Hi all,
I was working with a company. They organized a party, and inside the party, there was an arrangement of hard drinks. The thing is, after completing the party, when I was boarding my cab, I suddenly had an argument with a guy whom I don't know. As I was drunk, I was quite loud during the argument. Then, one of my friends informed me that he is also from our company and belongs to the transport department. That's when I realized my mistake and apologized for the same.
However, that guy complained about the argument to his HOD, and they terminated me from the organization without discussing the matter with me. The guy had been with the company for approximately seven years, while I had only been there for four months, and my probation period was six months. Can I file a complaint against the organization for this?
Thank you.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
2I was working with a company. They organized a party, and inside the party, there was an arrangement of hard drinks. The thing is, after completing the party, when I was boarding my cab, I suddenly had an argument with a guy whom I don't know. As I was drunk, I was quite loud during the argument. Then, one of my friends informed me that he is also from our company and belongs to the transport department. That's when I realized my mistake and apologized for the same.
However, that guy complained about the argument to his HOD, and they terminated me from the organization without discussing the matter with me. The guy had been with the company for approximately seven years, while I had only been there for four months, and my probation period was six months. Can I file a complaint against the organization for this?
Thank you.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your issue can be viewed from two angles. One is behavioral, and the other is legal.
Legally, since you were under probation, the company generally has the right to discharge the employee during this period. You have no grounds to contest this termination.
Secondly, there is a behavioral aspect. You can discuss with your seniors and explain the circumstances under which you had an altercation with others. You can also apologize and emphasize that you had no intention to do so. However, one lesson that can be drawn from this incident is that one must control their behavior in such situations and should not consume anything beyond limits.
Regards
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Legally, since you were under probation, the company generally has the right to discharge the employee during this period. You have no grounds to contest this termination.
Secondly, there is a behavioral aspect. You can discuss with your seniors and explain the circumstances under which you had an altercation with others. You can also apologize and emphasize that you had no intention to do so. However, one lesson that can be drawn from this incident is that one must control their behavior in such situations and should not consume anything beyond limits.
Regards
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My only comment will be : What action you might have taken in case you are on the same foots. You cannot justify your action.
From India, Nagari
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Nagari
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Actually my senior doesnt entertain me.i tried to contact them but they havent listened a single thing.they just refused to talk in this topic.i havent given a chanve to speak.is this fair?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You have not mentioned the hierarchy of the other person to whom you had an altercation; this case can be treated as misconduct. During the party, you were intoxicated and lost control, failing to maintain decorum and respect towards your seniors/peers. Since you were undisciplined, disciplinary action has been taken against you. On the contrary, the other individual had already lodged a complaint with their Head of Department before you reacted to the situation. Your lack of awareness of the other person's identity indirectly suggests that you were not in control due to alcohol consumption. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir,
This is to inform you that yes, I was under the influence of alcohol at that time. However, it doesn't mean I had consumed so much that I was not in control of my senses. I was completely in control. Let me explain the scenario in detail.
One of my friends was heavily intoxicated, unable to stand properly, so we decided to have him sit in the park until our cab arrived. When the cab arrived, the driver refused to open the gate as my friend was vomiting. This led to a small argument with the cab driver, who then called someone from the admin/transport department. Even though that person had been working there for the past seven years, I had not seen him before, which is why I mentioned that I didn't know who he was.
When my third friend introduced me to him as being from the transport department, I calmed down and apologized to him. However, he still lodged a complaint with his Head of Department. Without giving me a chance to explain or rectify the situation, they terminated my employment.
I would appreciate it if you could look into this matter further and reconsider their decision.
Thank you.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is to inform you that yes, I was under the influence of alcohol at that time. However, it doesn't mean I had consumed so much that I was not in control of my senses. I was completely in control. Let me explain the scenario in detail.
One of my friends was heavily intoxicated, unable to stand properly, so we decided to have him sit in the park until our cab arrived. When the cab arrived, the driver refused to open the gate as my friend was vomiting. This led to a small argument with the cab driver, who then called someone from the admin/transport department. Even though that person had been working there for the past seven years, I had not seen him before, which is why I mentioned that I didn't know who he was.
When my third friend introduced me to him as being from the transport department, I calmed down and apologized to him. However, he still lodged a complaint with his Head of Department. Without giving me a chance to explain or rectify the situation, they terminated my employment.
I would appreciate it if you could look into this matter further and reconsider their decision.
Thank you.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My dear friend, when your friend was vomiting, it is obvious that the driver wouldn't allow him to travel in the cab. Who will wash the vomit of your friend? To avoid it, he refused. Again, the driver, with due respect to you as a senior person, called his senior from his department, i.e., the admin/transport department personnel, to sort out the matter. The admin/transport personnel also refused. So, you lost your control/temper and started an altercation/arguments, which escalated into heated arguments (i.e., arguments in a loud voice), where the transport/admin personnel got annoyed. They thereafter complained to the HOD about your misconduct towards your colleague. The HR/Management, with due consent from your HOD, must have terminated you without assigning any reason (Please clarify if the reason for termination is mentioned). This is my assumption based on one side of the story from yours.
Please refer to the termination clause of your appointment and clarify the termination during probation to guide you further. Normally, during probation, an employee can be terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever. If it was after confirmation, then they could not have terminated you without a probe/domestic enquiry.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please refer to the termination clause of your appointment and clarify the termination during probation to guide you further. Normally, during probation, an employee can be terminated without assigning any reason whatsoever. If it was after confirmation, then they could not have terminated you without a probe/domestic enquiry.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Whatever has happened, please remember, never overdo anything in life. Moderation is the key to success. Corporate or business etiquette calls for refraining from consuming alcohol at official parties. If you are compelled to drink, limit yourself to just one glass if absolutely necessary. Our tendency is to indulge excessively, especially when it is complimentary. This should be a lesson for your future. The moment alcohol affects you, you lose self-control. Consider where you have ended up. You may want to schedule a meeting with your Head of Department or CEO to apologize for your actions. Moving forward, it is advisable to abstain from alcohol.
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Rahul,
My friend, from both the angles of behavior and legality, your actions towards your senior colleague were indeed not acceptable. Although it happened unknowingly on your part, your organization seems to have a fair policy towards its senior staff and the overall image of the organization. Your legal battle should not overshadow your emotional misconduct.
Please take care in the future.
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My friend, from both the angles of behavior and legality, your actions towards your senior colleague were indeed not acceptable. Although it happened unknowingly on your part, your organization seems to have a fair policy towards its senior staff and the overall image of the organization. Your legal battle should not overshadow your emotional misconduct.
Please take care in the future.
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Rahul,
Kindly refer to the clause on Termination of services in your appointment letter. Your company may have considered this termination under the clause of gross misconduct, which covers even if you are at an official party (i.e., outside the company for official purposes). It is expected that all employees maintain the same conduct as they would on the company premises.
Although the act was not appropriate, considering the situation, the offense does not seem severe enough to warrant termination.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Kindly refer to the clause on Termination of services in your appointment letter. Your company may have considered this termination under the clause of gross misconduct, which covers even if you are at an official party (i.e., outside the company for official purposes). It is expected that all employees maintain the same conduct as they would on the company premises.
Although the act was not appropriate, considering the situation, the offense does not seem severe enough to warrant termination.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Gaurav,
What I am saying, listen to me with patience, this will solve your problem:
If your employer does not wish to keep you, you can't make your career there, even if you are legally correct or win a legal battle. But, from your case, it's not entirely your fault (100%), but you can make your company reconsider the decision and make them apologize. You need to be diplomatic, cool, and consult a lawyer.
1. Check your exit documents and see what the Cause of Termination is.
2. If it is due to 'disciplinary action taken against you,' you can challenge the company, and there will be a high chance of winning a legal battle.
3. If the reason for your separation/termination is not mentioned, contact a lawyer and send an email with a query under the RTI Act, asking for the reason.
4. There is a 99.9% chance it will be on disciplinary grounds.
5. Send an email first to the HR department, questioning why a domestic enquiry has not taken place and why a one-sided decision was made. Send three emails; if your company doesn't respond (which is highly likely), mention in the third letter that you will take legal action.
6. Mention that you did not attend the party after consuming alcohol; alcoholic drinks were provided by the company. If you have pictures from the party, they can serve as strong evidence. If peers or seniors were seen consuming alcohol at the party, it is important to note. If the party was held at a hotel, restaurant, or disco, try to obtain the invoice showing that the company paid for the alcohol. Handle this diplomatically.
7. If you have evidence as mentioned in point 6, describe the incident in the email and question why the company did not take security measures when alcoholic drinks were present. Question their stance on discipline and ask why they are encouraging misconduct when they are aware that people lose control after consuming alcohol. Attach the evidence to the email.
8. Question if the company indirectly encouraged you by providing alcoholic drinks. Claim that your termination is part of a conspiracy since you were intoxicated and the drinks were arranged by the company. Demand that they reconsider the decision or clear your service record with an official apology letter, or your lawyer will raise these questions in court.
9. If there is no response to the emails and letters, you can opt for the company's response through RTI. Based on their answer, you can take legal action.
If any termination occurs due to 'disciplinary grounds specifically,' whether during the probationary period or not, every individual has the right to natural justice or can seek justice in court. If an employee goes to court, the first order the magistrate provides is the 'domestic enquiry report' to determine if natural justice was served in the termination on disciplinary grounds. Otherwise, the victim can claim that the termination was pre-planned and a conspiracy by the employer where natural justice was not upheld.
For further advice, consult a lawyer. I hope they will provide similar guidance.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B.
MBA - HR & Finance
Managing Director
S.S ENTERPRISE.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
What I am saying, listen to me with patience, this will solve your problem:
If your employer does not wish to keep you, you can't make your career there, even if you are legally correct or win a legal battle. But, from your case, it's not entirely your fault (100%), but you can make your company reconsider the decision and make them apologize. You need to be diplomatic, cool, and consult a lawyer.
1. Check your exit documents and see what the Cause of Termination is.
2. If it is due to 'disciplinary action taken against you,' you can challenge the company, and there will be a high chance of winning a legal battle.
3. If the reason for your separation/termination is not mentioned, contact a lawyer and send an email with a query under the RTI Act, asking for the reason.
4. There is a 99.9% chance it will be on disciplinary grounds.
5. Send an email first to the HR department, questioning why a domestic enquiry has not taken place and why a one-sided decision was made. Send three emails; if your company doesn't respond (which is highly likely), mention in the third letter that you will take legal action.
6. Mention that you did not attend the party after consuming alcohol; alcoholic drinks were provided by the company. If you have pictures from the party, they can serve as strong evidence. If peers or seniors were seen consuming alcohol at the party, it is important to note. If the party was held at a hotel, restaurant, or disco, try to obtain the invoice showing that the company paid for the alcohol. Handle this diplomatically.
7. If you have evidence as mentioned in point 6, describe the incident in the email and question why the company did not take security measures when alcoholic drinks were present. Question their stance on discipline and ask why they are encouraging misconduct when they are aware that people lose control after consuming alcohol. Attach the evidence to the email.
8. Question if the company indirectly encouraged you by providing alcoholic drinks. Claim that your termination is part of a conspiracy since you were intoxicated and the drinks were arranged by the company. Demand that they reconsider the decision or clear your service record with an official apology letter, or your lawyer will raise these questions in court.
9. If there is no response to the emails and letters, you can opt for the company's response through RTI. Based on their answer, you can take legal action.
If any termination occurs due to 'disciplinary grounds specifically,' whether during the probationary period or not, every individual has the right to natural justice or can seek justice in court. If an employee goes to court, the first order the magistrate provides is the 'domestic enquiry report' to determine if natural justice was served in the termination on disciplinary grounds. Otherwise, the victim can claim that the termination was pre-planned and a conspiracy by the employer where natural justice was not upheld.
For further advice, consult a lawyer. I hope they will provide similar guidance.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B.
MBA - HR & Finance
Managing Director
S.S ENTERPRISE.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Sovik B It would be pleasure if you could let us know, under which section of RTI Act we can seek the reason for termination of an employee of any Pvt. Company.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Adding those, you show that your probationary period is a limitation. Don't listen to them. It will add an advantage to you because your claim of a one-sided decision/conspiracy will be strengthened. The company has to prove and justify them in court, whether they follow a hire and fire policy or not. And since you are new to the organization, whether a conspiracy, partiality/politics involved, a favor to a senior employee, just to satisfy his demands/ego.
Either way, it's a benefit for you. Be smart, confident, diplomatic, and go by laws. You don't need to fear anyone.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR and Finance
B.Sc. Mathematics Honours, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara,
University Of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S ENTERPRISE
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Adding those, you show that your probationary period is a limitation. Don't listen to them. It will add an advantage to you because your claim of a one-sided decision/conspiracy will be strengthened. The company has to prove and justify them in court, whether they follow a hire and fire policy or not. And since you are new to the organization, whether a conspiracy, partiality/politics involved, a favor to a senior employee, just to satisfy his demands/ego.
Either way, it's a benefit for you. Be smart, confident, diplomatic, and go by laws. You don't need to fear anyone.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR and Finance
B.Sc. Mathematics Honours, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara,
University Of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S ENTERPRISE
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Saji,
I can answer the question right away. But I will request you to do research in this part. I am just trying to help a poor guy, right? I am not paid here for consultation, but I have to pay my lawyers/law firm for consultation. Please don't consider me rude; I am just diplomatic with you.
