, 1[miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy].
(2) No women shall work in any establishment during the six weeks immediately following the day of her delivery 2[miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy].
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 6, no pregnant women shall, on a request being made by her in this behalf, be required by her employer to do during the period specified in sub-section (4) any work which is of an arduous nature or which involves long hours of standing, or which in any way is likely to interfere with her pregnancy or the normal development of the foetus, or is likely to cause her miscarriage or otherwise to adversely affect her health.
(4) The period referred to in sub-section (3) shall be—
(a) the period of one month immediately preceding the period of six weeks, before the date of her expected delivery;
(b) any period during the said period of six weeks for which the pregnant woman does not avail of leave of absence under section 6."
Which is no case with your friend. However the same can be a deterrent if given under the service rules. The same also confirmed by one member that there is no such rule in the service conditions also.
So ask your friend to chill and gear up for new phase of her life.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Here is the legal position on this query:-
The Law governing this situation is maternity benefit act. the act has only one condition when you cannot engage a woman in your establishment which is given under section 4 of the act, also reproduced below.
"4. Employment of or work by, women prohibited during certain periods.—(1) No employer shall knowingly employ a woman in any establishment during the six weeks immediately following the day of her delivery, 1[miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy].
(2) No women shall work in any establishment during the six weeks immediately following the day of her delivery 2[miscarriage or medical termination of pregnancy].
(3) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 6, no pregnant women shall, on a request being made by her in this behalf, be required by her employer to do during the period specified in sub-section (4) any work which is of an arduous nature or which involves long hours of standing, or which in any way is likely to interfere with her pregnancy or the normal development of the foetus, or is likely to cause her miscarriage or otherwise to adversely affect her health.
(4) The period referred to in sub-section (3) shall be—
(a) the period of one month immediately preceding the period of six weeks, before the date of her expected delivery;
(b) any period during the said period of six weeks for which the pregnant woman does not avail of leave of absence under section 6."
Which is no case with your friend. However the same can be a deterrent if given under the service rules. The same also confirmed by one member that there is no such rule in the service conditions also.
So ask your friend to chill and gear up for new phase of her life.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear No..., Pregnancy is not a disease and it is not permanent cause. so, rejection is not question....
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Aami,
Pregnancy is not a medical condition leading to rejection. This will make your friend 'temporarily' ineligible. She will be given sufficient time to join after delivery, subject to medical fitness at that time.
Satjit Singh
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Pregnancy is not a medical condition leading to rejection. This will make your friend 'temporarily' ineligible. She will be given sufficient time to join after delivery, subject to medical fitness at that time.
Satjit Singh
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kashav Ji,
Assuming that the ground for the rejection of a candidate is solely pregnancy, more so by a model employer like a public sector bank, the woman candidate, in my view, has a case on hand from the point of view of the law. In fact, as one member has rightly said, a pregnant woman has the protection of the law in the form of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, which incorporates various provisions that protect the rights of a woman during her employment. I need not elaborate on it as it is well known, and the said member has repeated it in this discussion for ready reference.
Furthermore, where a wily employer considers pregnancy as a medically unfit condition and wants to terminate her services, Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act puts an embargo on such termination. Thus, the whole spirit of the Act is to protect the employment of women but not to expose them to any risk of losing their job on grounds of pregnancy. It being so, the employer's action of rejection will be called into question as violative of Article 14 of the constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws, and Articles 20 and 21, which guarantee the right to life and to earn a livelihood. A woman need not resign to her fate in such cases.
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Assuming that the ground for the rejection of a candidate is solely pregnancy, more so by a model employer like a public sector bank, the woman candidate, in my view, has a case on hand from the point of view of the law. In fact, as one member has rightly said, a pregnant woman has the protection of the law in the form of the Maternity Benefit Act 1961, which incorporates various provisions that protect the rights of a woman during her employment. I need not elaborate on it as it is well known, and the said member has repeated it in this discussion for ready reference.
Furthermore, where a wily employer considers pregnancy as a medically unfit condition and wants to terminate her services, Section 12 of the Maternity Benefit Act puts an embargo on such termination. Thus, the whole spirit of the Act is to protect the employment of women but not to expose them to any risk of losing their job on grounds of pregnancy. It being so, the employer's action of rejection will be called into question as violative of Article 14 of the constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of laws, and Articles 20 and 21, which guarantee the right to life and to earn a livelihood. A woman need not resign to her fate in such cases.
B. Saikumar
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saikumar ji,
What you have elaborated above presumes that the pregnant lady is in employment. However, the fact is that the lady is not employed; she has only undergone the selection procedure. There is no contract between the lady and the company/bank. The protection under the Maternity Benefit Act is given to working women.
There is no compulsion on the interviewer to employ a pregnant woman by any law. Therefore, I invite discussions: if a pregnant woman is rejected for employment, what can one do?
I hope my point is very clear.
Thanks and regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
Shantadurgaent.com
Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI registration, NOC from
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
What you have elaborated above presumes that the pregnant lady is in employment. However, the fact is that the lady is not employed; she has only undergone the selection procedure. There is no contract between the lady and the company/bank. The protection under the Maternity Benefit Act is given to working women.
There is no compulsion on the interviewer to employ a pregnant woman by any law. Therefore, I invite discussions: if a pregnant woman is rejected for employment, what can one do?
I hope my point is very clear.
Thanks and regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
Shantadurgaent.com
Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI registration, NOC from
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No, she shouldn't be rejected in medical due to it's a matter of any woman's life. If medical makes any wrong diagnosis or does not provide proper treatment, she may face risks in carrying out a safe pregnancy, ultimately resulting in miscarriage or other dangerous issues.
