Respected Seniors!!!
How many times can an employer issue No Work No Pay to a workman who marks biometric attendance but does not go to the workplace and sits at the rest shelter every day, despite the controlling officer asking him to attend duty?
My queries, sirs:
1. Is there a limit to issuing No Work No Pay memos?
2. What is the best method to tackle such situations other than through standing orders?
3. If we issue a charge sheet for this misconduct,
4. Can we issue No Work No Pay again for the same misconduct when the workman is allowed for duty with a pending inquiry?
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
3How many times can an employer issue No Work No Pay to a workman who marks biometric attendance but does not go to the workplace and sits at the rest shelter every day, despite the controlling officer asking him to attend duty?
My queries, sirs:
1. Is there a limit to issuing No Work No Pay memos?
2. What is the best method to tackle such situations other than through standing orders?
3. If we issue a charge sheet for this misconduct,
4. Can we issue No Work No Pay again for the same misconduct when the workman is allowed for duty with a pending inquiry?
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Reporting for duty and not resuming duty as allotted, repeatedly, amount to grave misconduct, and necessary disciplinary action as prescribed must be taken in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Once the inquiry report with definite and conclusive findings is submitted, prescribed punishment ought to be taken. Such repeated acts of misconduct vitiate the workplace.
Kritarth Team
6.3.2020
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Kritarth Team
6.3.2020
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Ss.R,
Every contract of employment comprises reciprocal promises to be fulfilled by the parties to the contract. Therefore, an employee who wantonly fails to do the work normally allotted to him by his employer loses the right to claim wages. If we peruse the various judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India in this regard, the common ratio decidendi that could be deduced is that the doctrine of no work-no pay cannot have a rule of thumb application. It has to be applied on a case-to-case basis only, for normally it is not a penalty but denial of an employment benefit arising out of the failure of a corresponding employment obligation.
So, the failure to do the work should not at all be attributable to the employer's refusal to deny access to the place of work or inability or unwillingness to allot the work. That's what is implied in the entire provision of section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, dealing with deductions for absence from duty. Even in respect of a case wherein the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is not applicable, it would be a breach of the contract of employment on the part of the employee resulting in the consequential denial of pay for any such wage period. When the employee refuses to work repeatedly, needless to say that automatically he also incurs himself to the misconduct of insubordination, apart from losing wages.
Therefore, you can initiate a formal disciplinary proceeding against him based on the principles of Natural Justice together with the denial of wages as long as he refuses to work though present in the place of work.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Every contract of employment comprises reciprocal promises to be fulfilled by the parties to the contract. Therefore, an employee who wantonly fails to do the work normally allotted to him by his employer loses the right to claim wages. If we peruse the various judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court of India in this regard, the common ratio decidendi that could be deduced is that the doctrine of no work-no pay cannot have a rule of thumb application. It has to be applied on a case-to-case basis only, for normally it is not a penalty but denial of an employment benefit arising out of the failure of a corresponding employment obligation.
So, the failure to do the work should not at all be attributable to the employer's refusal to deny access to the place of work or inability or unwillingness to allot the work. That's what is implied in the entire provision of section 9 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, dealing with deductions for absence from duty. Even in respect of a case wherein the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is not applicable, it would be a breach of the contract of employment on the part of the employee resulting in the consequential denial of pay for any such wage period. When the employee refuses to work repeatedly, needless to say that automatically he also incurs himself to the misconduct of insubordination, apart from losing wages.
Therefore, you can initiate a formal disciplinary proceeding against him based on the principles of Natural Justice together with the denial of wages as long as he refuses to work though present in the place of work.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear friend,
The principle of 'No work no Pay' is not the solution. Rather, you can put him on suspension for this misconduct of not reporting to the workplace for his duty. Not reporting to the workplace amounts to absconding from work after attendance.
Request the department head of the workmen to issue an explanation for such misconduct and why the management should not dismiss him from his services for gross misconduct.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The principle of 'No work no Pay' is not the solution. Rather, you can put him on suspension for this misconduct of not reporting to the workplace for his duty. Not reporting to the workplace amounts to absconding from work after attendance.
Request the department head of the workmen to issue an explanation for such misconduct and why the management should not dismiss him from his services for gross misconduct.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Prabhat Ranjan,
The alleged act of misconduct is not absenteeism but idling away at the rest shelter after marking attendance every day. If he is placed under suspension, he must be paid a subsistence allowance in addition to being denied entry into the work premises. Therefore, rather than leaving him as is, the management can proceed with disciplinary action against him.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The alleged act of misconduct is not absenteeism but idling away at the rest shelter after marking attendance every day. If he is placed under suspension, he must be paid a subsistence allowance in addition to being denied entry into the work premises. Therefore, rather than leaving him as is, the management can proceed with disciplinary action against him.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Employer-employ ee_866.jpg
Bigger bonuses for more as Lok Sabha amends Payment of Bonus Act - The Economic Times.pdf