But still, for your information (FYI), I would like to add a point: if a query for the reason of termination is made under RTI and it is not mentioned in the Termination Letter, the company will have to provide the same as it can't claim information confidential under Trade Secret Exclusion. I hope you understand what I mean to say.
Thanks & Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR & Finance
B.Sc. Mathematics Honours, Ramakrishna Mission V.C. College, Rahara,
University Of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S. Enterprise
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I can answer the question right away. But I will request you to do research in this part. I am just trying to help a poor guy, right? I am not paid here for consultation, but I have to pay my lawyers/law firm for consultation. Please don't consider me rude; I am just diplomatic with you.
But still, for your information (FYI), I would like to add a point: if a query for the reason of termination is made under RTI and it is not mentioned in the Termination Letter, the company will have to provide the same as it can't claim information confidential under Trade Secret Exclusion. I hope you understand what I mean to say.
Thanks & Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR & Finance
B.Sc. Mathematics Honours, Ramakrishna Mission V.C. College, Rahara,
University Of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S. Enterprise
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Sovik,
I have searched the RTI Act 2005, wherein I found that the Right to Information Act 2005 mandates timely responses to citizen requests for government information and not for any information regarding private companies, institutes, or organizations. That's why I clarified from your end.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have searched the RTI Act 2005, wherein I found that the Right to Information Act 2005 mandates timely responses to citizen requests for government information and not for any information regarding private companies, institutes, or organizations. That's why I clarified from your end.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Saji,
You are correct. However, here, I would like to mention something: your knowledge is 100% correct. You might not be aware of all terms and clauses, modifications made in RTI guidelines during 2007-2011.
Please refer to the following link carefully. Here, you must have a clear conception of what comes under 'TRADE SECRET EXCLUSION' and direct/indirect funding meanings. After reading this, kindly mention your questions, and I would like to share a classic judgment made by the Delhi High Court. I will also provide details of the same.
Link: [Right to Information](http://rtiact.hpage.co.in/private-orgs_38455804.html)
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You are correct. However, here, I would like to mention something: your knowledge is 100% correct. You might not be aware of all terms and clauses, modifications made in RTI guidelines during 2007-2011.
Please refer to the following link carefully. Here, you must have a clear conception of what comes under 'TRADE SECRET EXCLUSION' and direct/indirect funding meanings. After reading this, kindly mention your questions, and I would like to share a classic judgment made by the Delhi High Court. I will also provide details of the same.
Link: [Right to Information](http://rtiact.hpage.co.in/private-orgs_38455804.html)
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Saji,
You are correct. But here, I would like to mention something: your knowledge is not 100% accurate. You may not be aware of all the terms, clauses, and modifications made in the RTI guidelines during 2007-2011.
Please refer to the following link carefully. Here, you must have a clear understanding of what falls under 'TRADE SECRET EXCLUSION' and the meanings of direct/indirect funding. After reading this, kindly mention any questions you have, and I would like to share a classic judgment made by the Delhi High Court. I will also provide details of the same.
Link: [Right to Information](http://rtiact.hpage.co.in/private-orgs_38455804.html)
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You are correct. But here, I would like to mention something: your knowledge is not 100% accurate. You may not be aware of all the terms, clauses, and modifications made in the RTI guidelines during 2007-2011.
Please refer to the following link carefully. Here, you must have a clear understanding of what falls under 'TRADE SECRET EXCLUSION' and the meanings of direct/indirect funding. After reading this, kindly mention any questions you have, and I would like to share a classic judgment made by the Delhi High Court. I will also provide details of the same.
Link: [Right to Information](http://rtiact.hpage.co.in/private-orgs_38455804.html)
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Sovik,
Thank you very much for guiding me. I have referred to the link, wherein I found a few clauses as follows:
"Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) together mean that any non-government organizations which are substantially owned, controlled, or financed directly or indirectly by the government would be covered. Thus, aided schools and colleges are public authorities, as well as any trusts or NGOs which have significant government nominees; or companies where the government either owns a substantial stake, or has given substantial finance, are directly covered under the RTI Act. The substantial finance can take into account tax incentives, subsidies, and other concessions as well.
"Applicants have every right to seek information on a private company even though it is in the private sector if it reports to a government body."
Only applications that serve public interest would be dealt with, not those that seek to erode a company's competitive position.
From the above clauses, I feel that none of the clauses state that an RTI can be sought for the reason of the termination of any individual, i.e., an employee. As per my view, which may be incorrect, please guide us.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you very much for guiding me. I have referred to the link, wherein I found a few clauses as follows:
"Sub-clauses (i) and (ii) together mean that any non-government organizations which are substantially owned, controlled, or financed directly or indirectly by the government would be covered. Thus, aided schools and colleges are public authorities, as well as any trusts or NGOs which have significant government nominees; or companies where the government either owns a substantial stake, or has given substantial finance, are directly covered under the RTI Act. The substantial finance can take into account tax incentives, subsidies, and other concessions as well.
"Applicants have every right to seek information on a private company even though it is in the private sector if it reports to a government body."
Only applications that serve public interest would be dealt with, not those that seek to erode a company's competitive position.
From the above clauses, I feel that none of the clauses state that an RTI can be sought for the reason of the termination of any individual, i.e., an employee. As per my view, which may be incorrect, please guide us.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Saji,
That's really a good question. At least you accepted that RTI holds good for Private Companies, moved from the previous stand that under RTI Private companies are exempted. Now, your question whether an employee can ask for the Reason of Termination under RTI, that's a different question.
Anyway, still, my answer is 'Yes'. But we have to follow an Indirect Path. Before answering the question, I must understand your conception first & know your mentality, regarding handling employee grievances & the Corporate Stands that a Corporate House takes to save them when challenged Legally from different sources - including Government Agencies.
Please answer the following questions very carefully:
1. As an HR, do you consider yourself an advocate of employees? (My stand is Yes, I try for diplomatic negotiation - Understanding, Win-Win Resolution).
2. What do you think can the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Labour & employment, go for intervention in case of Private Companies formed under the Companies Act, 1956 (with all amendments made) if required? Do you think all Private companies report to them indirectly? (Do not limit your answers based on this particular case only).
3. 'Hire & Fire Policy', 'Social Discrimination', 'Harassment', not following corporate laws, comes under which Category, Personal Interest or Public Interest?
4. How can the Labour Tribunal opt for intervention in case of Private Companies?
First, answer these questions, then I will answer your question. Perhaps, it will make you agree with me again that it's possible on Legal Ground.
Thanks & Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
That's really a good question. At least you accepted that RTI holds good for Private Companies, moved from the previous stand that under RTI Private companies are exempted. Now, your question whether an employee can ask for the Reason of Termination under RTI, that's a different question.
Anyway, still, my answer is 'Yes'. But we have to follow an Indirect Path. Before answering the question, I must understand your conception first & know your mentality, regarding handling employee grievances & the Corporate Stands that a Corporate House takes to save them when challenged Legally from different sources - including Government Agencies.
Please answer the following questions very carefully:
1. As an HR, do you consider yourself an advocate of employees? (My stand is Yes, I try for diplomatic negotiation - Understanding, Win-Win Resolution).
2. What do you think can the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Labour & employment, go for intervention in case of Private Companies formed under the Companies Act, 1956 (with all amendments made) if required? Do you think all Private companies report to them indirectly? (Do not limit your answers based on this particular case only).
3. 'Hire & Fire Policy', 'Social Discrimination', 'Harassment', not following corporate laws, comes under which Category, Personal Interest or Public Interest?
4. How can the Labour Tribunal opt for intervention in case of Private Companies?
First, answer these questions, then I will answer your question. Perhaps, it will make you agree with me again that it's possible on Legal Ground.
Thanks & Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Saji,
One more question:
You have said, "Only applications that serve public interest would be dealt with, not those that seek to erode a company's competitive position." Does "Reason Of Termination" erode a company's competitive position? Does it fall under "Trade Secret"?
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
One more question:
You have said, "Only applications that serve public interest would be dealt with, not those that seek to erode a company's competitive position." Does "Reason Of Termination" erode a company's competitive position? Does it fall under "Trade Secret"?
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Sovik,
I don't want to prolong this thread. From a legal angle, a lawyer can argue in many ways where the hearing takes its own due course of time. Here the employee has to judge, will he/she wait until the judgment comes, wherein the employee has to devote his/her time and money running to courts and lawyers. Practically, the employee spoils his/her career just to receive an apology, a meager amount, or reinstate his job. All this can be done if the amount is huge and the employee has enough time and money for survival. That's why an HR/forum always gives a fair view/advice to the employees. Nobody can stop anyone from going legal, but if a fair view/advice is sought, it is given assuming the querist as a middle-class employee. If any issues are sorted out amicably across the table by the reply to the queries raised.
By any means, it was not to underestimate your knowledge/experience, but to gain further knowledge which will be helpful to others in the forum.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I don't want to prolong this thread. From a legal angle, a lawyer can argue in many ways where the hearing takes its own due course of time. Here the employee has to judge, will he/she wait until the judgment comes, wherein the employee has to devote his/her time and money running to courts and lawyers. Practically, the employee spoils his/her career just to receive an apology, a meager amount, or reinstate his job. All this can be done if the amount is huge and the employee has enough time and money for survival. That's why an HR/forum always gives a fair view/advice to the employees. Nobody can stop anyone from going legal, but if a fair view/advice is sought, it is given assuming the querist as a middle-class employee. If any issues are sorted out amicably across the table by the reply to the queries raised.
By any means, it was not to underestimate your knowledge/experience, but to gain further knowledge which will be helpful to others in the forum.
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Saji,
I am not a lawyer, but I have spent a lot of time with senior HR leaders (including DGM, GM, VP) from different corporate houses, including many Fortune 500 companies. I dedicated around 15-18 hours a day to understand the pros and cons of Human Resource Management. This exploration is not limited to India but also includes the USA, Canada, and the UK.
My dear friend, Saji, I am not against you or HR. I respect you and your questions. I extend my hand of friendship towards you; it is up to you whether you will accept my friendship or not. You can contact me at +91-8130901897 or Sovikbhattacharjee7@gmail.com for any professional discussions.
If I claimed to know everything under the sun, I would be the biggest liar. The only difference between you and me is that I prefer to maintain a crystal-clear conception. I strive to learn every day.
You know the most bitter fact of the HR domain in India: almost more than 60% of those in entry-level positions have conception problems, mainly due to poor mentors, institutions, or teachers. HR might seem like a very easy subject with minimal learning requirements.
For your information, to address this particular problem, one doesn't need to spend a huge amount of money. At most 5k-6k, if employees hire professionals with the best competency to handle such cases. There is no need to attend court and all. The judicial department will be involved, but the chances of going to trial are only 10%-20%. Some government departments must be involved so that trials can be avoided, and the requirements are fulfilled.
If I share the process, you might say, "Is it so simple?" I can assure you it is. Simple procedures need to be followed tactfully and in a particular sequence. Only guidance from someone experienced and genuinely knowledgeable is required.
The day you develop a passion for HR and consider yourself an advocate for employees, you will also comprehend all the pros and cons, all the minute details. However, for this, you must spend maximum time with senior HR professionals, read numerous books, and attend various seminars, especially those organized by different chambers of commerce.
For every problem, there is a solution. One may be expensive, and the other inexpensive. Only knowledge and competencies matter, my friend Saji.
I hope you will accept my friendship.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am not a lawyer, but I have spent a lot of time with senior HR leaders (including DGM, GM, VP) from different corporate houses, including many Fortune 500 companies. I dedicated around 15-18 hours a day to understand the pros and cons of Human Resource Management. This exploration is not limited to India but also includes the USA, Canada, and the UK.
My dear friend, Saji, I am not against you or HR. I respect you and your questions. I extend my hand of friendship towards you; it is up to you whether you will accept my friendship or not. You can contact me at +91-8130901897 or Sovikbhattacharjee7@gmail.com for any professional discussions.
If I claimed to know everything under the sun, I would be the biggest liar. The only difference between you and me is that I prefer to maintain a crystal-clear conception. I strive to learn every day.
You know the most bitter fact of the HR domain in India: almost more than 60% of those in entry-level positions have conception problems, mainly due to poor mentors, institutions, or teachers. HR might seem like a very easy subject with minimal learning requirements.
For your information, to address this particular problem, one doesn't need to spend a huge amount of money. At most 5k-6k, if employees hire professionals with the best competency to handle such cases. There is no need to attend court and all. The judicial department will be involved, but the chances of going to trial are only 10%-20%. Some government departments must be involved so that trials can be avoided, and the requirements are fulfilled.
If I share the process, you might say, "Is it so simple?" I can assure you it is. Simple procedures need to be followed tactfully and in a particular sequence. Only guidance from someone experienced and genuinely knowledgeable is required.
The day you develop a passion for HR and consider yourself an advocate for employees, you will also comprehend all the pros and cons, all the minute details. However, for this, you must spend maximum time with senior HR professionals, read numerous books, and attend various seminars, especially those organized by different chambers of commerce.
For every problem, there is a solution. One may be expensive, and the other inexpensive. Only knowledge and competencies matter, my friend Saji.
I hope you will accept my friendship.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi all,
To all my HR friends,
It's a humble request to all of you. If you encounter similar issues, please consider conducting a domestic inquiry before making any decisions. Then, weigh all the pros and cons before finalizing your decision.
Rushing into decisions and dealing with cunning, aggressive, bold, mischievous, and fearless employees (the victims) can lead to severe damage to the company. They may involve various government agencies, instigate investigations, impose penalties, and even demand substantial compensation on legal grounds. Under such circumstances, defending the corporate house becomes extremely challenging, and neither the brand name nor the internal policies or the network of senior professionals can protect the company!
