I would like to know how to inform all the employees that Saturday and Sundays would be included from next month in leave without pay.
From India, Noida
1From India, Noida
Now, that’s one news they will be happy to lap up whichever way you try to convey it to them!!!
From India, Ghaziabad
From India, Ghaziabad
Hello Meenal,
A leave without pay, or for that matter a leave and holiday are different.
As per shop and establishment act, a person can't work for more than 9 hours a day and 48 hours a week.
So you are to give a holiday after every 6 days at the max.
Such is also the case with Factories Act.
Now for the labours who are recieving daily wages automatically holidays are unpaid.
However for salaried employees sat and sunday and all weekly offs and all holidays (atleast 12 in a calendar year) are paid holidays.
If you are to inform your employees that sat and sun are going to be unpaid days, there are chances of you attracting troubles for your organization.
Yet, advice from seniors is being looked forward to.
From India, Mumbai
A leave without pay, or for that matter a leave and holiday are different.
As per shop and establishment act, a person can't work for more than 9 hours a day and 48 hours a week.
So you are to give a holiday after every 6 days at the max.
Such is also the case with Factories Act.
Now for the labours who are recieving daily wages automatically holidays are unpaid.
However for salaried employees sat and sunday and all weekly offs and all holidays (atleast 12 in a calendar year) are paid holidays.
If you are to inform your employees that sat and sun are going to be unpaid days, there are chances of you attracting troubles for your organization.
Yet, advice from seniors is being looked forward to.
From India, Mumbai
This is clear voilation of the statute. As HR professional you need to advise your management accordingly. You must not make closed holidays as Leave Without Pay Munshi
From India, Delhi
From India, Delhi
Ankita,
I see similar mistakes being made by HR teams all over the country as they try to justify not paying for holidays and weekly off for contract labour.
The concept of daily wages is very specific and narrow.
It will apply to a worker who is paid every day, for what ever work he has done for that day. Any worker who is paid monthly is not considered daily wage earner by law. A contract worker is paid for the days he works. But in computing the daily salary under minimum wages act, the payment for weekly offs is absorbed in the daily rate (the daily rate is 16% higher than monthly wage rate). So saying that they are not paid for weekly holidays is wrong.
From India, Mumbai
I see similar mistakes being made by HR teams all over the country as they try to justify not paying for holidays and weekly off for contract labour.
The concept of daily wages is very specific and narrow.
It will apply to a worker who is paid every day, for what ever work he has done for that day. Any worker who is paid monthly is not considered daily wage earner by law. A contract worker is paid for the days he works. But in computing the daily salary under minimum wages act, the payment for weekly offs is absorbed in the daily rate (the daily rate is 16% higher than monthly wage rate). So saying that they are not paid for weekly holidays is wrong.
From India, Mumbai
Thank you sir for the update and upgrading the knowledge.
All I wished to highlight was as per minimum wages, labors are still taken care of, but many employer try to twist the definitions and try to make most of it.
Like there is a minimum wages and statutory requirement for that, but there is no mention of a minimum salary.
Similarly when we talk of bonds and agreements, such people argue and say as per LABOR LAW, BONDED LABOR is not allowed. But your are not a labor, YOU ARE SALARIED EMPLOYEE different than the labor and hence you are not covered under this act.
It is unfortunate to see that people working as HR are now a days blindly following what management asks to do. I wonder if they do so out of ignorance (as they do not have the qualifications to be HR, I see so many B.Com and such graduates as HR in many offices - no offence to these people, but then there is such mishappening practised). I think this is quite discussable topic and we can initiate a new thread for the discussion on who can be appointed as HR, but yes one thing is as HR we need to be fairer and doing what is legally and morally right.
My view, there may be a different perspective to it.
From India, Mumbai
All I wished to highlight was as per minimum wages, labors are still taken care of, but many employer try to twist the definitions and try to make most of it.
Like there is a minimum wages and statutory requirement for that, but there is no mention of a minimum salary.
Similarly when we talk of bonds and agreements, such people argue and say as per LABOR LAW, BONDED LABOR is not allowed. But your are not a labor, YOU ARE SALARIED EMPLOYEE different than the labor and hence you are not covered under this act.
It is unfortunate to see that people working as HR are now a days blindly following what management asks to do. I wonder if they do so out of ignorance (as they do not have the qualifications to be HR, I see so many B.Com and such graduates as HR in many offices - no offence to these people, but then there is such mishappening practised). I think this is quite discussable topic and we can initiate a new thread for the discussion on who can be appointed as HR, but yes one thing is as HR we need to be fairer and doing what is legally and morally right.
My view, there may be a different perspective to it.
From India, Mumbai
Dear Ankita,
I hats off for your thought...absolutely correct that many persons are joining HR just for making money and guessing that they will haven't to do hard work. But as per my opinion, An HR person should not be partial and he must possess a good heart, he must be empathetic and more over he must understand the liability and responsibility of an HR, of course we work like a bridge between management & employees and we all are here for a benefit of the organization, but we should never forget that HR is for humans, as a mechanic take cares of his machines in the same way we ought to, and without controversy we cannot compare machines with Human beings, and so why we must be more tender & factual for humans. Of course in some cases there is a hair difference between value,duty & right action or supposed to act, but it is HR who has to decide and take the needful action taking care of all cos and prons, humanity, legality, values(human/organization) when one consider these all things he feels a unique gratification. HR is a very vast field like ocean and we can only enjoy when we can choose gems bifurcating all stones and wastes.
