Query on unauthorized absence
A company has a laid-down policy on absenteeism and disciplinary procedures concerning unauthorized absenteeism. This is a progressive policy aimed at educating and reforming habitual absentee workers in a step-by-step manner. The disciplinary process for absentee workers involves 21 steps, starting with counseling, followed by written advice, a written warning, and punitive suspension ranging from one to four days (all in writing) for each successive act of unauthorized absenteeism. However, if there is a gap of three months between the previous absence, for which the worker has been disciplined, and the next incident of unauthorized absence, the worker would start again at the counseling/warning stage.
Following this absenteeism and discipline policy, if a worker reaches the 21st action mode (absence within three months after the 20th action mode involving a four-day suspension), they will be issued a show-cause notice as a precursor to a full-fledged domestic enquiry by an external inquiry officer leading to possible dismissal from service.
The question at hand is whether it is appropriate to dismiss a worker found guilty of one day of unauthorized absence, considering their habitual unauthorized absenteeism as grounds for dismissal. The management's decision to dismiss the worker may be challenged in a court of law, especially if the worker has shown improvement in attendance over time without recurring instances of unauthorized absence.
In India, Chennai
Workers who demonstrate improved attendance over a reasonable period without further unauthorized absences should be treated with leniency. The guidelines for handling such cases based on work experience are as follows:
a) For workers with 0 to 7 years of experience, for every 4 months of "zero unauthorized absenteeism," the disciplinary process will be set back by 1 step.
b) For workers with more than 7 years of experience, for every 3 months of "zero unauthorized absenteeism," the disciplinary process will be set back by 1 step.
c) For workers with 12 months of "zero unauthorized absenteeism," the disciplinary process will be set back by 1 step.
senprithvib6
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
51A company has a laid-down policy on absenteeism and disciplinary procedures concerning unauthorized absenteeism. This is a progressive policy aimed at educating and reforming habitual absentee workers in a step-by-step manner. The disciplinary process for absentee workers involves 21 steps, starting with counseling, followed by written advice, a written warning, and punitive suspension ranging from one to four days (all in writing) for each successive act of unauthorized absenteeism. However, if there is a gap of three months between the previous absence, for which the worker has been disciplined, and the next incident of unauthorized absence, the worker would start again at the counseling/warning stage.
Following this absenteeism and discipline policy, if a worker reaches the 21st action mode (absence within three months after the 20th action mode involving a four-day suspension), they will be issued a show-cause notice as a precursor to a full-fledged domestic enquiry by an external inquiry officer leading to possible dismissal from service.
The question at hand is whether it is appropriate to dismiss a worker found guilty of one day of unauthorized absence, considering their habitual unauthorized absenteeism as grounds for dismissal. The management's decision to dismiss the worker may be challenged in a court of law, especially if the worker has shown improvement in attendance over time without recurring instances of unauthorized absence.
In India, Chennai
Workers who demonstrate improved attendance over a reasonable period without further unauthorized absences should be treated with leniency. The guidelines for handling such cases based on work experience are as follows:
a) For workers with 0 to 7 years of experience, for every 4 months of "zero unauthorized absenteeism," the disciplinary process will be set back by 1 step.
b) For workers with more than 7 years of experience, for every 3 months of "zero unauthorized absenteeism," the disciplinary process will be set back by 1 step.
c) For workers with 12 months of "zero unauthorized absenteeism," the disciplinary process will be set back by 1 step.
senprithvib6
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Instead of a punishment-oriented scheme, you can reduce absenteeism by implementing a novel attendance incentive program. The scheme can be carefully designed.
The law of the land allows termination after following the principles of natural justice through a series of enquiries. Courts have used the term 'capital punishment' for termination and check whether the employee was given opportunities to improve his/her attendance records. It is essential to patiently build records over a period before taking the extreme step of termination.
Your policy will hold little meaning if you do not provide 3-4 opportunities to a delinquent employee for intermittent unauthorized absenteeism after several enquiries.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The law of the land allows termination after following the principles of natural justice through a series of enquiries. Courts have used the term 'capital punishment' for termination and check whether the employee was given opportunities to improve his/her attendance records. It is essential to patiently build records over a period before taking the extreme step of termination.
Your policy will hold little meaning if you do not provide 3-4 opportunities to a delinquent employee for intermittent unauthorized absenteeism after several enquiries.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Senprithvi,
Despite your praise for the so-called progressive policy of educating and reforming the habitual absentee employees in a step-by-step manner adopted in your establishment, why does doubt automatically arise in your mind regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal of the delinquent after the 21st instance for the misconduct of unauthorized absence for even a single day and its sustainability before a Judicial Authority?
Unauthorized absence can be of two types - one is absence without any intimation, and the other is absence even after denial of the sanction of leave. You are well aware of the employment practice that no leave would be sanctioned to employees when all their leave is already exhausted. Even after the rejection of the leave requested, if they do not turn up for work, they would be marked as 'absent,' and no salary would be paid for such days. Of course, taking disciplinary action in this regard is a matter of discretion depending upon the employee's attendance history. If the reason for such a single day's unauthorized absence is a sudden critical health condition of any one of the employee's family members or themselves, it would be justifiable, though it reflects their incorrigible character. It is needless to remind you that Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Industrial Adjudicator to modify the punishment of dismissal if deemed necessary. Therefore, if the dismissed employee substantiates the justification for their absence on that particular day to the satisfaction of the Tribunal and establishes that the extreme punishment of dismissal is actually for their previous absences on several occasions for which they were already punished and is only a predilection of the management simply based on its policy and not on its proper application of mind, the Court may accept it and modify the dismissal orders, such as reinstatement without back wages.