Commonly, HR audits categorize such errors as fatal. Legal support may not be available to defend the company. Therefore, it is crucial for all responsible HR professionals to thoroughly assess the legality of their actions before proceeding.
Although I am an introvert who prefers not to speak at length and focuses on constructive work, I have expressed my views as effectively as possible. The final decision rests with all of you.
Thanks and regards,
Sovik B
MBA-HR and Finance
B.Sc Mathematics (Hons), Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara
University of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S. Enterprise
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To all my HR friends,
It's a humble request to all of you. If you encounter similar issues, please consider conducting a domestic inquiry before making any decisions. Then, weigh all the pros and cons before finalizing your decision.
Rushing into decisions and dealing with cunning, aggressive, bold, mischievous, and fearless employees (the victims) can lead to severe damage to the company. They may involve various government agencies, instigate investigations, impose penalties, and even demand substantial compensation on legal grounds. Under such circumstances, defending the corporate house becomes extremely challenging, and neither the brand name nor the internal policies or the network of senior professionals can protect the company!
Commonly, HR audits categorize such errors as fatal. Legal support may not be available to defend the company. Therefore, it is crucial for all responsible HR professionals to thoroughly assess the legality of their actions before proceeding.
Although I am an introvert who prefers not to speak at length and focuses on constructive work, I have expressed my views as effectively as possible. The final decision rests with all of you.
Thanks and regards,
Sovik B
MBA-HR and Finance
B.Sc Mathematics (Hons), Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara
University of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S. Enterprise
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Right to Information (RTI) Act does not apply to a private company in the usual connotation of the term. However, if a company is established by a government body, a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), or a joint venture (such as NTPC BHEL Power Pvt Ltd) involving PSUs as a private entity, it will fall under the ambit of the RTI Act because it will be considered substantially funded by the government.
Additionally, the RTI Act only allows for the supply of pre-existing information. It does not facilitate answering the question of "why" or providing reasons for any actions taken by a public entity. Based on the original query, if an individual was terminated by a purely private company, there is no avenue to challenge the decision. Any legal action taken would likely not be sustained, as it would not serve any meaningful purpose.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Additionally, the RTI Act only allows for the supply of pre-existing information. It does not facilitate answering the question of "why" or providing reasons for any actions taken by a public entity. Based on the original query, if an individual was terminated by a purely private company, there is no avenue to challenge the decision. Any legal action taken would likely not be sustained, as it would not serve any meaningful purpose.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
VK Sajan,
RTI ACT CLEARLY STATE that PVT Companies are not extempted :
"Applicants have every right to seek information on a private company even though it is in the private sector, if it reports to a government body,"Only applications that served public interest would be dealt with, not those that sought to erode a company's competitive position.
Now, information regarding termination, cant be claimed as a ' TRADE SECRET', that can erode company's competitive position. Please note this point.
All companies formed under Companies ACT 1956, indirectly report to Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Labor & employment, and government agencies like SEBI. Their Roles comes into play when discrepancies arise in term of laws. Legally, if any private company are free from not to report/answer any of the government agencies, like SEBI, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Labor & employment, they can do whatever they wish & such organization (SEBI, Ministry of Corporate affairs etc), shall never have right to opt for intervention in case of discrepancies happens.
Similarly RTI can be used, but indirectly:
For example, say any stock broker/Equity Traders have a valid doubt based on evidence that any PVT company is applying illegal methods to increase its stock value in the market, Stock Broker/ Equity Trader, can ask for information via RTI through SEBI about company's affairs details. Stockbroker will ask SEBI, for more detailed information about a company's details as well as will inform SEBI that a forgery might be taking place based on evidence. Now, its SEBI's responsibility, to investigate, monitor that company's affairs, pros & cons, & provide a suitable answer to the broker, in such a way so that companies competitive position is not eroded . In Case SEBI, finds any discrepancies during investigation, SEBI possess all rights to go for an intervention in PVT company's affairs to protect the right Equity traders. Further, under such situation, Ministry of Corporate affairs, posses all rights for intervention, in PVT Company's affairs to safeguard the rights, of all kinds of partners associated with that PVT company.
Similarly, for termination of employees, labor laws associated with termination, must be followed. Labor laws for termination, clearly state that for Termination following Criteria Must be met:
1. Reason of Termination.
2. In case of employee completing 3 months continuous service, minimum 1 month’s written notice/ payment in lieu thereof is required by either side, as the case may be. (Notice of Dismissal- Sec 30)
3. Wages to be paid before the expiry of 2nd working day after the day on which employment is terminated . (Termination by or on behalf of the employer Sec. 19-5) .
In case of Unfair termination, as stated in Labor laws (PFA of Labor Laws modified after 2003), an employee possess all rights to appeal for Justice to Labor commission. Even can opt for Labor Tribunal.
In this case, a complain needs to be lodged in labor commission if ' Reason of Termination', is not specified/mentioned. And Under RTI act, employee can ask company through Labor commission/labor tribunal, to state reason of termination, if not provided by the company which is a valid demand on behalf of employee as per labor laws. As per labor laws, if it is considered unfair termination (Illegal), if reason of termination is not specified. Labor commission/labor tribunal, including Ministry of Labor & employment possess full right to investigate, & opt for intervention in affairs of private companies if satisfying reason for termination is not provided by the company.
Since, Industrial Dispute Act, domestic enquiry, has not been made before termination of gaurav, labor laws are not satisfied. In the attachment kindly read those sections which clearly state that under which criteria, termination is considered Illegal.
Once you understand this, will provide you details how, Ministry of Corporate affairs get involved in this case.
Regards
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
VK Sajan,
RTI ACT CLEARLY STATE that PVT Companies are not extempted :
"Applicants have every right to seek information on a private company even though it is in the private sector, if it reports to a government body,"Only applications that served public interest would be dealt with, not those that sought to erode a company's competitive position.
Now, information regarding termination, cant be claimed as a ' TRADE SECRET', that can erode company's competitive position. Please note this point.
All companies formed under Companies ACT 1956, indirectly report to Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Labor & employment, and government agencies like SEBI. Their Roles comes into play when discrepancies arise in term of laws. Legally, if any private company are free from not to report/answer any of the government agencies, like SEBI, Ministry Of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Labor & employment, they can do whatever they wish & such organization (SEBI, Ministry of Corporate affairs etc), shall never have right to opt for intervention in case of discrepancies happens.
Similarly RTI can be used, but indirectly:
For example, say any stock broker/Equity Traders have a valid doubt based on evidence that any PVT company is applying illegal methods to increase its stock value in the market, Stock Broker/ Equity Trader, can ask for information via RTI through SEBI about company's affairs details. Stockbroker will ask SEBI, for more detailed information about a company's details as well as will inform SEBI that a forgery might be taking place based on evidence. Now, its SEBI's responsibility, to investigate, monitor that company's affairs, pros & cons, & provide a suitable answer to the broker, in such a way so that companies competitive position is not eroded . In Case SEBI, finds any discrepancies during investigation, SEBI possess all rights to go for an intervention in PVT company's affairs to protect the right Equity traders. Further, under such situation, Ministry of Corporate affairs, posses all rights for intervention, in PVT Company's affairs to safeguard the rights, of all kinds of partners associated with that PVT company.
Similarly, for termination of employees, labor laws associated with termination, must be followed. Labor laws for termination, clearly state that for Termination following Criteria Must be met:
1. Reason of Termination.
2. In case of employee completing 3 months continuous service, minimum 1 month’s written notice/ payment in lieu thereof is required by either side, as the case may be. (Notice of Dismissal- Sec 30)
3. Wages to be paid before the expiry of 2nd working day after the day on which employment is terminated . (Termination by or on behalf of the employer Sec. 19-5) .
In case of Unfair termination, as stated in Labor laws (PFA of Labor Laws modified after 2003), an employee possess all rights to appeal for Justice to Labor commission. Even can opt for Labor Tribunal.
In this case, a complain needs to be lodged in labor commission if ' Reason of Termination', is not specified/mentioned. And Under RTI act, employee can ask company through Labor commission/labor tribunal, to state reason of termination, if not provided by the company which is a valid demand on behalf of employee as per labor laws. As per labor laws, if it is considered unfair termination (Illegal), if reason of termination is not specified. Labor commission/labor tribunal, including Ministry of Labor & employment possess full right to investigate, & opt for intervention in affairs of private companies if satisfying reason for termination is not provided by the company.
Since, Industrial Dispute Act, domestic enquiry, has not been made before termination of gaurav, labor laws are not satisfied. In the attachment kindly read those sections which clearly state that under which criteria, termination is considered Illegal.
Once you understand this, will provide you details how, Ministry of Corporate affairs get involved in this case.
Regards
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Please don't remain in the illusion that a private (PVT) company can do whatever they wish. No one can do anything, and they don't report to anyone. HR, CEOs, and MDs do not possess supreme authority to ruin the careers or lives of any employees or stakeholders by doing as they please. If that were the case, regardless of laws, companies might opt for bonded labor, child labor, chit fund forgery for profit maximization. However, this does not happen in practical life, right? There are monitoring bodies such as SEBI, the IT Department, Sales Tax Department, Labor Commission, Labor Tribunal, ILO, RBI, etc. Otherwise, companies like Satyam Computers/Sharada Group would have been able to do whatever they wished.
All private companies formed under the Companies Act 1956 (including all amendments) indirectly report to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Labor & Employment, and government agencies like the Income Tax Department, SEBI, RBI, Sales Tax Department, Labor Commission, etc. It can be viewed that companies are liable to follow all laws of the land, corporate laws, labor laws, and guidelines issued by the above agencies from time to time. By following laws and regulations, companies report to these institutions that all their actions are appropriate and legal. The moment a violation of laws or guidelines occurs, all these institutions have the right to investigate, monitor, and intervene in company affairs if required. All companies are bound to answer these agencies if the question is valid and legal.
If this were not the case, a company might be able to hide its income and pay only a quarter of the taxes it should ideally pay. Would all these agencies (concerned ones) sit idle in their chairs and watch everything silently because they don't have the power to do anything, and companies don't report to them? So, why should companies be liable to follow their policies and guidelines issued from time to time? Does this happen?
For reasons of termination, it must be a valid one, which is a mandatory criterion according to labor laws that all companies are liable to follow. Otherwise, the Labor Commission, Labor Tribunal, Ministry of Labor & Employment have full rights and authority to investigate, question, and intervene in the affairs of private companies if required. That's why labor law clearly states that if the termination is illegal, the employee has the right to seek justice from the labor commission/labor tribunal, along with the Judicial Department.
In this particular case, first, a complaint needs to be lodged stating that the reason for termination is not specified as per labor laws. After that (after a suitable span of time), under RTI, the employee has to ask the labor commission about the action taken regarding the complaint that the termination was made without satisfying the basic requirements of termination under labor laws. It is the sole responsibility of the labor commission to obtain details from the company, investigate if required, and intervene since labor laws have not been met. Also, it is their responsibility to provide information to the employee about the reason for termination specified by the company.
Moreover, an employee can be terminated if proven misconduct occurs from the employee's end. So, a domestic inquiry is a must.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR & Finance
B.Sc Mathematics Honours, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara, under the University of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S ENTERPRISE
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please don't remain in the illusion that a private (PVT) company can do whatever they wish. No one can do anything, and they don't report to anyone. HR, CEOs, and MDs do not possess supreme authority to ruin the careers or lives of any employees or stakeholders by doing as they please. If that were the case, regardless of laws, companies might opt for bonded labor, child labor, chit fund forgery for profit maximization. However, this does not happen in practical life, right? There are monitoring bodies such as SEBI, the IT Department, Sales Tax Department, Labor Commission, Labor Tribunal, ILO, RBI, etc. Otherwise, companies like Satyam Computers/Sharada Group would have been able to do whatever they wished.
All private companies formed under the Companies Act 1956 (including all amendments) indirectly report to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Ministry of Labor & Employment, and government agencies like the Income Tax Department, SEBI, RBI, Sales Tax Department, Labor Commission, etc. It can be viewed that companies are liable to follow all laws of the land, corporate laws, labor laws, and guidelines issued by the above agencies from time to time. By following laws and regulations, companies report to these institutions that all their actions are appropriate and legal. The moment a violation of laws or guidelines occurs, all these institutions have the right to investigate, monitor, and intervene in company affairs if required. All companies are bound to answer these agencies if the question is valid and legal.
If this were not the case, a company might be able to hide its income and pay only a quarter of the taxes it should ideally pay. Would all these agencies (concerned ones) sit idle in their chairs and watch everything silently because they don't have the power to do anything, and companies don't report to them? So, why should companies be liable to follow their policies and guidelines issued from time to time? Does this happen?
For reasons of termination, it must be a valid one, which is a mandatory criterion according to labor laws that all companies are liable to follow. Otherwise, the Labor Commission, Labor Tribunal, Ministry of Labor & Employment have full rights and authority to investigate, question, and intervene in the affairs of private companies if required. That's why labor law clearly states that if the termination is illegal, the employee has the right to seek justice from the labor commission/labor tribunal, along with the Judicial Department.
In this particular case, first, a complaint needs to be lodged stating that the reason for termination is not specified as per labor laws. After that (after a suitable span of time), under RTI, the employee has to ask the labor commission about the action taken regarding the complaint that the termination was made without satisfying the basic requirements of termination under labor laws. It is the sole responsibility of the labor commission to obtain details from the company, investigate if required, and intervene since labor laws have not been met. Also, it is their responsibility to provide information to the employee about the reason for termination specified by the company.
