Hello Professional HR & Business Veterans, Please find attached an watch dog article in DNA for Bombay High Court Judgement on Being Married No Ground for Denying Job to Daughter.
From India, Mumbai
539From India, Mumbai
Greetings, Good post ! Thankyou for keeping us posted on that. Please do keep us informed on all such areas, important to us. Aprreciate your effort. Regards, (Cite Contribution)
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Government and PSU's keep the welfare of its employees, very high on their agenda.
However, the purpose of not including married daughters, in the definition of "Family" for the benefit of LTC/LLTC, Medical facilities etc. is based on the social and cultural realities, wherein married daughters leave their parental house and become a part of another family, that of their in-laws.
This in no way was intended to be prejudicial to the interest of the female sex, but was a mere conformity with the prevailing social norms and systems.
However, in this particular case, as can be seen that the candidate was unmarried at the time of application; and by the time the actual recruitment took place, after 4 years, she had got married.
The authorities could have ignored this fact or chosen to allowed it as a special case. However, by terminating the employee, they have not only brought misery to their organization; but have now also opened a flood gate for allowing other facilities, such as Medical, LTC/LLTC etc. to married daughters.
This is a perfect example of the insensitivities of the HR concerned, and the consequences of HR failures. Instead of trying to enforce rules with a tyrannical mind-set, HRs should remember that rules are made to help and facilitate a process; and not as a stick to beat the employees.
Had the concerned HR processed the matter as a "special case due to the delay caused in implementation of the appointment", and "not to be cited as a precedence", and got it approved by the competent authority, the matter could have been resolved amicably.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
However, the purpose of not including married daughters, in the definition of "Family" for the benefit of LTC/LLTC, Medical facilities etc. is based on the social and cultural realities, wherein married daughters leave their parental house and become a part of another family, that of their in-laws.
This in no way was intended to be prejudicial to the interest of the female sex, but was a mere conformity with the prevailing social norms and systems.
However, in this particular case, as can be seen that the candidate was unmarried at the time of application; and by the time the actual recruitment took place, after 4 years, she had got married.
The authorities could have ignored this fact or chosen to allowed it as a special case. However, by terminating the employee, they have not only brought misery to their organization; but have now also opened a flood gate for allowing other facilities, such as Medical, LTC/LLTC etc. to married daughters.
This is a perfect example of the insensitivities of the HR concerned, and the consequences of HR failures. Instead of trying to enforce rules with a tyrannical mind-set, HRs should remember that rules are made to help and facilitate a process; and not as a stick to beat the employees.
Had the concerned HR processed the matter as a "special case due to the delay caused in implementation of the appointment", and "not to be cited as a precedence", and got it approved by the competent authority, the matter could have been resolved amicably.
Warm regards.
From India, Delhi
Dear All,
The date of application was disregarded and the date of joining was taken into consideration that caused the confusion.
The case would not have come up when the officials had applied their minds before taking her up into employment.
But having employed her it was utmost important to think one hundred times before even thinking of sacking them.
We have come across cases wherein employees fudge documents to claim employment and eventually they stay on unless and until their offence gets noticed.
The moral of the case is "THINK BEFORE YOU ACT"
Thanks for the post
Regards
M.V.KANNAN
From India, Madras
The date of application was disregarded and the date of joining was taken into consideration that caused the confusion.
The case would not have come up when the officials had applied their minds before taking her up into employment.
But having employed her it was utmost important to think one hundred times before even thinking of sacking them.
We have come across cases wherein employees fudge documents to claim employment and eventually they stay on unless and until their offence gets noticed.
The moral of the case is "THINK BEFORE YOU ACT"
Thanks for the post
Regards
M.V.KANNAN
From India, Madras
It seems that the Law of Inheritance has an positive effect on the theme of the judgement. In Islam a married girl also has a share in the net wealt of her deceased parents.As such it doest surprise me when as per the court order the termination order was bad in law and Government's appeal was not sustainable in the opinion of the court.
It gives us a lesson that the HR should be very careful in the interpretation of serviice rules and if neccessary they should seek legal opinion before they take a descision.
From Pakistan, Karachi
It gives us a lesson that the HR should be very careful in the interpretation of serviice rules and if neccessary they should seek legal opinion before they take a descision.
From Pakistan, Karachi
Hi Dilip,
Thanks for bringing the case to this forum.
Yes, I agree with the comments of some members about the lackness at HR end & resultant in court intervention.
The nut shell of the case is that although some rules & policies are made for the effective running of an Organisation & avoid wastage of time for taking decision, but the concerned members should take these rules or policies as guiding factor & must understand the severity / speciality of each individual case instead of working with mind set.
Also i request other members that if they know about other such cases than pl. bring to this forum.
Best Regards
Deepak Jain
From India, Gurgaon
Thanks for bringing the case to this forum.
Yes, I agree with the comments of some members about the lackness at HR end & resultant in court intervention.
The nut shell of the case is that although some rules & policies are made for the effective running of an Organisation & avoid wastage of time for taking decision, but the concerned members should take these rules or policies as guiding factor & must understand the severity / speciality of each individual case instead of working with mind set.
Also i request other members that if they know about other such cases than pl. bring to this forum.
Best Regards
Deepak Jain
From India, Gurgaon
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
HR Practices.Back ground check format.docx
Ground Guiding Vehicles.zip