From my experience as an Ex-Conciliation Officer, I feel that you need not let the noose loose for so long. After one or two warnings and other kinds of punishments, if an employee continues to be absent for more than three or four days continuously without any intimation on any one occasion, initiate proper disciplinary action citing the previous punishments for their absences as well as affording them all the reasonable opportunities, terminate their services.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Despite your praise for the so-called progressive policy of educating and reforming the habitual absentee employees in a step-by-step manner adopted in your establishment, why does doubt automatically arise in your mind regarding the proposed punishment of dismissal of the delinquent after the 21st instance for the misconduct of unauthorized absence for even a single day and its sustainability before a Judicial Authority?
Unauthorized absence can be of two types - one is absence without any intimation, and the other is absence even after denial of the sanction of leave. You are well aware of the employment practice that no leave would be sanctioned to employees when all their leave is already exhausted. Even after the rejection of the leave requested, if they do not turn up for work, they would be marked as 'absent,' and no salary would be paid for such days. Of course, taking disciplinary action in this regard is a matter of discretion depending upon the employee's attendance history. If the reason for such a single day's unauthorized absence is a sudden critical health condition of any one of the employee's family members or themselves, it would be justifiable, though it reflects their incorrigible character. It is needless to remind you that Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 empowers the Industrial Adjudicator to modify the punishment of dismissal if deemed necessary. Therefore, if the dismissed employee substantiates the justification for their absence on that particular day to the satisfaction of the Tribunal and establishes that the extreme punishment of dismissal is actually for their previous absences on several occasions for which they were already punished and is only a predilection of the management simply based on its policy and not on its proper application of mind, the Court may accept it and modify the dismissal orders, such as reinstatement without back wages.
From my experience as an Ex-Conciliation Officer, I feel that you need not let the noose loose for so long. After one or two warnings and other kinds of punishments, if an employee continues to be absent for more than three or four days continuously without any intimation on any one occasion, initiate proper disciplinary action citing the previous punishments for their absences as well as affording them all the reasonable opportunities, terminate their services.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Umakanthan,
With due regards to your views, my query pertains to a situation where a worker may engage in unauthorized absences of one-day spells for 30 days in a year, equating to 30 occasions. In response to each instance, the employer issues only an advisory or warning letter, cautioning against such behavior but not escalating further unless the absence exceeds three consecutive days. In such a scenario, should we maintain silence and allow the worker to go unpunished, except for the issuance of advisory/warning letters for each single-day absence?
We would appreciate hearing your views on this matter.
Thanks & regards,
Senprithvib6
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With due regards to your views, my query pertains to a situation where a worker may engage in unauthorized absences of one-day spells for 30 days in a year, equating to 30 occasions. In response to each instance, the employer issues only an advisory or warning letter, cautioning against such behavior but not escalating further unless the absence exceeds three consecutive days. In such a scenario, should we maintain silence and allow the worker to go unpunished, except for the issuance of advisory/warning letters for each single-day absence?
We would appreciate hearing your views on this matter.
Thanks & regards,
Senprithvib6
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
One way is to monitor unauthorized absenteeism every six or even three months. So, if a delinquent employee continues to remain unauthorizedly absent for 4-5 days in the period, you will be able to cause separation of the employee after, say, 2 1/2-3 years. You have to patiently build a record; there is no other way. Conduct a domestic inquiry after every decided period and hand over warnings - 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, and 4 days of suspension with a couple of repetitions of the quantum of punishment. This will establish that you are being considerate to the employee. A four-day suspension has to be repeated. Then you may terminate the services of such an employee.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Senprithvi,
I too accept the principle underlying the maxim - "To err is human, to forgive is divine but to persist on is rather unwise". In the case of a habitual absentee employee, one day's unauthorized absence or more on the same occasion does not matter much so far as the gravity of the misconduct stretches back to his habitual unauthorized absence in gross violation of his contract of employment, thereby affecting the establishment's work schedule. My suggestion was mainly based on the perspective of the adjudicator only. It does not mean that you should necessarily wait for the occasion of more than one day's absence. The last paragraph of my previous reply, therefore, may please be read based on the principle of "Sama, Dhana, Bedha, Dhanda" and not on the mere number of days of unauthorized absence in the case of a habitual absentee.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I too accept the principle underlying the maxim - "To err is human, to forgive is divine but to persist on is rather unwise". In the case of a habitual absentee employee, one day's unauthorized absence or more on the same occasion does not matter much so far as the gravity of the misconduct stretches back to his habitual unauthorized absence in gross violation of his contract of employment, thereby affecting the establishment's work schedule. My suggestion was mainly based on the perspective of the adjudicator only. It does not mean that you should necessarily wait for the occasion of more than one day's absence. The last paragraph of my previous reply, therefore, may please be read based on the principle of "Sama, Dhana, Bedha, Dhanda" and not on the mere number of days of unauthorized absence in the case of a habitual absentee.
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.
Absenteeism a Leakage for Lack of Employee Engagement & Unproductivity in India.pdf
Employee Absenteeism and Morale.doc