Moreover, an employee can be terminated if proven misconduct occurs from the employee's end. So, a domestic inquiry is a must.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR & Finance
B.Sc Mathematics Honours, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara, under the University of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S ENTERPRISE
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
There are two things that, Company should not arrange such parties inside the premises and you try to avoid to have hard drinks also.
From Kuwait
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From Kuwait
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi RMSM,
I agree with you. Have you read the story narrated by Mahatma Gandhi, 'Imitating an English Gentleman'? Today, when we are globally connected, global trades are taking place, and we are following Western culture, someone who follows it should not blindly imitate it. According to my view, good points/features should be taken from any culture, even Western culture, but not their dark sides.
I don't know what specialty alcohol brings to a party. If companies are arranging alcoholic drinks, they should know that people lose their senses after getting intoxicated; they can't get rid of their moral responsibilities of employee security and maintaining discipline! It should be their moral responsibility to drop the employees safely home.
If disciplinary incidents take place, by no means of law can they defend themselves, stating they are not encouraging or provoking disciplinary activities if they claim it's an official get-together. They can claim that it's an informal get-together (only company is sponsoring it) to save themselves, but if it is so, then the employer has no legal rights to take action against any employees based on internal policies, corporate laws, labor laws. During such incidents, they have to consider their employees as the public and not employees. This happens most of the time because corporate houses, especially MNCs and Fortune 500 companies, don't wish to lose their reputation due to such incidents, and their hands are legally tied! The exception is Gaurav's case where the corporate house can't defend them at all, no scope!
You know something, if any employee comes to the office intoxicated, I just ask them, what specialty is there? It seems you don't want this job, right? Why don't you resign officially; no one is holding you? That's much better than termination. If you really wish to drink, then go to a bar or drink at your house; no one will question you, dear! I say this straightforward.
Regards
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with you. Have you read the story narrated by Mahatma Gandhi, 'Imitating an English Gentleman'? Today, when we are globally connected, global trades are taking place, and we are following Western culture, someone who follows it should not blindly imitate it. According to my view, good points/features should be taken from any culture, even Western culture, but not their dark sides.
I don't know what specialty alcohol brings to a party. If companies are arranging alcoholic drinks, they should know that people lose their senses after getting intoxicated; they can't get rid of their moral responsibilities of employee security and maintaining discipline! It should be their moral responsibility to drop the employees safely home.
If disciplinary incidents take place, by no means of law can they defend themselves, stating they are not encouraging or provoking disciplinary activities if they claim it's an official get-together. They can claim that it's an informal get-together (only company is sponsoring it) to save themselves, but if it is so, then the employer has no legal rights to take action against any employees based on internal policies, corporate laws, labor laws. During such incidents, they have to consider their employees as the public and not employees. This happens most of the time because corporate houses, especially MNCs and Fortune 500 companies, don't wish to lose their reputation due to such incidents, and their hands are legally tied! The exception is Gaurav's case where the corporate house can't defend them at all, no scope!
You know something, if any employee comes to the office intoxicated, I just ask them, what specialty is there? It seems you don't want this job, right? Why don't you resign officially; no one is holding you? That's much better than termination. If you really wish to drink, then go to a bar or drink at your house; no one will question you, dear! I say this straightforward.
Regards
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi dear, this is an unfortunate incident for you. The first thing is you were under a probationary period. Secondly, if there are any clauses in your appointment letter regarding this, your termination is legal. The company generally has the right to discharge an employee during this period. You have no grounds to contest this termination.
Pankaj Bhanuse (Nagpur)
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Pankaj Bhanuse (Nagpur)
From India, Nagpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Pankaj,
I have one question for you: can an employer terminate an employee during the probation period due to the employer's fault and not the employee's?
If termination is due to poor performance, then the employer has the right to terminate during the probation period. However, even during the probation period, the reason for termination has to be mentioned. This is mandated by labor laws.
If 'disciplinary grounds' are cited, then the company cannot defend itself. It is a misconception that during the probation period, an employer can simply say, 'you are terminated,' and the job is over the next day. The probation period signifies that an employee is not a permanent employee; it is a testing period. The company has the right to terminate an employee without notice if the employee fails to perform or adhere to the company's rules and regulations, but not without reason.
Please consult with a reputable lawyer with over 25-30 years of experience in this field. This is illegal.
Thanks & Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have one question for you: can an employer terminate an employee during the probation period due to the employer's fault and not the employee's?
If termination is due to poor performance, then the employer has the right to terminate during the probation period. However, even during the probation period, the reason for termination has to be mentioned. This is mandated by labor laws.
If 'disciplinary grounds' are cited, then the company cannot defend itself. It is a misconception that during the probation period, an employer can simply say, 'you are terminated,' and the job is over the next day. The probation period signifies that an employee is not a permanent employee; it is a testing period. The company has the right to terminate an employee without notice if the employee fails to perform or adhere to the company's rules and regulations, but not without reason.
Please consult with a reputable lawyer with over 25-30 years of experience in this field. This is illegal.
Thanks & Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Adding,
Only in a FIXED-TERM CONTRACT, the employer possesses the right to terminate any employee without any reason during the probation period. However, a notice period needs to be provided or payment in lieu of it.
Understand this: if an appointment letter is drafted with a clause similar to it, stating that an employee will be under a probation period for 6 months (less than or equal to 1 year) and post that, the employee will become a permanent employee if he/she clears the probation period, then we can't call it a FIXED-TERM CONTRACT.
As the terms of the contract will also be liable to change, and both parties have to accept it for the continuation of service. If the employer does not add this, then if the appointment is challenged, legally it will be accepted as rules of government keep changing, and hence for long-term service, conditions are subject to change.
It is considered that the employee decided to join the obligation keeping in mind that he/she will clear the probation period and will work for a long time. Here, if the employer says 'You are terminated,' it means that you are terminated.
Again, if the employer is hiring a contract employee, and the appointment letter contains a fixed term of service, the employer possesses all rights to terminate an employee without stating a reason, but a notice period is mandatory or payment in lieu of it.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Only in a FIXED-TERM CONTRACT, the employer possesses the right to terminate any employee without any reason during the probation period. However, a notice period needs to be provided or payment in lieu of it.
Understand this: if an appointment letter is drafted with a clause similar to it, stating that an employee will be under a probation period for 6 months (less than or equal to 1 year) and post that, the employee will become a permanent employee if he/she clears the probation period, then we can't call it a FIXED-TERM CONTRACT.
As the terms of the contract will also be liable to change, and both parties have to accept it for the continuation of service. If the employer does not add this, then if the appointment is challenged, legally it will be accepted as rules of government keep changing, and hence for long-term service, conditions are subject to change.
It is considered that the employee decided to join the obligation keeping in mind that he/she will clear the probation period and will work for a long time. Here, if the employer says 'You are terminated,' it means that you are terminated.
Again, if the employer is hiring a contract employee, and the appointment letter contains a fixed term of service, the employer possesses all rights to terminate an employee without stating a reason, but a notice period is mandatory or payment in lieu of it.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Gaurav,
If you have your appointment letter with you, please confirm whether there is any clause like this:
1. Clearly stated that during the Probation Period of 6 months, without prior notice, notice period, and reason, the company possesses the rights to terminate. (This forms the basis of a fixed-term contract when we have to consider any issues related to termination during the probation period).
Only in this case does the employer possess the right to terminate an employee without stating the reason for termination, any prior notice, or notice period. But I am sure 98% of employers don't add this clause in the appointment letter; otherwise, practically no employee will accept the offer.
Or is there just a clause mentioned like this or similar in nature:
2. That your probation period will be 6 months, and your service will become permanent once you successfully clear the probation period.
3. Is there any clause mentioned that your terms of service will be subject to change in the future by the company as per business requirements, and the continuation of service will depend on mutual agreement?
If any of the clauses 2 or 3, or similar to them, is mentioned in the appointment letter or offer letter, then the company is liable to terminate any employee without any prior notice during the probation period. However, the reason needs to be specified and valid. The company can take a stand of not stating the reason for termination to the employee (an exceptional case). But if the decision is challenged in the labor commission or labor tribunal, then the company has to state the reason and validate it.
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you have your appointment letter with you, please confirm whether there is any clause like this:
1. Clearly stated that during the Probation Period of 6 months, without prior notice, notice period, and reason, the company possesses the rights to terminate. (This forms the basis of a fixed-term contract when we have to consider any issues related to termination during the probation period).
Only in this case does the employer possess the right to terminate an employee without stating the reason for termination, any prior notice, or notice period. But I am sure 98% of employers don't add this clause in the appointment letter; otherwise, practically no employee will accept the offer.
Or is there just a clause mentioned like this or similar in nature:
2. That your probation period will be 6 months, and your service will become permanent once you successfully clear the probation period.
3. Is there any clause mentioned that your terms of service will be subject to change in the future by the company as per business requirements, and the continuation of service will depend on mutual agreement?
If any of the clauses 2 or 3, or similar to them, is mentioned in the appointment letter or offer letter, then the company is liable to terminate any employee without any prior notice during the probation period. However, the reason needs to be specified and valid. The company can take a stand of not stating the reason for termination to the employee (an exceptional case). But if the decision is challenged in the labor commission or labor tribunal, then the company has to state the reason and validate it.
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Adding,
The moment termination of service occurs in the case of a probationary employee without stating the reason for termination in documents, we have to consider the case as a 'layoff' and not due to termination on disciplinary grounds.
If such an employee joins another organization, showing previous experience, we have to consider layoff as the reason if there is not sufficient documentary evidence proving that the employee was terminated on disciplinary grounds in the previous company.
During verification, if the previous company provides written feedback (forget about verbal) that the employee was terminated on disciplinary grounds, and there is a mismatch in the versions of the employee and the previous organization, the employee cannot be considered a candidate with a red verification report. This is because the relieving letter does not mention the reason for termination, which is provided by the same old employer - a contradiction. If the employee claims that no such incident took place, then the employee must be given a chance for an explanation. With both documents, if the employee goes to court and claims that the previous employer is trying to harm the employee financially, the previous company can defend itself. Firstly, why did the previous company fail to mention the reason for termination in the documents? And why are they claiming it now? Most employers do not prefer to take advantage of employees in this manner.
If an employer mentions in the relieving letter/termination letter of a probationary employee that he/she has been terminated on disciplinary grounds, a domestic enquiry becomes mandatory (this is not due to poor performance).
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The moment termination of service occurs in the case of a probationary employee without stating the reason for termination in documents, we have to consider the case as a 'layoff' and not due to termination on disciplinary grounds.
If such an employee joins another organization, showing previous experience, we have to consider layoff as the reason if there is not sufficient documentary evidence proving that the employee was terminated on disciplinary grounds in the previous company.
During verification, if the previous company provides written feedback (forget about verbal) that the employee was terminated on disciplinary grounds, and there is a mismatch in the versions of the employee and the previous organization, the employee cannot be considered a candidate with a red verification report. This is because the relieving letter does not mention the reason for termination, which is provided by the same old employer - a contradiction. If the employee claims that no such incident took place, then the employee must be given a chance for an explanation. With both documents, if the employee goes to court and claims that the previous employer is trying to harm the employee financially, the previous company can defend itself. Firstly, why did the previous company fail to mention the reason for termination in the documents? And why are they claiming it now? Most employers do not prefer to take advantage of employees in this manner.
If an employer mentions in the relieving letter/termination letter of a probationary employee that he/she has been terminated on disciplinary grounds, a domestic enquiry becomes mandatory (this is not due to poor performance).
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please ignore my last comment; the correct comment is this one:
Adding,
The moment termination of service occurs in the case of a probationary employee without stating the reason for termination in documents, we have to consider the case as 'layoff' and not due to termination on disciplinary grounds.
If such an employee joins another organization, showing previous experience, we have to consider the layoff as the reason since there is not sufficient documentary evidence proving that the employee was terminated on disciplinary grounds in the previous company.
During verification, if the previous company provides written feedback (forget about verbal) stating that the employee was terminated on disciplinary grounds and there is a mismatch between the employee's version and the previous organization's, the employee cannot be considered a candidate with a red verification report. This is because the relieving letter does not mention the reason for termination, creating a contradiction. If such a claim is made, the employee must be given a chance to explain. If the employee presents both documents in court claiming the previous employer is trying to harm them financially, the previous company cannot defend itself. Firstly, why did the previous company fail to mention the reason for termination in the documents? And why are they claiming it now? Most employers do not prefer to do this, giving an advantage to the employee.
If an employer mentions in the relieving letter/termination letter of a probationary employee that he/she has been terminated on disciplinary grounds (this is not termination due to poor performance), a domestic enquiry becomes mandatory so that they can defend themselves if challenged that the case is genuine.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Adding,
The moment termination of service occurs in the case of a probationary employee without stating the reason for termination in documents, we have to consider the case as 'layoff' and not due to termination on disciplinary grounds.
If such an employee joins another organization, showing previous experience, we have to consider the layoff as the reason since there is not sufficient documentary evidence proving that the employee was terminated on disciplinary grounds in the previous company.
During verification, if the previous company provides written feedback (forget about verbal) stating that the employee was terminated on disciplinary grounds and there is a mismatch between the employee's version and the previous organization's, the employee cannot be considered a candidate with a red verification report. This is because the relieving letter does not mention the reason for termination, creating a contradiction. If such a claim is made, the employee must be given a chance to explain. If the employee presents both documents in court claiming the previous employer is trying to harm them financially, the previous company cannot defend itself. Firstly, why did the previous company fail to mention the reason for termination in the documents? And why are they claiming it now? Most employers do not prefer to do this, giving an advantage to the employee.
If an employer mentions in the relieving letter/termination letter of a probationary employee that he/she has been terminated on disciplinary grounds (this is not termination due to poor performance), a domestic enquiry becomes mandatory so that they can defend themselves if challenged that the case is genuine.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi friends,
This discussion is getting interesting, particularly the debate on RTI Act. For the past 7-8 years I am dealing with RTI matters in my company (govt), among other things. I have also personally obtained information under RTI from various public authorities (some successful, many not). Sadly, when information is sought, every public authority tries not to divulge information. Everyone will agree that the RTI Act applies to public authorities alone, and public authority has to notify a Public Information Officers (PIO) and APIOs (if required), and Appellate Authorities. I have not come across any private company having a PIO, simply because the Act does not apply. However, information relating to private companies can be obtained when it is controlled by or reporting to any govt authority (by itself a public authority and will have PIOs an AA). One may get information on private companies from the Registrar of Companies (a public authority). But what information can be sought? The information companies provide to ROC are, say ownership profile, details of directors, liabilities etc. Similarly, listed companies will give certain reports to SEBI regarding issue of shares, profitability, quarterly/annual returns, balance sheets etc. Such information can be available to public through PIO of such authority. But, not routine administrative matters relating employment of persons, their increments, pay, terminations etc. On the contrary, such information can be sought from govt companies which are public authorities. Disciplinary matters included, because of Article 311 of the Constitution, where it is mandatory to issue charge sheet and hold enquiry. This is not applicable to private companies. In private companies (in PSUs as well) disciplinary proceedings applies as per standing orders where its workmen are covered by it. Still service matters of workmen in private companies will not come under the purview of RTI, as far as I know. You may get information on welfare facilitates, safety measures etc. of a private company, through Factories Directorate of a State, since companies file periodical returns to this authority.
If the argument is taken for granted, what is the question that you are going to ask (which authority, Registrar, SEBI, Factory Inspectorate???)? The question is reproduced here:
3. If answer of your separation / termination is not mentioned, contact a Lawyer and sent a mail with query Under RTI Act, your reason of termination or separation.
Which authority possesses this information, other than the private company? Especially, when the information relating to an executive? If any of the PA, if at all, directs to give an answer, the readymade and simple answer is “unsatisfactory performance during probation period”. It is not easy to challenge this contention. If one enters a legal battle, which will take 15-20 years of litigation (from civil court, several rounds in high court, supreme court – remember the opposite party is a company, which has the resources to fight such legal battle. In my view, as far as executives in pvt companies are concerned, it is hire and fire policy that prevails.
Pls see the attached file, para 22 where it is mentioned PA should provide reasons for the decisions taken to the affected parties. Two categories of persons can apply for information under this. (1) Employees of the PA for reasons of any action/decision (2) citizens affected by the decision of the PA, say a Village office failing to provide any service. Can you say service matters of a pvt company come under this?
A presentation is also attached for the interested.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This discussion is getting interesting, particularly the debate on RTI Act. For the past 7-8 years I am dealing with RTI matters in my company (govt), among other things. I have also personally obtained information under RTI from various public authorities (some successful, many not). Sadly, when information is sought, every public authority tries not to divulge information. Everyone will agree that the RTI Act applies to public authorities alone, and public authority has to notify a Public Information Officers (PIO) and APIOs (if required), and Appellate Authorities. I have not come across any private company having a PIO, simply because the Act does not apply. However, information relating to private companies can be obtained when it is controlled by or reporting to any govt authority (by itself a public authority and will have PIOs an AA). One may get information on private companies from the Registrar of Companies (a public authority). But what information can be sought? The information companies provide to ROC are, say ownership profile, details of directors, liabilities etc. Similarly, listed companies will give certain reports to SEBI regarding issue of shares, profitability, quarterly/annual returns, balance sheets etc. Such information can be available to public through PIO of such authority. But, not routine administrative matters relating employment of persons, their increments, pay, terminations etc. On the contrary, such information can be sought from govt companies which are public authorities. Disciplinary matters included, because of Article 311 of the Constitution, where it is mandatory to issue charge sheet and hold enquiry. This is not applicable to private companies. In private companies (in PSUs as well) disciplinary proceedings applies as per standing orders where its workmen are covered by it. Still service matters of workmen in private companies will not come under the purview of RTI, as far as I know. You may get information on welfare facilitates, safety measures etc. of a private company, through Factories Directorate of a State, since companies file periodical returns to this authority.
If the argument is taken for granted, what is the question that you are going to ask (which authority, Registrar, SEBI, Factory Inspectorate???)? The question is reproduced here:
3. If answer of your separation / termination is not mentioned, contact a Lawyer and sent a mail with query Under RTI Act, your reason of termination or separation.
Which authority possesses this information, other than the private company? Especially, when the information relating to an executive? If any of the PA, if at all, directs to give an answer, the readymade and simple answer is “unsatisfactory performance during probation period”. It is not easy to challenge this contention. If one enters a legal battle, which will take 15-20 years of litigation (from civil court, several rounds in high court, supreme court – remember the opposite party is a company, which has the resources to fight such legal battle. In my view, as far as executives in pvt companies are concerned, it is hire and fire policy that prevails.
Pls see the attached file, para 22 where it is mentioned PA should provide reasons for the decisions taken to the affected parties. Two categories of persons can apply for information under this. (1) Employees of the PA for reasons of any action/decision (2) citizens affected by the decision of the PA, say a Village office failing to provide any service. Can you say service matters of a pvt company come under this?
A presentation is also attached for the interested.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
VK Sajan,
This discussion is really interesting now. For discussion, let us first ignore the probationary period. Let us consider a regular permanent employee of a private company.
If the reason for termination is not provided by a private company, it can be considered as unfair termination under labor law. Now, labor law permits an employee to seek justice from the Labor Commission (it is not a private body). The Labor Commission possesses rights to get such information from private companies too, not only limited to public companies. This power is provided by labor laws. The Labor Commission is a public body since its activities are funded by the government.
As the Labor Commission is a public body, the Right to Information (RTI) holds good for it. If a complaint is lodged with the Labor Commission, it has the power to seek information from private companies regarding their labor practices.
In 99% of cases, private companies at least cooperate with such bodies for negotiation when a complaint is lodged, particularly for cases like termination, to avoid further legal battles. If someone seeks information against a complaint made, if the Labor Commission possesses the information, they are supposed to provide it under RTI.
Thus, if the Labor Commission comes to know about the reason for termination for a particular complaint, they are supposed to provide the same under RTI to the person who is complaining.
Now, for the termination of an employee during the probationary period, three factors need to be considered:
1. Whether the agreement clearly states that during the probation period, the employer can terminate an employee without notice, reason for separation, and notice period.
If this clause is not mentioned, the company has the right to terminate the service of the employee without notice and without providing a reason why notice was not provided. However, a reason needs to be provided.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, has stated that for probationary employees, employment can be terminated without prior notice and without a reason for not providing notice. Still, the reason for termination is important.
If the reason for termination is not provided for probationary employees' termination in writing, it can be concluded as a layoff too, which is fine. For poor performance, it is also acceptable. There is no need to challenge it. It is fair, part of life, and there are more opportunities yet to come.
However, if the termination is made on disciplinary grounds, a domestic inquiry becomes important. For instance, forget this case, let's say an employee is terminated on disciplinary grounds, and the charges against him are sexual harassment or abuse. Under such scenarios, when serious allegations are made, the appeal for justice will not be limited to the civil court but also to the criminal court.
If the employer decides to remain silent, it will harm not only the employee but also other organizations. This emphasizes the importance of the cause of termination.
In cases where termination is made on disciplinary grounds, it is still acceptable if the reason is clarified. It cannot harm someone's career, right? The question here is not challenging the company's decision.
If I were in Gaurav's place, I would have said to the HR, "I respect your decision, thank you." But my point is to provide a reason for termination in clear detail. If I were in Gaurav's place, I would have shown the same experience to my next employer, honestly. I would have said, "I was terminated on disciplinary grounds, as stated in my relieving letter, but still, I was innocent as a domestic inquiry never happened. And in the reason for termination, it must be mentioned that the company had sponsored alcoholic drinks at the party."
If the company doesn't wish to provide this information, then we have to explore other options to obtain it from the company. It's all about providing a justified and honest reason for termination and not challenging the decision.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
VK Sajan,
This discussion is really interesting now. For discussion, let us first ignore the probationary period. Let us consider a regular permanent employee of a private company.
If the reason for termination is not provided by a private company, it can be considered as unfair termination under labor law. Now, labor law permits an employee to seek justice from the Labor Commission (it is not a private body). The Labor Commission possesses rights to get such information from private companies too, not only limited to public companies. This power is provided by labor laws. The Labor Commission is a public body since its activities are funded by the government.
As the Labor Commission is a public body, the Right to Information (RTI) holds good for it. If a complaint is lodged with the Labor Commission, it has the power to seek information from private companies regarding their labor practices.
In 99% of cases, private companies at least cooperate with such bodies for negotiation when a complaint is lodged, particularly for cases like termination, to avoid further legal battles. If someone seeks information against a complaint made, if the Labor Commission possesses the information, they are supposed to provide it under RTI.
Thus, if the Labor Commission comes to know about the reason for termination for a particular complaint, they are supposed to provide the same under RTI to the person who is complaining.
Now, for the termination of an employee during the probationary period, three factors need to be considered:
1. Whether the agreement clearly states that during the probation period, the employer can terminate an employee without notice, reason for separation, and notice period.
If this clause is not mentioned, the company has the right to terminate the service of the employee without notice and without providing a reason why notice was not provided. However, a reason needs to be provided.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, has stated that for probationary employees, employment can be terminated without prior notice and without a reason for not providing notice. Still, the reason for termination is important.
If the reason for termination is not provided for probationary employees' termination in writing, it can be concluded as a layoff too, which is fine. For poor performance, it is also acceptable. There is no need to challenge it. It is fair, part of life, and there are more opportunities yet to come.
However, if the termination is made on disciplinary grounds, a domestic inquiry becomes important. For instance, forget this case, let's say an employee is terminated on disciplinary grounds, and the charges against him are sexual harassment or abuse. Under such scenarios, when serious allegations are made, the appeal for justice will not be limited to the civil court but also to the criminal court.
If the employer decides to remain silent, it will harm not only the employee but also other organizations. This emphasizes the importance of the cause of termination.
In cases where termination is made on disciplinary grounds, it is still acceptable if the reason is clarified. It cannot harm someone's career, right? The question here is not challenging the company's decision.
If I were in Gaurav's place, I would have said to the HR, "I respect your decision, thank you." But my point is to provide a reason for termination in clear detail. If I were in Gaurav's place, I would have shown the same experience to my next employer, honestly. I would have said, "I was terminated on disciplinary grounds, as stated in my relieving letter, but still, I was innocent as a domestic inquiry never happened. And in the reason for termination, it must be mentioned that the company had sponsored alcoholic drinks at the party."
If the company doesn't wish to provide this information, then we have to explore other options to obtain it from the company. It's all about providing a justified and honest reason for termination and not challenging the decision.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi All,
Be it a private company or public, be it a permanent employee or probationary, if you are stating officially in papers that 'the employee is terminated on disciplinary grounds,' ensure to conduct a domestic inquiry first. It is a must criteria because it is a serious allegation. Disciplinary grounds can mean a lot, and the case may not be limited to civil court but also to criminal court.
Secondly, if possible, try to show another reason for the termination of service. Try to specify it, but for heaven's sake, don't use 'Disciplinary Ground' unless it is very important. I have seen with my own eyes how an IR officer got into trouble. She lost her job, paid a fine, and the company was imposed a fine of 500,000 INR! Don't stay in the illusion that no one can do anything. If an employee seeks legal options, the case may continue for 10 or 20 years.
We, businessmen (including myself), don't wish to waste time in court for such a simple reason because:
1. We are not enemies of employees.
2. If someone goes to court, then somewhere he is willing to say something. We try to negotiate outside but first listen to what he/she has to say.
3. Such issues create panic among other employees, fear of job security, an unfair environment, and increase my attrition rate. Additionally, there is goodwill loss in the market.
4. Why should we pay our lawyer for a non-productive case when there was a high chance of resolving it within the office by a matured HR/IR? I would prefer to remove HRs who unnecessarily add to my costs.
5. The procedure I mentioned involves RTI, involving the labor commission. I have seen this with my own eyes. The only private company was a famous JUTE MILL. Even the government intervened. The only difference was the employee was a permanent employee, not probationary.
6. I have mentioned multiple times, this is not a case of layoff, a performance-related issue. If it was, it's fine. Mention it on papers or not, it hardly matters. But ensure something, if it is on disciplinary grounds, and you don't mention it on papers, no domestic inquiry, no written evidence from the employee showing that you have tried to understand the case/taken measures, you are burning your own hands. If that employee shows that experience in some other company, and in feedback, you claim that you have terminated that employee on disciplinary grounds, you are hammering the last nail in your coffin. You have nothing to defend with. If the case goes to court, circumstantial evidence, domestic inquiry report, liabilities report, previous allegations, etc., will decide your fate.
We are businessmen; we invest money for profit, and HR/IR is not my son-in-law, or employees are my son. We care about profit, nothing else. It's better to remove such arrogant HR who don't think in a 360-degree angle about what might happen in the future and only complete a task based on present requirements. Sorry boss, truth of life.