Hasan Sr. Executive - HR Giant Group (www.giantbd.com)
From Bangladesh, Dhaka
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hasan Sr. Executive - HR Giant Group (www.giantbd.com)
From Bangladesh, Dhaka
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is nice of you to welcome such discussion. What I said is that if a woman employee is found unfit for employment by an employer solely on grounds of her pregnancy but for which she would have been in employment, she has a case to fight. Though the Maternity Benefit Act protects her rights during employment, it also ensures her against unemployment. In this hypothetical case, she is not in employment, but she would have been in employment but for her pregnancy, and thus her employment is deemed employment.
Secondly, the law operates beyond the confines of a contract. Thirdly, she has the support of the constitution. However, if the employer rejects a woman candidate for some ostensible reason like lack of knowledge or required skills but really for her pregnancy, one cannot help it. However, the discussion is purely of academic importance since a pregnancy test cannot be a pathological test to be conducted on a candidate at the time of recruitment.
B. Saikumar HR & Labour Law Advisor Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Secondly, the law operates beyond the confines of a contract. Thirdly, she has the support of the constitution. However, if the employer rejects a woman candidate for some ostensible reason like lack of knowledge or required skills but really for her pregnancy, one cannot help it. However, the discussion is purely of academic importance since a pregnancy test cannot be a pathological test to be conducted on a candidate at the time of recruitment.
B. Saikumar HR & Labour Law Advisor Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
She has a case to fight and she does not have a case to fight.
Depends on people to people,
She can be rejected very easily and even SBI can recover the amount of Rs. 100,000 from her; everything is possible using the loopholes in the Indian legal system.
I am not here to argue that pregnant women should apply or not.
I will ask you some questions:
You are the employer/HR, and for your company, a position X is lying vacant as the person working in that position has resigned from the job. So, you need to fill the position X. As the company is already operating on tight schedules, it is not possible to share the workload of position X with other members. During the interview as an HR, your job profile demands that you should recruit a candidate who will be loyal and hardworking in the long run. This is what you are being paid your salary for, and management will expect the same thing from you. Now, during the selection process, usually, you will select some five candidates and need to finalize one for the position X. In that, you find and offer one woman the job with the condition that if found medically fit?
So, when you come to know that during the medical checkup that she is pregnant, you have to really think whether it is worth recruiting her when you know in the coming months she needs to take leave for delivery, etc. Also, since olden times, it's seen that all companies favor giving such benefits to long-serving loyal employees and not to any employee who joined two months ago and goes pregnant in the third month.
Here it is not the question of giving maternity benefits. The question is why would anyone knowingly hack his own leg with an axe? Because in the future, when the lady goes on medical leave, she will get monetary benefits, and the company needs to engage another person for a temporary period so that the work can be done. Most companies either split the work among other colleagues, increasing their frustration as they need to stay late in the office because this lady went on pregnant leave. After all, we all are humans and we have emotions and a life too.
Also, in the future, after delivery, she may have personal problems with no one to take care of the baby, further health issues, and may choose to remain a housewife as per her family circumstances. In such cases, the company loses a heavy amount of money and gains nothing.
So, any HR person would choose not to recruit such persons in their company. And there are many legal ways in which the company, if they wish, can very sweetly pressure the person to resign in one month by making her work long hours. Mind it, I know SBI now, don't think SBI is some government organization; I have seen the local SBI staff near my office working till late evening at 8:00 pm. So the same will be applicable to this lady too.
To all ladies,
What is your opinion on this? If knowing you are pregnant, will you be ready to join a job and work as other employees do work?
You have to think from an HR point of view, so I would request an answer from LADIES who are HR and WORKING IN HR and have DONE RECRUITMENT.
If you find yourself in such a situation, what will be your decision? Will you apply to companies just to take maternity benefits, knowing you are pregnant, or choose to sit at home and after delivery join a job after confirming that your child will be looked after well during the day? Because this is where pregnant mothers leave jobs; after delivery, in-laws don't care, then the mother has to leave the job, and the company loses lots of money and time in this. Being corporate, we have seen so many cases where employees working in the company for more than 5 years are literally thrown off/terminated just because they had an accident or were sick for 1-2 months and could not come to work. Is this greater than not allowing to join a pregnant woman?
I would only request replies from sensible HR people who know for what company works and what decisions are to be taken and not from some lawyer who may just merely quote a law because we need to be practical, and practicality is, in India, no law is made for practical scenarios. If you strictly follow any law, you can't do anything.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Depends on people to people,
She can be rejected very easily and even SBI can recover the amount of Rs. 100,000 from her; everything is possible using the loopholes in the Indian legal system.
I am not here to argue that pregnant women should apply or not.
I will ask you some questions:
You are the employer/HR, and for your company, a position X is lying vacant as the person working in that position has resigned from the job. So, you need to fill the position X. As the company is already operating on tight schedules, it is not possible to share the workload of position X with other members. During the interview as an HR, your job profile demands that you should recruit a candidate who will be loyal and hardworking in the long run. This is what you are being paid your salary for, and management will expect the same thing from you. Now, during the selection process, usually, you will select some five candidates and need to finalize one for the position X. In that, you find and offer one woman the job with the condition that if found medically fit?
So, when you come to know that during the medical checkup that she is pregnant, you have to really think whether it is worth recruiting her when you know in the coming months she needs to take leave for delivery, etc. Also, since olden times, it's seen that all companies favor giving such benefits to long-serving loyal employees and not to any employee who joined two months ago and goes pregnant in the third month.
Here it is not the question of giving maternity benefits. The question is why would anyone knowingly hack his own leg with an axe? Because in the future, when the lady goes on medical leave, she will get monetary benefits, and the company needs to engage another person for a temporary period so that the work can be done. Most companies either split the work among other colleagues, increasing their frustration as they need to stay late in the office because this lady went on pregnant leave. After all, we all are humans and we have emotions and a life too.
Also, in the future, after delivery, she may have personal problems with no one to take care of the baby, further health issues, and may choose to remain a housewife as per her family circumstances. In such cases, the company loses a heavy amount of money and gains nothing.
So, any HR person would choose not to recruit such persons in their company. And there are many legal ways in which the company, if they wish, can very sweetly pressure the person to resign in one month by making her work long hours. Mind it, I know SBI now, don't think SBI is some government organization; I have seen the local SBI staff near my office working till late evening at 8:00 pm. So the same will be applicable to this lady too.
To all ladies,
What is your opinion on this? If knowing you are pregnant, will you be ready to join a job and work as other employees do work?
You have to think from an HR point of view, so I would request an answer from LADIES who are HR and WORKING IN HR and have DONE RECRUITMENT.
If you find yourself in such a situation, what will be your decision? Will you apply to companies just to take maternity benefits, knowing you are pregnant, or choose to sit at home and after delivery join a job after confirming that your child will be looked after well during the day? Because this is where pregnant mothers leave jobs; after delivery, in-laws don't care, then the mother has to leave the job, and the company loses lots of money and time in this. Being corporate, we have seen so many cases where employees working in the company for more than 5 years are literally thrown off/terminated just because they had an accident or were sick for 1-2 months and could not come to work. Is this greater than not allowing to join a pregnant woman?
I would only request replies from sensible HR people who know for what company works and what decisions are to be taken and not from some lawyer who may just merely quote a law because we need to be practical, and practicality is, in India, no law is made for practical scenarios. If you strictly follow any law, you can't do anything.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I am very happy that someone started a discussion emphatically being in the shoes of a real HR professional. Thank you, kraviravi.kravi.
Regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
[Shantadurgaent.com](http://www.shantadurgaent.com) - Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and Salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI Registration, NOC.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am very happy that someone started a discussion emphatically being in the shoes of a real HR professional. Thank you, kraviravi.kravi.
Regards,
Keshav Korgaonkar
[Shantadurgaent.com](http://www.shantadurgaent.com) - Insurance Advisors, Corporate Advisors, Legal Advice, Wage and Salary, Labour Compliance Audit, SSI Registration, NOC.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This forum is open to all, and everyone can voice his opinions/views, more so when a debate and discussion are deliberately invited. Sensibility is a subjective matter. What appeals to be sensible to one may not appeal to others. Thus, no one needs to assume the role of a self-styled judge in this regard. The acceptance of an issue as sensible or not does not depend upon an individual employer's whims and fancies but depends on how society perceives it. It is the laws that reflect the perceptions and will of society, and thus their spirit, especially in the case of welfare legislation, needs to be understood with the sensitivity they deserve. The lack of social sensitivity, ignorance of welfare aspects of social legislations like labor laws, and tinkering with them with disregard by managements often breed distrust between management and employees, leading to a souring of industrial relations as witnessed of late.
Now the issue is not why an employer should select a pregnant woman. If an employer does not want to select a pregnant woman for various reasons, he can very well cite a hundred reasons and may choose not to recruit her. There ends the matter. The issue sought to be posed is whether an employer can reject a woman who is one month pregnant solely on the grounds of pregnancy but for which she would have been employed. The issue thus acquires a moral and legal dimension, especially when the woman is only one month pregnant and is not going to go away the next day itself. It attracted a debate because of this moral and legal dimension. Otherwise, there is nothing in the issue to debate. Many members have discussed the issue from this perspective. Regrettably, this aspect has been sorely missed by some, and the issue is sought to be debated on the grounds of the employer's convenience.
What if the employer is running on a tight schedule, and a woman proceeds on maternity leave? Will he terminate her since she is upsetting his schedule? What if a woman holding a critical role suddenly resigns? Will he stop her or harass her for upsetting his schedule? Is this the HR with sensitivity?
Thanks, there are laws for the protection of employees, without which they would have been left to fend for themselves. Thanks also to some organizations, to great relief, who are sensitive to women's issues and protect their employment through various plans.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labor Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Now the issue is not why an employer should select a pregnant woman. If an employer does not want to select a pregnant woman for various reasons, he can very well cite a hundred reasons and may choose not to recruit her. There ends the matter. The issue sought to be posed is whether an employer can reject a woman who is one month pregnant solely on the grounds of pregnancy but for which she would have been employed. The issue thus acquires a moral and legal dimension, especially when the woman is only one month pregnant and is not going to go away the next day itself. It attracted a debate because of this moral and legal dimension. Otherwise, there is nothing in the issue to debate. Many members have discussed the issue from this perspective. Regrettably, this aspect has been sorely missed by some, and the issue is sought to be debated on the grounds of the employer's convenience.
What if the employer is running on a tight schedule, and a woman proceeds on maternity leave? Will he terminate her since she is upsetting his schedule? What if a woman holding a critical role suddenly resigns? Will he stop her or harass her for upsetting his schedule? Is this the HR with sensitivity?
Thanks, there are laws for the protection of employees, without which they would have been left to fend for themselves. Thanks also to some organizations, to great relief, who are sensitive to women's issues and protect their employment through various plans.
B. Saikumar
HR & Labor Law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Saikumar ji, I appreciate your participation. There are more than 1200 viewers to this topic but very few have contributed to it. Thanks and regards. Keshav Korgaonkar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi No , however keeping in view her physical condition/ medical prescription , offer can be put on hold . regards Chaman
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is not possible to reject or deny employment to a female on the grounds of pregnancy. At the time of the interview, most banks ask this question. If they do, they should not select her for employment, even though as per labor law rules, it is not permissible. The fact is that she may go on long leave after joining and also take leave often pre and post-delivery. However, if she is selected and employed, they cannot reject her on these grounds.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ravi,
You want to discuss the practicality of the subject, let's come to it. I will not quote any law nor would talk about any, just one question: all the scenarios you cited may happen with a lady even after joining the company and working there for years. What should they do at that time? Probably, women should not work in the first place? Is it so?
