The employer is at fault for not paying against the notice period of three months,instead paid for two months.
The employer or emploee both are liable for notice period or payment in lieu of notice, is as per agreed terms.
It is difficult to say without knowing the points/clauses prohibiting premature exit or Termination of the signed bond.
The lawyer's notice of defamation is similiar to smoke bomb to create panic, Ignore the notice. The complaint against illegal termination can not be consider as defamation. You are eligible for leave provided completed period of working beyond the period of probation. The written confirmation is not required provided one completed fixed term of period, if one doesn't receive the notice of extension of probation period termed deemed confirmation. Want to know more and can shed light on the matter, if u can call.
From India, Mumbai
590The employer or emploee both are liable for notice period or payment in lieu of notice, is as per agreed terms.
It is difficult to say without knowing the points/clauses prohibiting premature exit or Termination of the signed bond.
The lawyer's notice of defamation is similiar to smoke bomb to create panic, Ignore the notice. The complaint against illegal termination can not be consider as defamation. You are eligible for leave provided completed period of working beyond the period of probation. The written confirmation is not required provided one completed fixed term of period, if one doesn't receive the notice of extension of probation period termed deemed confirmation. Want to know more and can shed light on the matter, if u can call.
From India, Mumbai
Prabhat, please do kot share your number on an open forum. It can be used from fraud and spam. It’s better to send you number on private message
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
The verdict of Madras High Court in R.Thiagarajan vs Union Of India is not actually related to denial of employment but it is all about whether an employee against whom departmental enquiry is pending or punishment has been awarded be able to apply for a senior position in the same department. Though the High Court has said that the order refusing to forward the application of the said Constable for the position of Sub Inspector has been set aside, I don't know why the Court ignired clause 10(h) of the eligibility criteria.
Regarding the leave permissble under Factories Act, I would like to state that first of all the employee (worker) should get the credit of the leave. It is not that after six months the leave stands credited. It is credited in the month of January (in this case January 2025) and the leave is given to those who have worked for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date of granting credit. Now, in the case of those who joined during the year, the credit shall happen after 12 months of his service. Once the credit has been given, naturally, on termination of employment, he can get the unavailed leave encashed.
The matter of many employees leaving the establishment without getting confirmed is not an issue related to law but it is to be addressed differently.
From India, Kannur
Regarding the leave permissble under Factories Act, I would like to state that first of all the employee (worker) should get the credit of the leave. It is not that after six months the leave stands credited. It is credited in the month of January (in this case January 2025) and the leave is given to those who have worked for 240 days in the 12 months preceding the date of granting credit. Now, in the case of those who joined during the year, the credit shall happen after 12 months of his service. