Is there any reference in the Industrial Dispute Act that management can withhold salary during the pendency of proceedings in court for a workman, or if management fails to prove 'misconduct' in court and submits a report without terminating/suspending the employee? An early reply will be highly appreciated.
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
1From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Your question and the cause of action behind it as narrated are not clear to me. Whether the pending Court Proceedings is sequel to the dispute raised by the workman consequent on his dismissal? If so, whether any domestic enquiry was conducted prior to dismissal or not?
The proposition "Management fails to prove the misconduct in the Court and submits a report without terminating/suspending the employee" does actually indicate simply the inquiry conducted before the Court on the misconduct for which the punishment of dismissal was awarded based on a defective inquiry and to rectify the defects the subsequent inquiry before the Court?
Payment of salary is a question after the orders of dismissal being set aside and award of reinstatement with back-wages by the Court. Whether the question relates to the unwillingness of the implementation of the award in a situation of appeal against the award?
Please clarify.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The proposition "Management fails to prove the misconduct in the Court and submits a report without terminating/suspending the employee" does actually indicate simply the inquiry conducted before the Court on the misconduct for which the punishment of dismissal was awarded based on a defective inquiry and to rectify the defects the subsequent inquiry before the Court?
Payment of salary is a question after the orders of dismissal being set aside and award of reinstatement with back-wages by the Court. Whether the question relates to the unwillingness of the implementation of the award in a situation of appeal against the award?
Please clarify.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Pharma Company HR,
Management cannot withhold the salary of an employee who is on the rolls of the employer. You have not mentioned the reasons for withholding the salary by the employer. Furthermore, you have not indicated whether an employee has been terminated from the service. If the service of an employee has been terminated, the question of payment of salary does not arise. Please apply your mind and furnish the required details.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Management cannot withhold the salary of an employee who is on the rolls of the employer. You have not mentioned the reasons for withholding the salary by the employer. Furthermore, you have not indicated whether an employee has been terminated from the service. If the service of an employee has been terminated, the question of payment of salary does not arise. Please apply your mind and furnish the required details.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for the prompt reply. In this case, an inquiry has been conducted after the transfer of the employee. To date, the employee has not been dismissed, but the salary has been stopped immediately after the transfer, i.e., 2 years back. As the C.B. case is in the labor court, regarding the question of demanding interim relief in court, the presiding officer has requested a reference regarding any interim relief provided by law. I seek your suggestion in this matter. The inquiry has been closed.
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Most probably, the employee must be a Sales Promotion Employee. Did he join the new station after the transfer? Was there any dispute raised by the employee against the transfer? Please provide the complete details in a single go.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The employee is covered under the SPE Act. He never joined at the transferred location and asked for Standing Order compliance by the labor authorities, which was not there as the employers failed to show a certified copy of the model standing order as confirmed by the Labor Department. Immediately, the employee raised the dispute under section 10(1)(c) of the I.D. Act with a reference from the State Labor Department with a C.B. case. In this matter, till date, the management has neither suspended/terminated, chargesheeted, nor retrenched the employee. The employee has placed an application for interim relief to look after his family on humanitarian grounds. Transfer order is still challenged in the absence of a standing order. Seeking your valuable comments. The reference of the Labor Department is: "Is the transfer of the Sales Promotion employee justified/legal? If not, then the concerned Sales Promotion employee has every right to get the benefits, etc., under what details?"
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kanpur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Condition for transfer of service has been mentioned in the appointment letter. Whether your establishment comes under the definition of "industrial employment" as defined in the Standing Orders Act? Whether your establishment is employing 50 or more employees? When an employee refused to report for work at the place where his services transferred, did management issue him a show cause notice? Application for interim relief can be objected to by the management also with valid arguments. If it is not a bonafide transfer and management did not follow the due procedure, the transfer order will be set aside.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"industrial employment" (Wrongly menioned) should be read as "industrial Establishment"
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The employer has no legal backing to withhold the salary, whatever might be the reason behind this action. Not joining in the transferred place is not an excuse. Please refer to the Payment of Wages Act if he is covered under this act.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Pharma Company HR,
The steady increase in industrial disputes between Pharma Companies and their SP Employees, particularly on the issue of transfer, is indicative of poor HRM in such enterprises. In my understanding, transfer is not the real point of contention for both management and the SPEs, as they are well aware that transfer is an aspect of employment. Unfortunately, the resourceful partners of employment in the Pharmaceutical Industry often resort to arm-twisting each other at the slightest provocation from either side, instead of addressing the root causes of performance issues and challenging service conditions created by each party respectively and resolving them amicably.
Due to the higher academic qualifications, attractive salary, perks, and the independent nature of the performance of the SPEs, managements refuse to recognize them as "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, despite judicial rulings and statutory amendments. The SPEs, on the other hand, point fingers at the alleged unrealistic targets set by managements and the subjective supervisory controls exercised by middle-level managers. The widespread presence of most of these companies across India is seen as an advantage for managements. Therefore, transfers based on work exigencies are sometimes used as a strategy to terminate the services of an unwanted SPE, with employees resisting the transfers vehemently, citing victimization and unfair labor practices as grounds for their opposition.
To emphasize, transfer is a part of employment, and it is within the employer's prerogative to decide the location, duration, and conditions of an employee's work. However, such transfers should not be used as a means of victimization or abuse of power, and they should align with the terms of the employment contract and relevant Standing Orders. An employee who chooses not to comply with transfer orders cannot claim wages or salaries, even if they raise a dispute under section 2k of the ID Act, 1947. The Labor Court does not have the authority to provide interim relief to such an employee. The management, if permitted by the service regulations, can take disciplinary action against the employee and dismiss them with the prior approval of the Labor Court under section 33(1) of the ID Act, 1947. In the absence of such actions, the employment relationship continues, although the employee is not entitled to wages or salary during the period of non-compliance under the principle of no work, no wages.
Thank you for raising these important points in your post.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The steady increase in industrial disputes between Pharma Companies and their SP Employees, particularly on the issue of transfer, is indicative of poor HRM in such enterprises. In my understanding, transfer is not the real point of contention for both management and the SPEs, as they are well aware that transfer is an aspect of employment. Unfortunately, the resourceful partners of employment in the Pharmaceutical Industry often resort to arm-twisting each other at the slightest provocation from either side, instead of addressing the root causes of performance issues and challenging service conditions created by each party respectively and resolving them amicably.
Due to the higher academic qualifications, attractive salary, perks, and the independent nature of the performance of the SPEs, managements refuse to recognize them as "workmen" under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, despite judicial rulings and statutory amendments. The SPEs, on the other hand, point fingers at the alleged unrealistic targets set by managements and the subjective supervisory controls exercised by middle-level managers. The widespread presence of most of these companies across India is seen as an advantage for managements. Therefore, transfers based on work exigencies are sometimes used as a strategy to terminate the services of an unwanted SPE, with employees resisting the transfers vehemently, citing victimization and unfair labor practices as grounds for their opposition.
To emphasize, transfer is a part of employment, and it is within the employer's prerogative to decide the location, duration, and conditions of an employee's work. However, such transfers should not be used as a means of victimization or abuse of power, and they should align with the terms of the employment contract and relevant Standing Orders. An employee who chooses not to comply with transfer orders cannot claim wages or salaries, even if they raise a dispute under section 2k of the ID Act, 1947. The Labor Court does not have the authority to provide interim relief to such an employee. The management, if permitted by the service regulations, can take disciplinary action against the employee and dismiss them with the prior approval of the Labor Court under section 33(1) of the ID Act, 1947. In the absence of such actions, the employment relationship continues, although the employee is not entitled to wages or salary during the period of non-compliance under the principle of no work, no wages.
Thank you for raising these important points in your post.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
To add to my previous reply in continuation: If the employee succeeds in the dispute that his transfer was illegal or a measure of victimization, the impugned transfer order would be set aside, and he can rejoin in the previous post/station. However, his claim for salary for his absence in disobeying the nullified transfer orders has to stand judicial scrutiny only in the backdrop of the actual purpose and the circumstances leading to his transfer and the distance of the destination to which he was transferred.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Salem
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.
Industrial Disputes Amendment Act 2010.doc
Industrial Disputes Act 1947.pdf