Dear Friend, motherhood is a natural process. It is a blessing for the family who has it. More than the legal aspect, it has emotional value attached to it. Maternity Benefits should not be seen as a burden on the company finances. When a baby is born, not only the mother but the whole family goes through many phases of mental and physical changes. For example, they wake up with the child at night if he wishes not to sleep; they begin to understand and distinguish between the little one's different weepings, or many things. At times, many co-workers have to suffer and adjust their time so that their colleague may take care of her baby. This is what is called social responsibility, and everyone should contribute to it on humanitarian grounds. Yes, it is unfortunate that many companies do terminate many ladies at such a crucial phase of her life. But this is the difference between a good and a bad company.
Not everything can be decided on practicalities, my friend. Sometimes we have to accept things the way they are. Hope you have your reply.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You want to discuss the practicality of the subject, let's come to it. I will not quote any law nor would talk about any, just one question: all the scenarios you cited may happen with a lady even after joining the company and working there for years. What should they do at that time? Probably, women should not work in the first place? Is it so?
Dear Friend, motherhood is a natural process. It is a blessing for the family who has it. More than the legal aspect, it has emotional value attached to it. Maternity Benefits should not be seen as a burden on the company finances. When a baby is born, not only the mother but the whole family goes through many phases of mental and physical changes. For example, they wake up with the child at night if he wishes not to sleep; they begin to understand and distinguish between the little one's different weepings, or many things. At times, many co-workers have to suffer and adjust their time so that their colleague may take care of her baby. This is what is called social responsibility, and everyone should contribute to it on humanitarian grounds. Yes, it is unfortunate that many companies do terminate many ladies at such a crucial phase of her life. But this is the difference between a good and a bad company.
Not everything can be decided on practicalities, my friend. Sometimes we have to accept things the way they are. Hope you have your reply.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Kamal sir,
No matter how truthful your reply is, it comes across as more emotional than practical. I doubt any company follows this approach even before women join the company. Women should not perceive joining a job as a means to take advantage of maternity benefits without working. Such individuals do exist in the world. Those who support this notion probably do not work in HR. Even if they do, knowingly hiring such employees could lead to termination by management. Whether running a business as a proprietorship or an MNC, no company would willingly incur such losses.
Instead of arguing further, I would kindly request the original poster to provide an update on whether her friend secured the job or not.
Thank you.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No matter how truthful your reply is, it comes across as more emotional than practical. I doubt any company follows this approach even before women join the company. Women should not perceive joining a job as a means to take advantage of maternity benefits without working. Such individuals do exist in the world. Those who support this notion probably do not work in HR. Even if they do, knowingly hiring such employees could lead to termination by management. Whether running a business as a proprietorship or an MNC, no company would willingly incur such losses.
Instead of arguing further, I would kindly request the original poster to provide an update on whether her friend secured the job or not.
Thank you.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
When women can leave their one-day-old child in dustbins and on roads, don't you think there would be women who would take advantage of pregnancy and get benefits of money, leisure, etc.? This is the truth, my dear friend. Let's wait for confirmation from the opener as to what happened to her friend.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
I respect every one who has contributed to this discussion.
I feel (it’s my view), we are discussing this issue not to the point. The question raised over here is whether woman candidate for an interview can be rejected on the ground of pregnancy or not?
There can be two views to answer it i.e. either “yes” or “not”.
Each view has some reasoning to it.
We should rather discuss on this line being HR Professionals.
According to me, which I repeat, there is no law in existence which restrains the interviewer to consider the candidature on the ground of pregnancy. There is no law declares the rejection of candidature on the ground of pregnancy as an offence.
One can differ to my reasoning. One can correct me if the facts of Law as quoted by me are wrong.
Now, what should be and what should not be – it is a totally different aspect. Each one may have his different view. I, as a Business Manager or Business Employer will show reluctance to appoint her since she will not be available to me in the first year itself for employment and that too during her probation.
I have expressed my personal views. There is no intension to hurt any one.
I remain.
With warm regards.
Keshav Korgaonkar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I respect every one who has contributed to this discussion.
I feel (it’s my view), we are discussing this issue not to the point. The question raised over here is whether woman candidate for an interview can be rejected on the ground of pregnancy or not?
There can be two views to answer it i.e. either “yes” or “not”.
Each view has some reasoning to it.
We should rather discuss on this line being HR Professionals.
According to me, which I repeat, there is no law in existence which restrains the interviewer to consider the candidature on the ground of pregnancy. There is no law declares the rejection of candidature on the ground of pregnancy as an offence.
One can differ to my reasoning. One can correct me if the facts of Law as quoted by me are wrong.
Now, what should be and what should not be – it is a totally different aspect. Each one may have his different view. I, as a Business Manager or Business Employer will show reluctance to appoint her since she will not be available to me in the first year itself for employment and that too during her probation.
I have expressed my personal views. There is no intension to hurt any one.
I remain.
With warm regards.
Keshav Korgaonkar
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The pregnant candidate can be made temporarily ufit and allowed to join after three months after her actual delivery
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Denying a pregnant woman a job is tantamount to discrimination.
From Kenya, Mombasa
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From Kenya, Mombasa
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi, If someone is 5/6 months pregnant at the time of interview of govt. insurance co., can she be rejected for the same reason.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Not at all. . .. No person / company has a right to reject a Pregnant woman. . . !!!
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All, The queriest asked the question on 21st Nov 2012. Four months are over by now. So let us ask the queriest "what is the out come of the interview in this four month time?".
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Concern,
Good morning! An employer can't terminate any pregnant woman except for a layoff of his/her company. If an employer wants to discontinue her job, he/she should pay all salary for maternity benefits and additional compensation as per layoff conditions before discontinuing the job for a pregnant employee.
Thanks.
From Bangladesh, Dhaka
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good morning! An employer can't terminate any pregnant woman except for a layoff of his/her company. If an employer wants to discontinue her job, he/she should pay all salary for maternity benefits and additional compensation as per layoff conditions before discontinuing the job for a pregnant employee.
Thanks.
From Bangladesh, Dhaka
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Keshav,
Thanks for bringing this discussion alive. Mr. Saikumar's contributions are praiseworthy. However, this matter has not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion. I hope the person posting this query would respond.
In my opinion, I find that only one member has given a very correct, albeit brief, line of action that a public sector organization would most likely pursue. As correctly observed by others, the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 will not apply here, as the concerned person is not an employee as yet.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks for bringing this discussion alive. Mr. Saikumar's contributions are praiseworthy. However, this matter has not yet reached a satisfactory conclusion. I hope the person posting this query would respond.
In my opinion, I find that only one member has given a very correct, albeit brief, line of action that a public sector organization would most likely pursue. As correctly observed by others, the Maternity Benefit Act 1961 will not apply here, as the concerned person is not an employee as yet.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In our organisation , in such cases of pregnency, candidates are made temporarily unfit and asked to report again for medical after four weeks after delivery.. So candidates are not disqualified.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Perfectly right.
In companies where comprehensive medical examinations are conducted involving urine, blood, and other tests before appointment, there are guidelines to deal with such cases. Also, before an x-ray is taken, a pregnant woman is required to disclose relevant information. When the tests reveal pregnancy, a female candidate is declared temporarily unfit. She is directed to undergo a second medical examination after four weeks of delivery. If she is otherwise found fit during this examination, she is offered employment.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In companies where comprehensive medical examinations are conducted involving urine, blood, and other tests before appointment, there are guidelines to deal with such cases. Also, before an x-ray is taken, a pregnant woman is required to disclose relevant information. When the tests reveal pregnancy, a female candidate is declared temporarily unfit. She is directed to undergo a second medical examination after four weeks of delivery. If she is otherwise found fit during this examination, she is offered employment.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Greetings to all
First, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Ms (Cite Contribution), who connected me though this discussion via twitter and I got a chance to share myself on this case Second, to the one who responded on twitter with his question about CONDITIONS (responded on my reply to her)
Here I go...
Period of Pregnancy and Safety Concern along with the other condition of pregnancy are basic things that must not be forgotten while considering/discussing this case.
I buy that pregnancy should not be the criteria for rejecting the candidate and it would not be ethical too but still without considering the conditions and fact, we must not say whether the candidate should be rejected or accepted.
My first question: How will you get the reality of this case and the real reasons of rejecting candidature of a pregnant woman by the query of Mr. Keshav?
I agree that there is no law that asks us for not to rejecting candidature or not hiring a pregnant woman candidate nor any rule, any law specified in India that compel us to hire a woman candidate by ignoring the facts of pregnancy.
How one can say that only pregnancy can be the reason for rejecting the woman candidate, is my other question to you all. And, if, let's accept, the candidature of a pregnant woman has rejected, but still the few things that we must not forget before going further or discussing it that the period of pregnancy/ present health status, safety concern, mental status of her, work and work atmosphere, and also the break /leave that is required by woman in the future, are the basic points that a recruiter and interviewer have have to consider before employ her. Moreover, there it would not be good to say “accepting or rejecting her candidate but to hire or offering job/employment or not with reasoning pregnancy”.
My Question to all recruiters:
-Are you ready to ignore these aforesaid conditions and facts of pregnancy while considering her candidature?
-Will you hire a pregnant woman candidate for few months while knowing the fact that she is gonna be on leave for the period required by her (allowed maternity leaves as per rules/law) and also where there is no guarantee of her rejoining after completion of granted leave period.
-Are you the one who would never expect or /look for consistency in job of her with regard to past and future employment?
I respect the concern raised by Mr Keshav and consent on it by others but we must not forget, the facts regarding pregnancy of a candidate that really matters in decision making or hiring a candidate and also that we are responsible for health (both physical and mental stress and conditions) and social security of our employees.
About response #21 by Mr SaiKumar, Section 12 of Maternity Benefit Act 1961, is to protect the EMPLOYMENT of a woman but not to expose her to any risk of losing her job on grounds of pregnancy but here we are discussing about hiring or not hiring a pregnant woman candidate who is still not employed or this condition applies to present employee not for future employees. So there is no violation of article 14 which is well cleared by Mr Keshav himself in response #22. Thanks Mr Keshav!
About response by Mr kraviravi your responses are appreciable but there is nothing like that it depends on people to people but to the facts and the real conditions of pregnancy of a candidate and employment.
And requests to all, do not take it as a debate because it is a case that everyone who is from HR Domain need understand
Hope I have cleared myself with every this query and case.
Lastly, the one who asked me the ‘CONDITIONS’ what I tweeted today in response to Ms (Cite Contribution)’s Twit on this case, hope you’ll find your answers by my this response.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First, I would like to express my sincere thanks to Ms (Cite Contribution), who connected me though this discussion via twitter and I got a chance to share myself on this case Second, to the one who responded on twitter with his question about CONDITIONS (responded on my reply to her)
Here I go...
Period of Pregnancy and Safety Concern along with the other condition of pregnancy are basic things that must not be forgotten while considering/discussing this case.
I buy that pregnancy should not be the criteria for rejecting the candidate and it would not be ethical too but still without considering the conditions and fact, we must not say whether the candidate should be rejected or accepted.
My first question: How will you get the reality of this case and the real reasons of rejecting candidature of a pregnant woman by the query of Mr. Keshav?
I agree that there is no law that asks us for not to rejecting candidature or not hiring a pregnant woman candidate nor any rule, any law specified in India that compel us to hire a woman candidate by ignoring the facts of pregnancy.
How one can say that only pregnancy can be the reason for rejecting the woman candidate, is my other question to you all. And, if, let's accept, the candidature of a pregnant woman has rejected, but still the few things that we must not forget before going further or discussing it that the period of pregnancy/ present health status, safety concern, mental status of her, work and work atmosphere, and also the break /leave that is required by woman in the future, are the basic points that a recruiter and interviewer have have to consider before employ her. Moreover, there it would not be good to say “accepting or rejecting her candidate but to hire or offering job/employment or not with reasoning pregnancy”.
