The ground of civil suit should be nullity of offer of resignation because of coercion on the part of employer in terms of provisions of c OK ntract Act. Forced resignation may not have remedy under Shops and Establishment Act in view settled decisions.
From India, New Delhi
221From India, New Delhi
I think litigation always helps. But the more pressing question is -are you prepared to invest for that unless you are eligible to be helped free of cost by the 'Legal Services Authority'. Further presuming that you win the legal battle apart from the maternity leave of 84 days with pay, you may get only Rs 2500/-(two thousand and five hundred only) as medical bonus if no prenatal confinement and post natal care is provided for by the Employer free of charge.
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
In my view, whatever Mr. T K Madhu has opined appears to be logical and legally viable. The fact remains that when a Company has offered the compensation equal to 3 months CTC, his liability under the Labour Laws comes to end. As regards the Maternity Benefits Act, 1961, the benefits will accrue 6 weeks pre-natal and 6 weeks post-natal, which have not taken the place as of date. Ms. Manushi is expecting a delivery but the probable date is not identified. In such a case, considering the designation and her status, it would be prudent enough to accept the offer and lodge the case in the civil court or appropriate authority for further benefits viz. Gratuity. Also PF dues ( if deducted from salary earlier as per the Act.).
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
It is not the medical bonus of Rs 3500( not Rs 2500) but the issue is around payment of salary for 84 days when the child birth takes place after the company is closed down after following the legal steps involved and fulfilling all the requirements. I do not think that the appropriate authority would ask the company to postpone the closure just to accommodate a pregnant woman employee. More important is that a company will not decide to close down its operations just because the company has a woman employee who is pregnant and who would demand maternity benefit. There can be a dispute if the maternity benefit starts now and the company's closure formalities are yet to come. It is true if the expected date of delivery is just 6 weeks from now because 6 weeks is the maximum leave that an employee can avail before the expected date of delivery.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
If you do not do anything, you will remain in same situation as on today. If you fight for your rights and win your battle, you get a mental satisfaction. Then put on your achievements on this site so that similar aggrieved may get confidence and that will be a deterrance for similar type of citizens who believe in eating away others rights. After all Trade Union Act was not got achieved overnight. Now a days courts take stringent view and pass exemplary costs in many cases.
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
I do not dispute that you should fight for your rights. But before that just answer to my apprehension (yes it is an apprehension only) that will an employer close down the unit just because one lady employee is waiting to demand maternity leave?
If you take the verdicts by courts, we will get different ruling, against and favour of workmen, but at the end of the day we all will rest in one, thing that is, without canvass you cannot draw anything. After having made a Trade Union Act or having united for the workers, what the workers get when the ID Act itself is amended (going to be amended) giving employers the authority to retrench the workers or close down the unit without taking any approval from the Govt? What is welfare when those who have been enjoying the benefits of ESI and Provident Fund Pension are asked to forget about these social welfare schemes and go for insurance which will never give coverage to existing diseases and aged parents even after paying huge premia???
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
If you take the verdicts by courts, we will get different ruling, against and favour of workmen, but at the end of the day we all will rest in one, thing that is, without canvass you cannot draw anything. After having made a Trade Union Act or having united for the workers, what the workers get when the ID Act itself is amended (going to be amended) giving employers the authority to retrench the workers or close down the unit without taking any approval from the Govt? What is welfare when those who have been enjoying the benefits of ESI and Provident Fund Pension are asked to forget about these social welfare schemes and go for insurance which will never give coverage to existing diseases and aged parents even after paying huge premia???
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Through the civil suit, if the forced resignation is set aside after passing a decree, damages are also awarded which may vary from 9 months to three years salary. Besides matetnity benefits are also admissible.Since cause of action has already arisen, closure of unit is immaterial because issue is not of closure of unit before court. Further, what is the policy of government of the day may have to pass test of floor of parliament. Who knows how things shape up. But under present ID Act, still rights of workman are protected to large extent but there are persons who do not like to facilitate to workmen to enjoy their rights and litigation is becoming costlier venture. Pl read Justice DA Desai' judgments.
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
Dear All
Kindly go through the below news article. This order is by Chennai HC and is not void of challenge before bigger bench or SC.
Madras high court stays termination of TCS employee - The Times of India
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Kindly go through the below news article. This order is by Chennai HC and is not void of challenge before bigger bench or SC.
Madras high court stays termination of TCS employee - The Times of India
Regards
Octavious
From India, Mumbai
Thank you so much Octavious for sharing latest judgment of Madras HC and that too in current topic. This judgment would be very fit case if there is a termination of pregnant women.
In current topic, there is no termination. It is a case of resignation. This resignation is forced one, is to be proved first. That seems to be difficult now, according to me.
In my earlier post, I had invited the discussion whether there is a chance to prove that this resignation is forced resignation. But no one discussed on this lines.
From India, Mumbai
In current topic, there is no termination. It is a case of resignation. This resignation is forced one, is to be proved first. That seems to be difficult now, according to me.
In my earlier post, I had invited the discussion whether there is a chance to prove that this resignation is forced resignation. But no one discussed on this lines.
From India, Mumbai
Pl do not ignore the previous elaborate discussion on forced resignation and before which forum it should be pursued. When we talk of merits of the case, everything depends upon evidence available. The plaintiff has to prove manner of coercion through facts known to her. Her lawyer has to sift out that chain of evidence.
From India, New Delhi
From India, New Delhi
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.
Resignation Letter.jpg
Forced Ranking.pdf
Resignation cum relieving letter.doc