I beg to seniors If my thoughts found wrong or any correction required.
WBR,
Abhay Kishore
From India, Delhi
I hats off for your thought...absolutely correct that many persons are joining HR just for making money and guessing that they will haven't to do hard work. But as per my opinion, An HR person should not be partial and he must possess a good heart, he must be empathetic and more over he must understand the liability and responsibility of an HR, of course we work like a bridge between management & employees and we all are here for a benefit of the organization, but we should never forget that HR is for humans, as a mechanic take cares of his machines in the same way we ought to, and without controversy we cannot compare machines with Human beings, and so why we must be more tender & factual for humans. Of course in some cases there is a hair difference between value,duty & right action or supposed to act, but it is HR who has to decide and take the needful action taking care of all cos and prons, humanity, legality, values(human/organization) when one consider these all things he feels a unique gratification. HR is a very vast field like ocean and we can only enjoy when we can choose gems bifurcating all stones and wastes.
I beg to seniors If my thoughts found wrong or any correction required.
WBR,
Abhay Kishore
From India, Delhi
Two more correction (since others will be seeing this thread)
- under various labour laws, everyone is a worker. All remuneration paid is wages. There is no concept of salary. While a lay man will distinguish between white Color and blue Color jobs as workers and staff, there is no such distinction in the laws. In a factory, every employee except the factory manager and occupier is a worker. So is it under minimum wages act. Payment of wages act defines coverage up to 18,000 per month. But does tht mean you can delay payment of wages of an employee who earns 20,000 per month ? No you can not. Just that the mechanism of imternventio by the labour officer as mandatory enforcement is missing.
Check the minimum wages notifications. They have minimum salaries also. In mumbai the minimum wages for office workers (unskilled) is about 6000 per month. Who is an office worker ? It is the staff and employee in the office. Do they get wages or salary ? As per law, they get wages. But we chose to call it salary.
That is why Americans call it "Pay". They do not have any such distinction between workers and staff even in common parliance.
- concept of bonded labour is very clearly defined. It means any worker who is forced to work for free or for subsistence allowance on account of a debt taken by him or any member of his family and one who is not allowed to change his employment. If you voluntarily sign an agreement (bond) to do certain work, then under contract act, you are bound to follow it. The riders in the contract act are that it should be for a consideration (some value received), clear, of free will and not under undue influence. If these are violated, the contract / bond is invalid. The courts expanded the rides to add the concept of fair consideration since the employee is generally at Disadvantage in a country like india. Further, to prevent exploitation, they introduced a doctrine that bonds will be enforced only for paid training provided and another doctrine of reasonable period of bond.
Another doctrine introduced by the courts is under right to freedom of employment under the constitution. It declared that any agreement designed to prevent an employee from earning a decent living is banned.
Outside of these doctrines, bonds and agreements are valid.
It has nothing to do with labour.
It has everything to do with what you are willingly signing.
From India, Mumbai
- under various labour laws, everyone is a worker. All remuneration paid is wages. There is no concept of salary. While a lay man will distinguish between white Color and blue Color jobs as workers and staff, there is no such distinction in the laws. In a factory, every employee except the factory manager and occupier is a worker. So is it under minimum wages act. Payment of wages act defines coverage up to 18,000 per month. But does tht mean you can delay payment of wages of an employee who earns 20,000 per month ? No you can not. Just that the mechanism of imternventio by the labour officer as mandatory enforcement is missing.
Check the minimum wages notifications. They have minimum salaries also. In mumbai the minimum wages for office workers (unskilled) is about 6000 per month. Who is an office worker ? It is the staff and employee in the office. Do they get wages or salary ? As per law, they get wages. But we chose to call it salary.
That is why Americans call it "Pay". They do not have any such distinction between workers and staff even in common parliance.
- concept of bonded labour is very clearly defined. It means any worker who is forced to work for free or for subsistence allowance on account of a debt taken by him or any member of his family and one who is not allowed to change his employment. If you voluntarily sign an agreement (bond) to do certain work, then under contract act, you are bound to follow it. The riders in the contract act are that it should be for a consideration (some value received), clear, of free will and not under undue influence. If these are violated, the contract / bond is invalid. The courts expanded the rides to add the concept of fair consideration since the employee is generally at Disadvantage in a country like india. Further, to prevent exploitation, they introduced a doctrine that bonds will be enforced only for paid training provided and another doctrine of reasonable period of bond.
Another doctrine introduced by the courts is under right to freedom of employment under the constitution. It declared that any agreement designed to prevent an employee from earning a decent living is banned.
Outside of these doctrines, bonds and agreements are valid.
It has nothing to do with labour.
It has everything to do with what you are willingly signing.
From India, Mumbai
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.
Saturday.ppt
Saturday.jpg