My Question to all recruiters:
-Are you ready to ignore these aforesaid conditions and facts of pregnancy while considering her candidature?
-Will you hire a pregnant woman candidate for few months while knowing the fact that she is gonna be on leave for the period required by her (allowed maternity leaves as per rules/law) and also where there is no guarantee of her rejoining after completion of granted leave period.
-Are you the one who would never expect or /look for consistency in job of her with regard to past and future employment?
I respect the concern raised by Mr Keshav and consent on it by others but we must not forget, the facts regarding pregnancy of a candidate that really matters in decision making or hiring a candidate and also that we are responsible for health (both physical and mental stress and conditions) and social security of our employees.
About response #21 by Mr SaiKumar, Section 12 of Maternity Benefit Act 1961, is to protect the EMPLOYMENT of a woman but not to expose her to any risk of losing her job on grounds of pregnancy but here we are discussing about hiring or not hiring a pregnant woman candidate who is still not employed or this condition applies to present employee not for future employees. So there is no violation of article 14 which is well cleared by Mr Keshav himself in response #22. Thanks Mr Keshav!
About response by Mr kraviravi your responses are appreciable but there is nothing like that it depends on people to people but to the facts and the real conditions of pregnancy of a candidate and employment.
And requests to all, do not take it as a debate because it is a case that everyone who is from HR Domain need understand
Hope I have cleared myself with every this query and case.
Lastly, the one who asked me the ‘CONDITIONS’ what I tweeted today in response to Ms (Cite Contribution)’s Twit on this case, hope you’ll find your answers by my this response.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear friends
I appreciate the inputs on this; which can be implemented in private sector; which is much more lenient and aims at optimum exploitation of human resources available.
However, in Government and PSU's the standards of Medical Examination are stringent, well laid out and specific. The examination is not done by a doctor, but a Medical Board comprising of several specialists.
This is necessary for obvious reasons, as well as the benefit of pension to employee/his surviving wife/ or surviving children till the age of majority.
Also, the age of a candidate is also ascertained and recorded by the Board in its Report.
Thus, there is no question of any personal opinion; as rules are very specific.
I can vouch for it, having faced the Medical Board of UPSC and having been a senior manager in Personnel/HR deptt of a Navratna PSU.
The most stringent rule exist for the Defence Forces, followed by govt airlines and railways; para-military services like BSF,Coast Guard, CRPF, CISF etc. Technical services in Gr A & B like IPS, IFS (Forest), IRTS, Customs etc. followed by the Technical services in PSU's.
There are thick manuals. Rules and Policies. Since the President of India is the Head of Govt; the rules after his approvals are published (Notified) in the Gazette of India. The President being the "öwner" of all the PSUs, his directives are followed as Rules in the PSU's.
Before the candidate appears for the Medical Board, he may have to fill up a comprehensive medical declaration'which has a number of question like :
- Have you ever been examined by a Medical Board before ?
- If "yes", then for which service and ....
- when and where was the Medical.....
-What was the result in case you were communicated....
- Have you undergone surgery before...
- Are you suffering from.....
- Do any of your family member including your parents suffer from.....
etc.
Every year these are published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) at various points of time.
Coming to the question of a pregnant candidate, appearing for a Medical examination, relevant portion the Annexure III of the Standards of Medical Examination; in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated (the date of notification); is quoted below :
I hope the above is clear. Kindly note, that in case of Govt and PSU, there is no justification in giving one's heartfelt emotions or opinions; as there are clearly spelt out rules, which are binding.
Hope the above will be helpful to the person who posted this query as well as all member in learning and discovering the methodology related to a comprehensive Medical Examination.
An extract of the Gazette notification pertaining to medical examination is attached herewith. One can appreciate how everything including standard and routine procedures like taking Blood pressure; are elaborated in great detail.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate the inputs on this; which can be implemented in private sector; which is much more lenient and aims at optimum exploitation of human resources available.
However, in Government and PSU's the standards of Medical Examination are stringent, well laid out and specific. The examination is not done by a doctor, but a Medical Board comprising of several specialists.
This is necessary for obvious reasons, as well as the benefit of pension to employee/his surviving wife/ or surviving children till the age of majority.
Also, the age of a candidate is also ascertained and recorded by the Board in its Report.
Thus, there is no question of any personal opinion; as rules are very specific.
I can vouch for it, having faced the Medical Board of UPSC and having been a senior manager in Personnel/HR deptt of a Navratna PSU.
The most stringent rule exist for the Defence Forces, followed by govt airlines and railways; para-military services like BSF,Coast Guard, CRPF, CISF etc. Technical services in Gr A & B like IPS, IFS (Forest), IRTS, Customs etc. followed by the Technical services in PSU's.
There are thick manuals. Rules and Policies. Since the President of India is the Head of Govt; the rules after his approvals are published (Notified) in the Gazette of India. The President being the "öwner" of all the PSUs, his directives are followed as Rules in the PSU's.
Before the candidate appears for the Medical Board, he may have to fill up a comprehensive medical declaration'which has a number of question like :
- Have you ever been examined by a Medical Board before ?
- If "yes", then for which service and ....
- when and where was the Medical.....
-What was the result in case you were communicated....
- Have you undergone surgery before...
- Are you suffering from.....
- Do any of your family member including your parents suffer from.....
etc.
Every year these are published in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) at various points of time.
Coming to the question of a pregnant candidate, appearing for a Medical examination, relevant portion the Annexure III of the Standards of Medical Examination; in the Gazette of India (Extraordinary) dated (the date of notification); is quoted below :
"9. A woman candidate who as a result of tests is found to be pregnant of 12 weeks standing or over, should be declared temporarily unfit until the confinement is over.Similar sets of rules exists for Govt Deptts, Govt Institutions like RBI and other financial organizations and Banks.
She should be re-examined for fitness certificate six weeks after the date of confinement, subject to the production of a medical certificate of fitness from a registered medical practitioner."