This is an honest attempt to open the eyes of HRs. Nothing personal, and it's totally professional.
Over & Out
Regards
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Be it a private company or public, be it a permanent employee or probationary, if you are stating officially in papers that 'the employee is terminated on disciplinary grounds,' ensure to conduct a domestic inquiry first. It is a must criteria because it is a serious allegation. Disciplinary grounds can mean a lot, and the case may not be limited to civil court but also to criminal court.
Secondly, if possible, try to show another reason for the termination of service. Try to specify it, but for heaven's sake, don't use 'Disciplinary Ground' unless it is very important. I have seen with my own eyes how an IR officer got into trouble. She lost her job, paid a fine, and the company was imposed a fine of 500,000 INR! Don't stay in the illusion that no one can do anything. If an employee seeks legal options, the case may continue for 10 or 20 years.
We, businessmen (including myself), don't wish to waste time in court for such a simple reason because:
1. We are not enemies of employees.
2. If someone goes to court, then somewhere he is willing to say something. We try to negotiate outside but first listen to what he/she has to say.
3. Such issues create panic among other employees, fear of job security, an unfair environment, and increase my attrition rate. Additionally, there is goodwill loss in the market.
4. Why should we pay our lawyer for a non-productive case when there was a high chance of resolving it within the office by a matured HR/IR? I would prefer to remove HRs who unnecessarily add to my costs.
5. The procedure I mentioned involves RTI, involving the labor commission. I have seen this with my own eyes. The only private company was a famous JUTE MILL. Even the government intervened. The only difference was the employee was a permanent employee, not probationary.
6. I have mentioned multiple times, this is not a case of layoff, a performance-related issue. If it was, it's fine. Mention it on papers or not, it hardly matters. But ensure something, if it is on disciplinary grounds, and you don't mention it on papers, no domestic inquiry, no written evidence from the employee showing that you have tried to understand the case/taken measures, you are burning your own hands. If that employee shows that experience in some other company, and in feedback, you claim that you have terminated that employee on disciplinary grounds, you are hammering the last nail in your coffin. You have nothing to defend with. If the case goes to court, circumstantial evidence, domestic inquiry report, liabilities report, previous allegations, etc., will decide your fate.
We are businessmen; we invest money for profit, and HR/IR is not my son-in-law, or employees are my son. We care about profit, nothing else. It's better to remove such arrogant HR who don't think in a 360-degree angle about what might happen in the future and only complete a task based on present requirements. Sorry boss, truth of life.
This is an honest attempt to open the eyes of HRs. Nothing personal, and it's totally professional.
Over & Out
Regards
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Rahul,
Just wanted to ask, why should management listen to you? If they listen to you and give one chance to you, then the company is actually encouraging other staff to do such stuff. Come what may, you can't create a scene. If your management is not listening to you, I think there is nothing wrong.
Anyways, whatever has happened has happened. Please do not repeat such a foolish mistake.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Just wanted to ask, why should management listen to you? If they listen to you and give one chance to you, then the company is actually encouraging other staff to do such stuff. Come what may, you can't create a scene. If your management is not listening to you, I think there is nothing wrong.
Anyways, whatever has happened has happened. Please do not repeat such a foolish mistake.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sweet Sister, Monica,
I want to ask you something very different from this discussion, not at all related to this discussion. Friends, please don't consider this post as part of this discussion. Forget about all industries; let us consider only the IT/ITES industry.
I have a few questions for you. As you are a well-educated, experienced HR professional, my knowledge and skills are not at all comparable to yours. I have worked with a few Fortune 500 companies in the past, but not in core HR.
1. In which country did the concept of HR take place?
2. What is the difference between old Personnel Management and Human Resource Management?
3. Why do we use HRM in the present industry instead of PR or IR?
4. Why does Human Psychology form an essential part of HRM?
5. Do HR professionals in IT/ITES wish for employees to form Trade Unions, Staff Associations, etc.? If yes, please let us know so that we can decide the stance we should take in the future.
6. What additional flavor do alcoholic drinks add to a party? Why do companies sponsor them, irrespective of the fact that people lose their senses after getting intoxicated?
7. As an HR professional, what is the basic role in grievance handling?
8. Do seniors mean the 'Prime Minister of India'? If yes, please let us know. In that case, I will never work in any small company, except for any Fortune 500 companies, or will I start a business? I am scared, dear sis, as I am not the President of India or the US.
9. If an employee joins an organization, whose service do they join – HR's, MD's, CEO's, Process Head's, or the company's?
10. Once a VP of a Fortune 100 company asked me (a $2000 billion USD company) which side I will stay on post MBA – Employees or Employers? My designation at that time was that of a simple ground-level executive, and I knew him only because we worked in the same company. At that time, I was a 2nd-year regular MBA student and was just chatting with him. I have the same question for you, dear sweet sis.
(FYI, my answer was, I am on the company's side. I will do whatever is necessary to maintain the reputation and profit of my company. However, employees will be like assets on the balance sheet. In business, we follow a give and take policy.)
I don't know why those sorts of activities don't happen with me. What happened with Gaurav, yaar, this is not fair. I think before taking such measures, all HR professionals should consider what will happen if the person turns out to be a devil, right, sis?
Over and Out. Take care, sweet Sisee Monica.
Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR & Finance
B.Sc, Mathematics Honors, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara
Under - University Of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S ENTERPRISE
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I want to ask you something very different from this discussion, not at all related to this discussion. Friends, please don't consider this post as part of this discussion. Forget about all industries; let us consider only the IT/ITES industry.
I have a few questions for you. As you are a well-educated, experienced HR professional, my knowledge and skills are not at all comparable to yours. I have worked with a few Fortune 500 companies in the past, but not in core HR.
1. In which country did the concept of HR take place?
2. What is the difference between old Personnel Management and Human Resource Management?
3. Why do we use HRM in the present industry instead of PR or IR?
4. Why does Human Psychology form an essential part of HRM?
5. Do HR professionals in IT/ITES wish for employees to form Trade Unions, Staff Associations, etc.? If yes, please let us know so that we can decide the stance we should take in the future.
6. What additional flavor do alcoholic drinks add to a party? Why do companies sponsor them, irrespective of the fact that people lose their senses after getting intoxicated?
7. As an HR professional, what is the basic role in grievance handling?
8. Do seniors mean the 'Prime Minister of India'? If yes, please let us know. In that case, I will never work in any small company, except for any Fortune 500 companies, or will I start a business? I am scared, dear sis, as I am not the President of India or the US.
9. If an employee joins an organization, whose service do they join – HR's, MD's, CEO's, Process Head's, or the company's?
10. Once a VP of a Fortune 100 company asked me (a $2000 billion USD company) which side I will stay on post MBA – Employees or Employers? My designation at that time was that of a simple ground-level executive, and I knew him only because we worked in the same company. At that time, I was a 2nd-year regular MBA student and was just chatting with him. I have the same question for you, dear sweet sis.
(FYI, my answer was, I am on the company's side. I will do whatever is necessary to maintain the reputation and profit of my company. However, employees will be like assets on the balance sheet. In business, we follow a give and take policy.)
I don't know why those sorts of activities don't happen with me. What happened with Gaurav, yaar, this is not fair. I think before taking such measures, all HR professionals should consider what will happen if the person turns out to be a devil, right, sis?
Over and Out. Take care, sweet Sisee Monica.
Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR & Finance
B.Sc, Mathematics Honors, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara
Under - University Of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S ENTERPRISE
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To All Human Resource Professionals,
We don't know whether we would be able to help Gaurav or not, but can we all take an oath today, that irrespective of caste, creed, color, sex, or religion, we will not support or encourage alcoholic drinks or any intoxicating product in office premises or official parties. We will not allow any such request. If, due to any reason, we fail to convince management, then still we will not participate in such get-togethers with a glass of liquor. We might be too small to change others, but at least, can we change ourselves?
Until and unless we take a stand today, this story will repeat again and again. Forget about laws, rules, and codes of conduct; can we try this honestly for the sake of morale? If not, then we are in a mood that we will not learn even from practical case studies.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
We don't know whether we would be able to help Gaurav or not, but can we all take an oath today, that irrespective of caste, creed, color, sex, or religion, we will not support or encourage alcoholic drinks or any intoxicating product in office premises or official parties. We will not allow any such request. If, due to any reason, we fail to convince management, then still we will not participate in such get-togethers with a glass of liquor. We might be too small to change others, but at least, can we change ourselves?
Until and unless we take a stand today, this story will repeat again and again. Forget about laws, rules, and codes of conduct; can we try this honestly for the sake of morale? If not, then we are in a mood that we will not learn even from practical case studies.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi friends,
So, at least, it is settled that only public authorities have the RTI option. If the Labour Commissioner/ALC/DLC/LO is approached, he may direct the company to give a reply. However, whether the company (which was adamant in terminating the employee and not listening to him) obliges this is another question because it will lead to another angle of third-party information, where the third party is entitled to appeal against PIO.
Normally, only a workman (in the case of an individual workman who was terminated) can approach authorities under the ID Act. In the case of executives, the scope for intervention is limited. Participation in such negotiations (conciliation meetings to be specific) is not compulsory on the part of companies. Boss, you may be aware of how companies (especially private) manage their labor departments.
Social drinking and cocktail parties are part of corporate life today (does not mean I support greatly), and moderation is the key. It happens when companies celebrate their achievements in production, annual get-togethers with their employees, important business meetings with key accounts/customers (because as you pour alcohol, the eyes of the businessmen are on the sheer profits as you said). If one drinks too much and spoils the party, the businessman's reaction is understandable, and he may direct the HR person to remove the individual. HR may have sympathy for the poor fellow but has no option because the company is not running a charity but is for business and profits. The HR has to execute the management order and cannot plead with HR philosophy or psychology. Anyway, people including HR working in your company are lucky since even if such mistakes happen, they need not worry.
We all have concern for the affected party in this case but are also concerned about the legal/behavioral aspects of it as professionals. If the employee receives any favor from the labor department/court/negotiations, well, we too are happy. Maybe someone can arrange another party! All the best.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
So, at least, it is settled that only public authorities have the RTI option. If the Labour Commissioner/ALC/DLC/LO is approached, he may direct the company to give a reply. However, whether the company (which was adamant in terminating the employee and not listening to him) obliges this is another question because it will lead to another angle of third-party information, where the third party is entitled to appeal against PIO.
Normally, only a workman (in the case of an individual workman who was terminated) can approach authorities under the ID Act. In the case of executives, the scope for intervention is limited. Participation in such negotiations (conciliation meetings to be specific) is not compulsory on the part of companies. Boss, you may be aware of how companies (especially private) manage their labor departments.
Social drinking and cocktail parties are part of corporate life today (does not mean I support greatly), and moderation is the key. It happens when companies celebrate their achievements in production, annual get-togethers with their employees, important business meetings with key accounts/customers (because as you pour alcohol, the eyes of the businessmen are on the sheer profits as you said). If one drinks too much and spoils the party, the businessman's reaction is understandable, and he may direct the HR person to remove the individual. HR may have sympathy for the poor fellow but has no option because the company is not running a charity but is for business and profits. The HR has to execute the management order and cannot plead with HR philosophy or psychology. Anyway, people including HR working in your company are lucky since even if such mistakes happen, they need not worry.
We all have concern for the affected party in this case but are also concerned about the legal/behavioral aspects of it as professionals. If the employee receives any favor from the labor department/court/negotiations, well, we too are happy. Maybe someone can arrange another party! All the best.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi, Mr. Sajan,
Take a stand first. RTI holds good for both public and private companies. Only the scope is narrow for private companies, and often an indirect approach needs to be taken. We both agreed, please refer to your earlier post.
My friend, you know something, when labor commissions interfere, private companies provide information; they don't opt to challenge because why should they pay for a non-productive case? We all go by what is legally correct and not morally. But the bitter fact is any business can't be successful for a long time if they are immoral; the reason is they need to depend a lot on society and government.
Do we stand on the same platform in this context?
Regarding management's view, we can try. The HR department has authority up to some extent. If due to any reason we fail to convince, can't we join the party without a glass of wine? Else people will call us a hypocrite professional, not a Human Resource Professional.
But, if we don't try for a genuine reason, that day is not too far when employees will seek a Trade Union or Staff association!
"Those who don't fail, they don't try!" Are we on the same page?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Take a stand first. RTI holds good for both public and private companies. Only the scope is narrow for private companies, and often an indirect approach needs to be taken. We both agreed, please refer to your earlier post.
My friend, you know something, when labor commissions interfere, private companies provide information; they don't opt to challenge because why should they pay for a non-productive case? We all go by what is legally correct and not morally. But the bitter fact is any business can't be successful for a long time if they are immoral; the reason is they need to depend a lot on society and government.
Do we stand on the same platform in this context?
Regarding management's view, we can try. The HR department has authority up to some extent. If due to any reason we fail to convince, can't we join the party without a glass of wine? Else people will call us a hypocrite professional, not a Human Resource Professional.
But, if we don't try for a genuine reason, that day is not too far when employees will seek a Trade Union or Staff association!
"Those who don't fail, they don't try!" Are we on the same page?
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If any hr don’t join a party, without a glass of wine, can any one force him/her ? No one is stopping them to drink at home or bar? PLEASE THINK IN A COOL HEAD.....
