In continuation of my above post of 16th Feb, 2015 which has been unfortunately converted into Anonymous and the next reply is not visible to me, I wish to add that under sections 76 to 79, IPC it is no defense to carry out unlawful orders of one's superior vide Rathi v State(CBI) decided by Delhi High Court on 18.9.2009. Thus HR should not carry out illegal and unlawful directions of superiors which may later entail him into prosecution even if he has left the company.
Thanks
Sushil
(Sushilkluthra@gmail.com)
From India, New Delhi
221Thanks
Sushil
(Sushilkluthra@gmail.com)
From India, New Delhi
It is learnt that a queriest intended to know the ruling about forced resignation. It is settled that forced resignation is illegal termination but it has to pleaded and proved that resignation was forced because of undue influence, force , coercion etc. Pl see the decision in The Management of Madura Coats vs Presiding Officer decided in 2010.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Further in the thread "Harassment by the previous employer after leaving the job", I have extracted the relevant passages of an Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v SM Chopra decided in 1999. In the said case it was proved how resignation was extracted by coercion.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Shushil,
You have put in some important perspectives. However, the original poster has not bothered to tell us what the real situation is or replied to anything we have put. So we are all left shooting in the dark now.
However, would like to thank you for the additional info given.
From India, Mumbai
You have put in some important perspectives. However, the original poster has not bothered to tell us what the real situation is or replied to anything we have put. So we are all left shooting in the dark now.
However, would like to thank you for the additional info given.
From India, Mumbai
Thanks for acknowledging new thoughts. I have tried to expose as to how in real practice an innocent HR can be put in dangerous situations which leave scar upon his body for whole life. Every action should well thought of after looking into its pros and con's otherwise experts should be consulted.Never mind about the original thread because in pursuance to this thread, we are given opportunity to research into these issues and perspectives for mankind and in their interest.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
I think many of us write on the forum in hope that someone will read the thread later also and benefit from the details we post. Unfortunately, I find that most of the people simply post again instead of trying to read the earlier treads.
With regard to the origin of post, I find he wrote the words - raising voice for justice, not pointing out compliance issues to the board. When you point out a compliance matters, refuse to sign or object to being asked to sign wrong documents, it would be different. It would not be a question of raising voice for justice.
However, your points are important to anybody working in HR, and that is not changed.
From India, Mumbai
With regard to the origin of post, I find he wrote the words - raising voice for justice, not pointing out compliance issues to the board. When you point out a compliance matters, refuse to sign or object to being asked to sign wrong documents, it would be different. It would not be a question of raising voice for justice.
However, your points are important to anybody working in HR, and that is not changed.
From India, Mumbai
The use of words in the original post by him that he raised point for justice and labour department is only after money leads one to deduce that the enforcement machinery is not taking cognizance of true facts only for the sake of money and out of protest he raised voice for justice. Justice word covers for getting included names of excluded persons who under law would have been covered for benefits. Justice also includes protecting his interest.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
First of all ,it is not clear What Injustice happened ? to whom ? any employee or HR itself ?
Second , Raised Voice means what exactly done by you ? which result in your termination.
All are replying only considering some injustice happen and voice raised. But,Without clarity of entire scene no one can give proper and exact advice on it.
From India, Mumbai
Second , Raised Voice means what exactly done by you ? which result in your termination.
All are replying only considering some injustice happen and voice raised. But,Without clarity of entire scene no one can give proper and exact advice on it.
From India, Mumbai
In this site we should not insist for revealing identity of a queriest as to whether he is himself victim or speaking on behalf of other. Particularly we have to keep in view that if he is an HR he is a white collar employee which category does not come out with nitty gritties of complaint easily because this forum is not to adjudicate upon issues but give broad guidelines so that the queriest may take appropriate decision after we are able to render any assistance to him. Queriest has spoken in a precise manner that there are anomalies in rule applications and labour department is just behind money. A reasonable person can deduce the real problem behind the screen. We cannot expect this category of person to reveal minutely the violations or anomalies especially when read with the following words thereafter. Raising voice is nothing but protesting against something which one does not feel like chewing. The following words in query are extracted:
“ voice for justice, in the particular company. There are lots of anomaly in the rules applications and labour department is just behind money”
Sometimes advice is sought on limited issues and not on entire gamut of scenario. We should not shirk to help except on our terms, subject to revealing everything. The narration of whole scenario will ultimately has to be done by a queriest before an Advocate or court. We are not adjudicators.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
“ voice for justice, in the particular company. There are lots of anomaly in the rules applications and labour department is just behind money”
Sometimes advice is sought on limited issues and not on entire gamut of scenario. We should not shirk to help except on our terms, subject to revealing everything. The narration of whole scenario will ultimately has to be done by a queriest before an Advocate or court. We are not adjudicators.
Thanks
Sushil
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.
Strategic-hr-ma nagement2_422.p df
Job Description - HR & Admin.doc
Tangent HR Solutions.ppt