I hope the above is clear. Kindly note, that in case of Govt and PSU, there is no justification in giving one's heartfelt emotions or opinions; as there are clearly spelt out rules, which are binding.
Hope the above will be helpful to the person who posted this query as well as all member in learning and discovering the methodology related to a comprehensive Medical Examination.
An extract of the Gazette notification pertaining to medical examination is attached herewith. One can appreciate how everything including standard and routine procedures like taking Blood pressure; are elaborated in great detail.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Pregnancy is a gift and Nothing can stop her joining the job. Medical checkup is for only to check the physical health conditions.
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
No woman can be rejected in medical if she is found to be pregnant. However, as per guidelines, she may be declared temporarily unfit (depends on fundamental/supplementary rules) to join duties, and later on, she can join.
Chaman Jaggi
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Chaman Jaggi
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If she has not informed the HR during the interview, then it's more of a trust issue. Pregnancy is a natural biological process undergone by the female of our human species. It's more important than a job offer, frankly. Legally, she cannot be rejected, but on work grounds, she can be. The job is created for someone who can come in now and fill it up. If, for some reason, the candidate is not able to fulfill that condition physically (in the absence of a work-from-home model as this is a bank) right away, the opportunity should be passed to a more available candidate, who may be someone who has just delivered a baby and is back to take up work responsibilities. So, neither the company is at fault nor the candidate if they have apprised of their condition beforehand. They can be offered a position post their delivery.
From India, Aurangabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Aurangabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
B.Saikumar, Need your views How to derive the number mentioned at Serial number 5 Average number of women employed daily.under Annual Return Form 11 under Maharashtra Maternity Rules
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am working in the marketing field. I took leave for 6 days (my wife is hospitalized for delivery) by sending a leave application by mail to the concerned person. However, they have arranged a training program on the same days and sent an email to my personal mail ID, even though they have my official mail ID. I called them and explained my situation, but my manager said he doesn't bother with my problem and that I have to attend the training. I insisted that I am not in a situation to attend the training.
After completing my leave and returning to the office, I saw in the attendance book that they marked me as absent from the day I took leave until today. When I asked my admin, he said the manager had asked to mark me absent until I report to the Chennai office. Suddenly, two days back, the manager emailed me that my services have been transferred to the Chennai office, and I have to report there. He also told me not to come to the Bangalore office.
Sir, please give me suggestions on what to do... Should I resign?
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am working in the marketing field. I took leave for 6 days (my wife is hospitalized for delivery) by sending a leave application by mail to the concerned person. However, they have arranged a training program on the same days and sent an email to my personal mail ID, even though they have my official mail ID. I called them and explained my situation, but my manager said he doesn't bother with my problem and that I have to attend the training. I insisted that I am not in a situation to attend the training.
After completing my leave and returning to the office, I saw in the attendance book that they marked me as absent from the day I took leave until today. When I asked my admin, he said the manager had asked to mark me absent until I report to the Chennai office. Suddenly, two days back, the manager emailed me that my services have been transferred to the Chennai office, and I have to report there. He also told me not to come to the Bangalore office.
Sir, please give me suggestions on what to do... Should I resign?
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Azim,
The Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 does not specify the method for calculating the average number of women employed daily in an establishment. Therefore, in my opinion, in the absence of a statutory guideline, one can use the standard mathematical approach to calculate the average number of women employed daily in an establishment. This calculation should include not only permanent female employees but also those working on a part-time, temporary basis, or through a contractor.
B. Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Maternity Benefit Act of 1961 does not specify the method for calculating the average number of women employed daily in an establishment. Therefore, in my opinion, in the absence of a statutory guideline, one can use the standard mathematical approach to calculate the average number of women employed daily in an establishment. This calculation should include not only permanent female employees but also those working on a part-time, temporary basis, or through a contractor.
B. Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Azim ji,
The response by Saikumar ji is undoubtedly correct. I have also addressed the same query in another thread using my own words.
Additionally, Saikumar ji, it is worth noting that the explanatory notes to the Annual Return under MFR 1963 clearly specify how to determine the average number of workers employed daily.
I believe that as HR professionals, we should conduct our own study on the basics.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The response by Saikumar ji is undoubtedly correct. I have also addressed the same query in another thread using my own words.
Additionally, Saikumar ji, it is worth noting that the explanatory notes to the Annual Return under MFR 1963 clearly specify how to determine the average number of workers employed daily.
I believe that as HR professionals, we should conduct our own study on the basics.
Thank you.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate Mr. Keshav Ji for this excellent piece of input, which serves as a handy guide on calculating the average number of workers employed in a year in an establishment. Thanks for the same.
B. Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
B. Saikumar
In-house HR & IR Advisor
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
This Sunday morning, I was celebrating by reading some of the old threads, one of which is the current one.
Our Board Moderator, respected Shri. Anil Arora, has nicely concluded this thread.
Once a thread is concluded, especially by a very senior person, it is not appropriate to continue it. However, with the permission of our Board Moderator, I take the opportunity to share what I came across in my reading today in Maharashtra Times, dated today (in Vachak Vishesh i.e. readers' corner).
One of the writers in the readers' corner, in continuation of an article on Maternity Leave published in Maharashtra Times dated 12.04.2015, narrated an incident about maternity leave granted by RATAN TATA to his daughter in 2003, which is as follows:
The daughter of the said writer joined TCS in August 2013 as an Engineer on probation. In three months from joining, she gave birth to a child. She was not entitled to maternity leave as per the law. She applied for loss of pay leave. The application was approved by RATAN TATA. RATAN TATA questioned why any rule in their company should stop her from becoming a mother and sanctioned her leave with full pay in respect of her motherhood.
Unfortunately, not every corporation or company has someone like RATAN TATA. We should have individuals like RATAN TATA in every corporate or company.
I am aware that this post of mine is not directly relevant to the current thread, but I felt that this incident is worth knowing and sharing with you all.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This Sunday morning, I was celebrating by reading some of the old threads, one of which is the current one.