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Mr. VK SAJAN,
First, you were under the impression that whatever happens, RTI applies only to Public Companies. Later, it was clarified that RTI applies to a limited extent for Private companies, but not for termination causes; such cases are limited to civil court. Finally, the stance shifted to Labor commission being able to request a reason for termination, with information obtainable from the labor commission via RTI if they possess the information. Private companies also have the option to appeal against PIO.
With due respect, I would like to inform you that there are still 18 legal ways to tackle such adamant Private companies. Furthermore, there are always higher authorities; for instance, a father has a father, known as a grandfather. I can share more on this, and perhaps it might change your stance again (just kidding, please don't take it personally).
You know, there are individuals who possess knowledge of at least 500 ways to increase revenue, reduce costs through win-win resolutions, with 450 of them well-proven and tested. This knowledge is only known by 5%-10% of industry leaders today, who often do not share this information. Some of them also know 50 ways to confront and overcome obstinate Private companies. It's not that our laws are inadequate, but rather our approach. I see myself as a leech, attaching to market leaders, absorbing knowledge, strategies, applying them practically, testing, and preserving them as assets or capital for the future.
The system is not corrupt, sir, but we lack the knowledge of how to navigate it effectively and reach targets diplomatically. The world, or the system, as you may refer to it, functions adequately because at least 5% good people (including myself) exist. We must decide which side we wish to be on and which path to follow—whether a shortcut or a correct yet longer route.
Challenges exist everywhere, and failures occur, but succumbing to fear due to failures or challenges prevents us from winning our battles. Each of us has our own battles to fight. Negotiation may not always be necessary, but we create a need for it and compel others to engage; this is business.
Human resource professionals are esteemed in the market. Please do not diminish this respect; it is an asset for all of you, as well as for us. People may label me or others like me as 'A Poisonous Snake'; the rationale behind it is that whether we join a gathering or not, no one notices; when we present a job application to someone we admire, no one cares. However, when they require us to meet their professional targets, individuals like myself must be present. Our role is akin to a gun—people like to possess one, flaunt it to others, but only utilize it when there is a genuine need or risk. When there is no need, we are disregarded, deemed useless like a piece of metal.
Therefore, please do not take anything I have said personally, as it is purely professional. At times, even I find myself disagreeable, but we continue to persevere. I am not a harmful individual, but rather diplomatic, having learned from individuals like yourself. Please consider my words with a cool and composed demeanor. Over and out, I am concluding my participation in this discussion.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First, you were under the impression that whatever happens, RTI applies only to Public Companies. Later, it was clarified that RTI applies to a limited extent for Private companies, but not for termination causes; such cases are limited to civil court. Finally, the stance shifted to Labor commission being able to request a reason for termination, with information obtainable from the labor commission via RTI if they possess the information. Private companies also have the option to appeal against PIO.
With due respect, I would like to inform you that there are still 18 legal ways to tackle such adamant Private companies. Furthermore, there are always higher authorities; for instance, a father has a father, known as a grandfather. I can share more on this, and perhaps it might change your stance again (just kidding, please don't take it personally).
You know, there are individuals who possess knowledge of at least 500 ways to increase revenue, reduce costs through win-win resolutions, with 450 of them well-proven and tested. This knowledge is only known by 5%-10% of industry leaders today, who often do not share this information. Some of them also know 50 ways to confront and overcome obstinate Private companies. It's not that our laws are inadequate, but rather our approach. I see myself as a leech, attaching to market leaders, absorbing knowledge, strategies, applying them practically, testing, and preserving them as assets or capital for the future.
The system is not corrupt, sir, but we lack the knowledge of how to navigate it effectively and reach targets diplomatically. The world, or the system, as you may refer to it, functions adequately because at least 5% good people (including myself) exist. We must decide which side we wish to be on and which path to follow—whether a shortcut or a correct yet longer route.
Challenges exist everywhere, and failures occur, but succumbing to fear due to failures or challenges prevents us from winning our battles. Each of us has our own battles to fight. Negotiation may not always be necessary, but we create a need for it and compel others to engage; this is business.
Human resource professionals are esteemed in the market. Please do not diminish this respect; it is an asset for all of you, as well as for us. People may label me or others like me as 'A Poisonous Snake'; the rationale behind it is that whether we join a gathering or not, no one notices; when we present a job application to someone we admire, no one cares. However, when they require us to meet their professional targets, individuals like myself must be present. Our role is akin to a gun—people like to possess one, flaunt it to others, but only utilize it when there is a genuine need or risk. When there is no need, we are disregarded, deemed useless like a piece of metal.
Therefore, please do not take anything I have said personally, as it is purely professional. At times, even I find myself disagreeable, but we continue to persevere. I am not a harmful individual, but rather diplomatic, having learned from individuals like yourself. Please consider my words with a cool and composed demeanor. Over and out, I am concluding my participation in this discussion.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Gaurav,
Though your act is one of misbehavior, we need to understand whether it occurred on the premises of the company or outside. If it took place outside the company's premises, then they do not have the right to terminate your service for misbehavior. Your management could have discussed, counseled you, and given you a memo/warning.
If the act did not occur on the company's premises, then they do not have the right to terminate your services directly. You can consult an advocate and send a legal notice to the company to reinstate you at work.
However, considering your future career, it is advisable to meet with your seniors/HR manager of the company, discuss with them, and apologize for the act once again. Keep in mind that in the future, if you are seeking a job in another company, your current company should not provide a negative verification report. Therefore, please settle this matter amicably for the sake of your future career.
Regards,
Sumeet
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Though your act is one of misbehavior, we need to understand whether it occurred on the premises of the company or outside. If it took place outside the company's premises, then they do not have the right to terminate your service for misbehavior. Your management could have discussed, counseled you, and given you a memo/warning.
If the act did not occur on the company's premises, then they do not have the right to terminate your services directly. You can consult an advocate and send a legal notice to the company to reinstate you at work.
However, considering your future career, it is advisable to meet with your seniors/HR manager of the company, discuss with them, and apologize for the act once again. Keep in mind that in the future, if you are seeking a job in another company, your current company should not provide a negative verification report. Therefore, please settle this matter amicably for the sake of your future career.
Regards,
Sumeet
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sovik Bhattacharjee,
You have very little idea of labor laws and laws of this country in general, or a very high opinion of your knowledge, even when it is not matching with the actual law, decisions of the courts and the ground reality.
You have been arguing with everyone who has posted anything on this thread and most of what you say is completely wrong and misleading to the original poster and to any person who reads the thread afterwards. The only thing that you have said right (but it is lost in the complete deluge of words you have let loose) is that he needs to check whether his appointment letter actually has a clause to allow the employer to terminate him without notice. It is possible that it may have been missed out.
As for the rest of your posts, RTI does not apply to the organization he is working for. Nothing you say will change the fact. Your suggestion will only end up creating more problems for the terminated employee. The rest of your tirade against each of the members of this site (including some very seniors) is meaningless as we need to look at the law of the land and nothing else. It does not matter (for example) where HR originated. If the law does not allow or require a thing to be done, then that is it.
The final fact of the original problem posted by Mr. Gaurav is that he has very little ground to challenge the decision of the company. His only way out was a request for reconsideration with a promise to ensure such a thing never happens. That is already closed as the company does not wish to entertain any such request from him.
Please stop putting more posts on this.
You have put several things. Readers (hopefully) will be able to follow it to the original act/ruling and make their own decision as to the applicability of the same.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You have very little idea of labor laws and laws of this country in general, or a very high opinion of your knowledge, even when it is not matching with the actual law, decisions of the courts and the ground reality.
You have been arguing with everyone who has posted anything on this thread and most of what you say is completely wrong and misleading to the original poster and to any person who reads the thread afterwards. The only thing that you have said right (but it is lost in the complete deluge of words you have let loose) is that he needs to check whether his appointment letter actually has a clause to allow the employer to terminate him without notice. It is possible that it may have been missed out.
As for the rest of your posts, RTI does not apply to the organization he is working for. Nothing you say will change the fact. Your suggestion will only end up creating more problems for the terminated employee. The rest of your tirade against each of the members of this site (including some very seniors) is meaningless as we need to look at the law of the land and nothing else. It does not matter (for example) where HR originated. If the law does not allow or require a thing to be done, then that is it.
The final fact of the original problem posted by Mr. Gaurav is that he has very little ground to challenge the decision of the company. His only way out was a request for reconsideration with a promise to ensure such a thing never happens. That is already closed as the company does not wish to entertain any such request from him.
Please stop putting more posts on this.
You have put several things. Readers (hopefully) will be able to follow it to the original act/ruling and make their own decision as to the applicability of the same.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Colleagues,
Instead of suggesting any steps to the mailer, we have indulged in unnecessary discussions. Nobody has been able to suggest any concrete solution to the problem. I agree with Sh. Saswata Banerjee that we have had more general discussions rather than on labor laws. However, I must hesitantly appreciate the patience of Sh. Sovik Bhattachaerjee in putting his ideas in very lengthy and repeated emails. I think 5-6 pages of discussions on this thread for a simple query were unwarranted.
I would like to offer him advice regarding his query. Since he has only worked for 4 months and has made a blunder (not a mistake), he may want to try his luck elsewhere instead of attempting to return to the company. I echo the sentiment of one member who mentioned that even if he were to rejoin the same company, he might not have a good experience there. I have observed the behavioral pattern of individuals who are apologetic for their wrongdoings but continue to repeat the same behavior. I hope he is not such a person.
I apologize if my writing has been hurtful to anybody.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Instead of suggesting any steps to the mailer, we have indulged in unnecessary discussions. Nobody has been able to suggest any concrete solution to the problem. I agree with Sh. Saswata Banerjee that we have had more general discussions rather than on labor laws. However, I must hesitantly appreciate the patience of Sh. Sovik Bhattachaerjee in putting his ideas in very lengthy and repeated emails. I think 5-6 pages of discussions on this thread for a simple query were unwarranted.
I would like to offer him advice regarding his query. Since he has only worked for 4 months and has made a blunder (not a mistake), he may want to try his luck elsewhere instead of attempting to return to the company. I echo the sentiment of one member who mentioned that even if he were to rejoin the same company, he might not have a good experience there. I have observed the behavioral pattern of individuals who are apologetic for their wrongdoings but continue to repeat the same behavior. I hope he is not such a person.
I apologize if my writing has been hurtful to anybody.
BS Kalsi
Member since Aug 2011
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Mr. Saswata Banarjee,
I respect your views and comments. With due respect, sir, I have a question for you: what is the reason behind mentioning my name when I had clearly stated I am stepping out of this discussion? Please clarify.
I have heard a lot about you, especially regarding your "Labor laws and compliance Audits," and I respect you, sir. If you had mentioned this earlier, we could have had a detailed discussion. I was seeking guidance from a senior and mature person like you, but not anymore. For your information, does the Right to Information (RTI) apply to labor commissions or any public body, right? Can a labor commission direct a private company to provide a response or reasoning behind a termination, am I correct? Only private companies have the right to appeal against Third Party Information (PIO), which can also be defended. Since you specialize in labor laws and compliance audits, I trust you are well-informed about it. I might have mentioned something about trade secrets or losing a competitive edge in the market. This is just one of 18 ways, sir. Anyway, I agree with you that we must adhere to what is lawful and nothing else. That's it.
Please refrain from involving me further in this discussion or mentioning my name, sir. This is a humble request; otherwise, I may be compelled to explore all the legal options available. It wouldn't be favorable, as it would be akin to revealing the trump cards we possess. As you may know, I encountered the legal system early in life, going to the high court at the age of 19, thereafter, courts, lawyers, Public Prosecutors, etc., became a part of my life. Perhaps, I wasn't that fortunate.
I acknowledge that I may not be highly educated, experienced, or well-versed in labor laws or laws in general. Thank you, sir, for reminding me of that.
May God bless you. Take care. Over and out, I am withdrawing from this discussion; please refrain from sending any messages or comments to me via this thread.
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I respect your views and comments. With due respect, sir, I have a question for you: what is the reason behind mentioning my name when I had clearly stated I am stepping out of this discussion? Please clarify.
I have heard a lot about you, especially regarding your "Labor laws and compliance Audits," and I respect you, sir. If you had mentioned this earlier, we could have had a detailed discussion. I was seeking guidance from a senior and mature person like you, but not anymore. For your information, does the Right to Information (RTI) apply to labor commissions or any public body, right? Can a labor commission direct a private company to provide a response or reasoning behind a termination, am I correct? Only private companies have the right to appeal against Third Party Information (PIO), which can also be defended. Since you specialize in labor laws and compliance audits, I trust you are well-informed about it. I might have mentioned something about trade secrets or losing a competitive edge in the market. This is just one of 18 ways, sir. Anyway, I agree with you that we must adhere to what is lawful and nothing else. That's it.
Please refrain from involving me further in this discussion or mentioning my name, sir. This is a humble request; otherwise, I may be compelled to explore all the legal options available. It wouldn't be favorable, as it would be akin to revealing the trump cards we possess. As you may know, I encountered the legal system early in life, going to the high court at the age of 19, thereafter, courts, lawyers, Public Prosecutors, etc., became a part of my life. Perhaps, I wasn't that fortunate.
I acknowledge that I may not be highly educated, experienced, or well-versed in labor laws or laws in general. Thank you, sir, for reminding me of that.
May God bless you. Take care. Over and out, I am withdrawing from this discussion; please refrain from sending any messages or comments to me via this thread.
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You keep insisting on making comments that are not right and have the serious reputation of misleading someone reading the thread. So I am forced to respond and to name you specifically.
