You mentioned that your friend joined a "proprietorship manufacturing firm." In such firms, the service rules or terms of the contract for senior positions are generally decided by the proprietor. Your friend can now request a change in the conditions. As long as he remains productive and valuable to the organization, he will not be asked to leave.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
78From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Such terms like appointment of appointment, providing for different notice periods are present, although not very popular. When viewed strictly, such terms are not illegal but are considered unethical and inequitable. An employer in such a situation may argue a valid legal defense stating that these terms were proposed and willingly accepted by the prospective employee in exchange for the consideration offered, thus binding the employee. This is not a contract established through force or misrepresentation nor does it violate any express provision of the law. Although these terms contradict the age-old principle that a contract's terms must be fair and equitable to both parties, such uneven terms do not automatically make the contract illegal or unenforceable.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With respect to KK HR views:
The terms and conditions should be equal and fair. That's why my friend didn't sign the appointment letter and requested the management to review and revise them, which he has so far not responded to. Normally, a detailed appointment letter is issued after joining. And this concerned organization issued the appointment letter after 2-3 months with many follow-ups. Should my friend or any employee in his place have left the job for not receiving the appointment letter, giving up his bread and butter? Even if he or anyone seeking employment urgently did sign the appointment letter, the terms should be viewed as partial, unfair, unjust, and accepted under a reluctant situation. Some organizations adopt these tactics intentionally so they cannot stand under legal scrutiny. These organizations also have the trend of not giving a confirmation letter after the probation period knowingly, despite the concerned good performing and capable employee sending many emails about the confirmation letter, but the company gets the work done duly by the same employee.
At a time when we are talking about social justice and fair employment policy, this is a really unfortunate practice being adopted by some organizations. In my opinion, the government should strictly monitor this and enforce strict laws regarding the matter.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The terms and conditions should be equal and fair. That's why my friend didn't sign the appointment letter and requested the management to review and revise them, which he has so far not responded to. Normally, a detailed appointment letter is issued after joining. And this concerned organization issued the appointment letter after 2-3 months with many follow-ups. Should my friend or any employee in his place have left the job for not receiving the appointment letter, giving up his bread and butter? Even if he or anyone seeking employment urgently did sign the appointment letter, the terms should be viewed as partial, unfair, unjust, and accepted under a reluctant situation. Some organizations adopt these tactics intentionally so they cannot stand under legal scrutiny. These organizations also have the trend of not giving a confirmation letter after the probation period knowingly, despite the concerned good performing and capable employee sending many emails about the confirmation letter, but the company gets the work done duly by the same employee.
At a time when we are talking about social justice and fair employment policy, this is a really unfortunate practice being adopted by some organizations. In my opinion, the government should strictly monitor this and enforce strict laws regarding the matter.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I entirely agree that such terms are totally bad and are an unhealthy trend creeping nowadays in the not so professionally managed organizations. Yet it is there and exploiting the unemployment market; there are many organizations doing this. The only point I am making is that it cannot be termed entirely illegal, and no specific provision of law is violated by this clause.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, it has to be different. If probation is 6 Months or max 1 Year. Then notice period should be 1 Month. Thank you.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I have a different take on the concept of Probation Period. This could be basically a legacy left behind by the British, decades ago. In the good old days, customer databases, communication, etc., were manual or depended on printed documents. With the explosion of modes of communication changing the way we connect with people, the probation period for experienced individuals should not be mandatory for six months. Probation is required for those who are completely new to the workforce, i.e., from campus to corporate. However, for those with work experience shifting from one job to another, why have a probation period at all? If a person with 5 years of experience in sales changes jobs, how much time does he require to get to know the customer base, organization culture, processes, systems, etc.? One month? In an era where people are tech-savvy, why does one need six months to prove their skills? Are we not using the probation period as an excuse for poor performance? In a time of rapid change, where we emphasize speed in processors in PCs, mobile phones, connectivity, pizza delivery, 108 ambulance services, why not expect a newcomer to an organization to perform and prove themselves within one or two months? I am opening a Pandora's box here for people to share their opinions.
Last January, I was in Doha, Qatar, advising a 30-year-old logistics firm. They had an issue with employees leaving at short notice, even within the six-month probation period, despite having vast experience in their roles. I suggested reducing the probation period to just one month to assess the person's abilities. They were pleased with my recommendation.
Best wishes
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Last January, I was in Doha, Qatar, advising a 30-year-old logistics firm. They had an issue with employees leaving at short notice, even within the six-month probation period, despite having vast experience in their roles. I suggested reducing the probation period to just one month to assess the person's abilities. They were pleased with my recommendation.
Best wishes
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Sundaram,
With due regard to your views, I beg to differ. Though your suggestion of a one-month probation period for experienced hires may appear out of the box, I am afraid it may not be the sole solution to reducing attrition during probation.
No matter how scientific our recruitment process and well-honed our judgment of a new hire's overall suitability may be, it still requires time for the candidate to showcase their abilities and adjust culturally. The example of the Chairman's appointment at Tata Group serves as a case in point. Therefore, setting aside the legal aspect, a longer probation period is essential for both the organization and the individual to evaluate each other's suitability. Whether the probation should last three months or up to six months is open to debate.
Attributing the hiring situation in Doha, Qatar solely to a longer probation period seems overly simplistic. There could be various reasons such as a mismatch between the job and the individual. I would appreciate it if some research findings could support the contention that the suggested one-month probation period has significantly improved employee retention rates.
A longer probation period is a sound HR practice both legally and otherwise. Perhaps its origins lie in the British Raj, providing an opportunity for both parties to make a mature judgment on each other's suitability, which I believe is beneficial. Even with the best judgment skills, a one-month probation period may not be adequate for both parties.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With due regard to your views, I beg to differ. Though your suggestion of a one-month probation period for experienced hires may appear out of the box, I am afraid it may not be the sole solution to reducing attrition during probation.
No matter how scientific our recruitment process and well-honed our judgment of a new hire's overall suitability may be, it still requires time for the candidate to showcase their abilities and adjust culturally. The example of the Chairman's appointment at Tata Group serves as a case in point. Therefore, setting aside the legal aspect, a longer probation period is essential for both the organization and the individual to evaluate each other's suitability. Whether the probation should last three months or up to six months is open to debate.
Attributing the hiring situation in Doha, Qatar solely to a longer probation period seems overly simplistic. There could be various reasons such as a mismatch between the job and the individual. I would appreciate it if some research findings could support the contention that the suggested one-month probation period has significantly improved employee retention rates.
A longer probation period is a sound HR practice both legally and otherwise. Perhaps its origins lie in the British Raj, providing an opportunity for both parties to make a mature judgment on each other's suitability, which I believe is beneficial. Even with the best judgment skills, a one-month probation period may not be adequate for both parties.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
My line of argument is quite simple, sir: The period of probation should be inversely proportional to the years of service of an individual. As he grows in stature and caliber, he should have lesser time to get on with his new assignment and should not hide under the Probation Clause for his inefficiency or non-performance. The probationary period should not be sacrosanct for non-performance. Of course, it is for the individual HR departments to make a decision on this and make it flexible for different bands of experience.
Best wishes.
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Best wishes.
From India, Bengaluru
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Check the terms and condition of appointment letter,there is no differences in this.
From India, Gurgaon
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Gurgaon
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.