Our Board Moderator, respected Shri. Anil Arora, has nicely concluded this thread.
Once a thread is concluded, especially by a very senior person, it is not appropriate to continue it. However, with the permission of our Board Moderator, I take the opportunity to share what I came across in my reading today in Maharashtra Times, dated today (in Vachak Vishesh i.e. readers' corner).
One of the writers in the readers' corner, in continuation of an article on Maternity Leave published in Maharashtra Times dated 12.04.2015, narrated an incident about maternity leave granted by RATAN TATA to his daughter in 2003, which is as follows:
The daughter of the said writer joined TCS in August 2013 as an Engineer on probation. In three months from joining, she gave birth to a child. She was not entitled to maternity leave as per the law. She applied for loss of pay leave. The application was approved by RATAN TATA. RATAN TATA questioned why any rule in their company should stop her from becoming a mother and sanctioned her leave with full pay in respect of her motherhood.
Unfortunately, not every corporation or company has someone like RATAN TATA. We should have individuals like RATAN TATA in every corporate or company.
I am aware that this post of mine is not directly relevant to the current thread, but I felt that this incident is worth knowing and sharing with you all.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
I appreciate the views raised by Mr. Ravi.
Your friend has not yet been accepted as an employee, so the 80-day rule at the 4th month does not apply yet.
If SBI recruits her late and does not allow the full maternity leave benefits, as per applicable rules; then would she be comfortable to perform the job in the coming months before and after delivery? This is the decision she has to make, understanding the full responsibility and consequences. Just because this is a rare opportunity, does not mean she should be overworking herself mentally and physically in this situation. Also, as this is a government organization, one should not consider that they can possibly take undue advantage of the relaxed policies.
There has to be an understanding of personal preferences versus professional preferences. Some people do manage their professional duties ignoring their effects on personal life... also vice versa. These are personal preferences, but both these cases provide win-lose scenarios for either employee or employer. This takes out the 'satisfaction' from the job.
If she is tough enough to handle both factors satisfactorily, then there should be no law restricting the employment (As already suggested by many responses above).
Congratulate your friend and best of luck for her personal and professional life ahead... :-)
Best Regards,
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I appreciate the views raised by Mr. Ravi.
Your friend has not yet been accepted as an employee, so the 80-day rule at the 4th month does not apply yet.
If SBI recruits her late and does not allow the full maternity leave benefits, as per applicable rules; then would she be comfortable to perform the job in the coming months before and after delivery? This is the decision she has to make, understanding the full responsibility and consequences. Just because this is a rare opportunity, does not mean she should be overworking herself mentally and physically in this situation. Also, as this is a government organization, one should not consider that they can possibly take undue advantage of the relaxed policies.
There has to be an understanding of personal preferences versus professional preferences. Some people do manage their professional duties ignoring their effects on personal life... also vice versa. These are personal preferences, but both these cases provide win-lose scenarios for either employee or employer. This takes out the 'satisfaction' from the job.
If she is tough enough to handle both factors satisfactorily, then there should be no law restricting the employment (As already suggested by many responses above).
Congratulate your friend and best of luck for her personal and professional life ahead... :-)
Best Regards,
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Sorry for the repeat posts. There seems to be an issue with the connection, and with each refresh of the page, the post was repeated, which I noticed quite late.
I kindly request the site administrator to remove the multiple responses above.
Thanks!
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sorry for the repeat posts. There seems to be an issue with the connection, and with each refresh of the page, the post was repeated, which I noticed quite late.
I kindly request the site administrator to remove the multiple responses above.
Thanks!
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Right to motherhood is every woman's right and dream unless the organization clearly stated that they needed unmarried women only. In that case, any woman failing to disclose her marital status at the time of application, interview, or entry and carrying a pregnancy during the interview/application process and hiding it can be rejected. It may rather be called a case of making false disclosure or furnishing false information. However, if there was no such stipulation or restriction for being a married candidate, there cannot be any bar on joining as a pregnant woman. A married woman is expected to carry a pregnancy.
I think we are missing the bigger issue. A married woman had qualified in the interview, etc., for joining the Army Medical Corps as a doctor. On the day of reporting or, say, joining, she was carrying a one-month-old baby which she had conceived much after clearing her interview. The Army Medical Corps rejected her joining on the grounds of pregnancy. She went to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC not only issued a decision clearing her way to join the medical corps but also sent a message across to all, stating that motherhood is the right of every woman. If and when required under such circumstances, the date of joining may be postponed, but no woman can be deprived of a job on this ground. It will rather be a discriminatory HR practice.
Jai Hind
From India, Karol Bagh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think we are missing the bigger issue. A married woman had qualified in the interview, etc., for joining the Army Medical Corps as a doctor. On the day of reporting or, say, joining, she was carrying a one-month-old baby which she had conceived much after clearing her interview. The Army Medical Corps rejected her joining on the grounds of pregnancy. She went to the Supreme Court (SC). The SC not only issued a decision clearing her way to join the medical corps but also sent a message across to all, stating that motherhood is the right of every woman. If and when required under such circumstances, the date of joining may be postponed, but no woman can be deprived of a job on this ground. It will rather be a discriminatory HR practice.
Jai Hind
From India, Karol Bagh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Pregnancy cannot be the reason for rejection on medical grounds during the initial appointment for the case under discussion. However, subsequent maternity benefits will be governed by the applicable rules in place.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A woman has a right to be pregnant, and none can deny her motherhood. She can only be denied a job or joining if she had furnished false facts when asked during the application or interview. If there was no column to provide such details, and a woman becomes pregnant between selection and joining, she will join. In one such case last year, a lady became pregnant just before joining the army in the medical branch and was restricted on similar grounds. She went to the Supreme Court. The Court simply stated that 'All women have the right to motherhood and cannot be denied joining the selected job.' She joined.
From India, Karol Bagh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Karol Bagh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Medical Facts.pdf
Few Medical info.doc