With regard to your latest comment, the labor commission is subject to RTI. However, the RTI can only be for information currently available. It is not a writ that can force the commissioner to collect information from the factory/company or any person that is not already available with him. So there again, any attempt to use RTI to get information from a private sector will not work.
If you have a trump card that helps the original poster, please communicate that to him. If you wish to take up his case, please do that. It's your wish or desire. But if it is not available openly and correctly and cannot be communicated on this forum, then it is of no use to the members and should be kept out. I will leave it to the moderators to decide on that.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With regard to your latest comment, the labor commission is subject to RTI. However, the RTI can only be for information currently available. It is not a writ that can force the commissioner to collect information from the factory/company or any person that is not already available with him. So there again, any attempt to use RTI to get information from a private sector will not work.
If you have a trump card that helps the original poster, please communicate that to him. If you wish to take up his case, please do that. It's your wish or desire. But if it is not available openly and correctly and cannot be communicated on this forum, then it is of no use to the members and should be kept out. I will leave it to the moderators to decide on that.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Oh Saswata da, agay poro bhalo koray ami ki bolaychi. Ami o jani, RTI is not a writ petition. Bhalo koray dekho ami ki bolaychi. How to use this weapon.
I know, your blessings will always be there with me, and I am not against you. Read in a cool and calm mind what I have said. Saswata da poro bhalo koray thanda mathay. Trust me, and you can understand what I mean to say, with an open mind.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I know, your blessings will always be there with me, and I am not against you. Read in a cool and calm mind what I have said. Saswata da poro bhalo koray thanda mathay. Trust me, and you can understand what I mean to say, with an open mind.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Saswata da, we will have a detailed discussion if you are ready. Even I have learned a lot from all of you. Please be patient and calm, read all my comments with a cool head, and then you will understand by yourself what I mean to say.
Saswata da, I will wait for your reply. If you wish, we can discuss all pros and cons privately. Thanda mathay poro dada, ato rag korcho kano. Ami khub confident na holay boltam na. We can also discuss over emails; my email id is Sovikbhattacharjee7@gmail.com.
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Saswata da, I will wait for your reply. If you wish, we can discuss all pros and cons privately. Thanda mathay poro dada, ato rag korcho kano. Ami khub confident na holay boltam na. We can also discuss over emails; my email id is Sovikbhattacharjee7@gmail.com.
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Saswata Da,
What I mean to say is like this (for similar cases), but this will only be possible if Gaurav can gather circumstantial evidence:
1. We can file a writ petition.
2. We can clearly state the allegations against the company, and we will gather circumstantial evidence.
3. Circumstantial evidence will include photos of the party, along with witnesses if available, and invoices showing the company has sponsored the party along with alcoholic drinks.
4. After consuming alcohol, Gaurav loses control of his senses and misbehaves unintentionally. He even apologizes later when he regains his senses.
5. According to Gaurav's comment, no investigation took place and termination happened immediately. The company may claim his performance was poor or it was a layoff, but the question arises - why was he terminated immediately post that incident? Is it just a coincidence?
6. Here comes the need for RTI. Based on the writ, the commissioner can obtain information about the reason for termination. We must know this information once the commission possesses it, as we need to understand the company's stance first to proceed further. The company may choose not to provide information, but at least we can argue that it may be crucial for someone's career and the information cannot be considered a trade secret or anything that could jeopardize the company's competitive advantage.
7. Saswata Da, you are well aware that companies these days do not prefer to include clauses that allow an employee to be terminated without reason, with no notice and no salary at any time. The reason is that no one would be interested in joining under such conditions. Having spent some time in sourcing, I am familiar with some of their strategies. Therefore, I advised Gaurav to share all the clauses mentioned in the appointment/offer letter before taking any action and to gather as much evidence as possible.
8. The reason for the legal battle should not be to challenge the decision but to remove the 'termination on disciplinary grounds'. I am not sure of Gaurav's designation, but for us, if someone is in mid-management or senior management, such allegations can be detrimental, especially if they are associated with the finance/cash department. If the termination was due to poor performance, layoff, or business needs, these aspects would not have been as crucial. I would have suggested him to take it sportingly and move on.
9. Saswata Da, you are aware that if a company sponsors parties, they do not consider them official if intoxicating products are involved. The reason is that it is challenging for them to justify why they sponsor intoxicating products when they know that discipline is crucial at such events and people may lose control after consuming them. Even the party's premises are essential to understand the case.
Now, Saswata Da, I await your suggestions. You are a senior member, different from any other common HR professional, with extensive experience in labor laws and compliance audits. The welfare issues of a company are also affected.
This is just one perspective. I look forward to your reply and suggestions.
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
What I mean to say is like this (for similar cases), but this will only be possible if Gaurav can gather circumstantial evidence:
1. We can file a writ petition.
2. We can clearly state the allegations against the company, and we will gather circumstantial evidence.
3. Circumstantial evidence will include photos of the party, along with witnesses if available, and invoices showing the company has sponsored the party along with alcoholic drinks.
4. After consuming alcohol, Gaurav loses control of his senses and misbehaves unintentionally. He even apologizes later when he regains his senses.
5. According to Gaurav's comment, no investigation took place and termination happened immediately. The company may claim his performance was poor or it was a layoff, but the question arises - why was he terminated immediately post that incident? Is it just a coincidence?
6. Here comes the need for RTI. Based on the writ, the commissioner can obtain information about the reason for termination. We must know this information once the commission possesses it, as we need to understand the company's stance first to proceed further. The company may choose not to provide information, but at least we can argue that it may be crucial for someone's career and the information cannot be considered a trade secret or anything that could jeopardize the company's competitive advantage.
7. Saswata Da, you are well aware that companies these days do not prefer to include clauses that allow an employee to be terminated without reason, with no notice and no salary at any time. The reason is that no one would be interested in joining under such conditions. Having spent some time in sourcing, I am familiar with some of their strategies. Therefore, I advised Gaurav to share all the clauses mentioned in the appointment/offer letter before taking any action and to gather as much evidence as possible.
8. The reason for the legal battle should not be to challenge the decision but to remove the 'termination on disciplinary grounds'. I am not sure of Gaurav's designation, but for us, if someone is in mid-management or senior management, such allegations can be detrimental, especially if they are associated with the finance/cash department. If the termination was due to poor performance, layoff, or business needs, these aspects would not have been as crucial. I would have suggested him to take it sportingly and move on.
9. Saswata Da, you are aware that if a company sponsors parties, they do not consider them official if intoxicating products are involved. The reason is that it is challenging for them to justify why they sponsor intoxicating products when they know that discipline is crucial at such events and people may lose control after consuming them. Even the party's premises are essential to understand the case.
Now, Saswata Da, I await your suggestions. You are a senior member, different from any other common HR professional, with extensive experience in labor laws and compliance audits. The welfare issues of a company are also affected.
This is just one perspective. I look forward to your reply and suggestions.
Regards,
Sovik B
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please stick to English in your posts Most of the readers will not be able to understand what you said
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Saswata da,
I have only said to you, please read first what I have said in a cool and calm head; there is no reason to get excited. I said being a senior member and a very good auditor, please try to understand the case from all possible angles and don't stick to any particular angle by a preconceived notion. I have said I am not against you or any other HR; rather, I know that your blessings will always be there with me. Even I have also learned a lot from all of you. If required, we can have a discussion privately. If I have said anything wrong, then I am sincerely sorry; you are most welcome to share the same publicly in this forum and rectify me. I would respect that.
Anyway, Personally, Saswata da, I respect you a lot; hope you can understand my stand now and why, unlike others, I can't say Gaurav, please take it sportingly and forget it as a bad dream; opportunities will come in the future. I might not have as much experience as you, but I have performed a few audits too. Hope you can understand that as HR compliance auditors, our hands are tied by the laws of the land; even if we have sympathy/empathy for HRs/employees, if we come across such issues, we have to stick to the path shown by the laws.
So, since you have not objected to my proposal/view or raised any question, I am considering your silence as consent. I am getting out of this discussion; and at any time if anyone has a doubt/question, we can have a discussion and sort it out. Hope this thread has become a source for a lot of knowledge sharing.
May God bless you all and take care.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
MBA- HR and Finance
B.Sc, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara
Under- University Of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S Enterprise.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have only said to you, please read first what I have said in a cool and calm head; there is no reason to get excited. I said being a senior member and a very good auditor, please try to understand the case from all possible angles and don't stick to any particular angle by a preconceived notion. I have said I am not against you or any other HR; rather, I know that your blessings will always be there with me. Even I have also learned a lot from all of you. If required, we can have a discussion privately. If I have said anything wrong, then I am sincerely sorry; you are most welcome to share the same publicly in this forum and rectify me. I would respect that.
Anyway, Personally, Saswata da, I respect you a lot; hope you can understand my stand now and why, unlike others, I can't say Gaurav, please take it sportingly and forget it as a bad dream; opportunities will come in the future. I might not have as much experience as you, but I have performed a few audits too. Hope you can understand that as HR compliance auditors, our hands are tied by the laws of the land; even if we have sympathy/empathy for HRs/employees, if we come across such issues, we have to stick to the path shown by the laws.
So, since you have not objected to my proposal/view or raised any question, I am considering your silence as consent. I am getting out of this discussion; and at any time if anyone has a doubt/question, we can have a discussion and sort it out. Hope this thread has become a source for a lot of knowledge sharing.
May God bless you all and take care.
Thanks and Regards,
Sovik B
MBA- HR and Finance
B.Sc, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara
Under- University Of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S Enterprise.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This is only for HR's, HR compliance auditors, students- learners & professionals associated with the Human Resource Department:
Hi,
Many are there who still have many doubts & confusion; I have received a few emails. I am trying to explain in simple English so that even a layman (students/ freshers) can understand. Seniors, please rectify me if I am wrong. This is only for this specific case.
Behind any termination, HR compliance auditors verify & validate 2 factors (very important) whether they met legal compliance or not:
1. Decision of termination.
2. Reason for termination or reason shown behind termination.
In this case, these 2 angles should be considered:
3. Whether the decision of termination can be legally challenged by the employee?
Ans: No.
4. Whether the reason for termination or the reason shown behind termination can be legally challenged or not?
Ans: Yes, provided if a private company shows that the reason for termination was on disciplinary grounds and circumstantial evidence is found to be strong enough. Ideally, it would only imply to remove or waive off 'Termination on disciplinary ground' - challengeable legally. If the company is adamant, both civil & criminal charges can be brought, based on the company's stance.
Important Note: If the company doesn't show any reason behind termination, it's absolutely fine - no need to challenge the decision. It can be considered as a layoff. However, if the employee later shows this experience anywhere else and the previous company claims that they terminated the employee on disciplinary grounds in their feedback (official stance), then it is challengeable. Both civil & criminal laws need to be followed in this case.
A company cannot have two different stances simultaneously. Once they show in their papers, letterheads that they terminated an employee without assigning any reason, and later claim they had a genuine reason behind the termination (disciplinary ground) in their feedback, it becomes legally challengeable.
Now, an important question: who should challenge with respect to point 4?
Ans: Anyone can challenge, but it is advisable that only mid-management executives & senior executives should ideally challenge. The reason is they already have a long professional experience and this kind of feedback can cost a lot for them in later stages, especially those connected with finance, cash handling, and marketing professions.
Hope everyone can understand this case. Over and out, take care.
Thanks & Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR & Finance
B.Sc, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara
Under- University of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S Enterprise.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
Many are there who still have many doubts & confusion; I have received a few emails. I am trying to explain in simple English so that even a layman (students/ freshers) can understand. Seniors, please rectify me if I am wrong. This is only for this specific case.
Behind any termination, HR compliance auditors verify & validate 2 factors (very important) whether they met legal compliance or not:
1. Decision of termination.
2. Reason for termination or reason shown behind termination.
In this case, these 2 angles should be considered:
3. Whether the decision of termination can be legally challenged by the employee?
Ans: No.
4. Whether the reason for termination or the reason shown behind termination can be legally challenged or not?
Ans: Yes, provided if a private company shows that the reason for termination was on disciplinary grounds and circumstantial evidence is found to be strong enough. Ideally, it would only imply to remove or waive off 'Termination on disciplinary ground' - challengeable legally. If the company is adamant, both civil & criminal charges can be brought, based on the company's stance.
Important Note: If the company doesn't show any reason behind termination, it's absolutely fine - no need to challenge the decision. It can be considered as a layoff. However, if the employee later shows this experience anywhere else and the previous company claims that they terminated the employee on disciplinary grounds in their feedback (official stance), then it is challengeable. Both civil & criminal laws need to be followed in this case.
A company cannot have two different stances simultaneously. Once they show in their papers, letterheads that they terminated an employee without assigning any reason, and later claim they had a genuine reason behind the termination (disciplinary ground) in their feedback, it becomes legally challengeable.
Now, an important question: who should challenge with respect to point 4?
Ans: Anyone can challenge, but it is advisable that only mid-management executives & senior executives should ideally challenge. The reason is they already have a long professional experience and this kind of feedback can cost a lot for them in later stages, especially those connected with finance, cash handling, and marketing professions.
Hope everyone can understand this case. Over and out, take care.
Thanks & Regards,
Sovik B
MBA - HR & Finance
B.Sc, Ramakrishna Mission VC College, Rahara
Under- University of Calcutta
Managing Director
S.S Enterprise.
From India, Mumbai
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.
Legal Clarification on Severance Dues & Probation Period.PDF
Minimum Wages in Maharashtra for the period January 2018 to June 2018.xls