Dear All,
I had a labor case with my company under Section 6 H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case history is given below:
Candidate joined this company on May 2, 2002, as a Quality Inspector, and then he was promoted to HR Executive on August 14, 2007. He took leave from August 20, 2007, to August 25, 2007, and was absent again from August 27, 2007, to September 1, 2007. He was then transferred to our other unit in Dehradun and was instructed to resume duties by September 3, 2007. The company terminated him mainly because he was also involved in the worker union.
So, all of you, my seniors in the same field, please advise me on what I have to do in our favor.
With Regards,
Sandeep Kumar
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
I had a labor case with my company under Section 6 H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The case history is given below:
Candidate joined this company on May 2, 2002, as a Quality Inspector, and then he was promoted to HR Executive on August 14, 2007. He took leave from August 20, 2007, to August 25, 2007, and was absent again from August 27, 2007, to September 1, 2007. He was then transferred to our other unit in Dehradun and was instructed to resume duties by September 3, 2007. The company terminated him mainly because he was also involved in the worker union.
So, all of you, my seniors in the same field, please advise me on what I have to do in our favor.
With Regards,
Sandeep Kumar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I presume that the matter is under Court of Enquiry. Then why should we people make a comment on it? That also, a case which has been in existence for the last two years. Anyway, let me put my own version on the case.
If the terms of appointment order or Standing Orders of the company provide for transfers, then the management has every right to transfer your executive. If the transfer is to be effected within a very short period, say with a day or two depending upon the distance involved in travel, the management can ask him to join the new office with immediate effect without allowing any joining time. The only thing is that it should not be an act of victimization. If so, the responsibility to prove it lies with the employee only. In this act of the employer, what is lacking is a degree of natural justice. Otherwise, the management is right from many perspectives.
In the termination letter, I don't think that the management must have cited the worker's participation in the trade union as the cause of termination. Had it been like that, the management is said to have committed a blunder! Because an employer cannot terminate an employee for joining a trade union.
Now, being an HR Executive having somewhat supervisory powers, should not have acted like a shop floor worker. If he had some genuine reasons for his absence, he could have directly talked to the Personnel (HR) Manager and such higher authorities. This further weakens his stand when he challenges his case.
If possible, make a settlement. Let both parties come closer and close the matter.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
4483If the terms of appointment order or Standing Orders of the company provide for transfers, then the management has every right to transfer your executive. If the transfer is to be effected within a very short period, say with a day or two depending upon the distance involved in travel, the management can ask him to join the new office with immediate effect without allowing any joining time. The only thing is that it should not be an act of victimization. If so, the responsibility to prove it lies with the employee only. In this act of the employer, what is lacking is a degree of natural justice. Otherwise, the management is right from many perspectives.
In the termination letter, I don't think that the management must have cited the worker's participation in the trade union as the cause of termination. Had it been like that, the management is said to have committed a blunder! Because an employer cannot terminate an employee for joining a trade union.
Now, being an HR Executive having somewhat supervisory powers, should not have acted like a shop floor worker. If he had some genuine reasons for his absence, he could have directly talked to the Personnel (HR) Manager and such higher authorities. This further weakens his stand when he challenges his case.
If possible, make a settlement. Let both parties come closer and close the matter.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
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.
THE KERALA RECOGNITION OF TRADE UNION RULES, 2011.pdf
Trade union.ppt
History Trade Union.doc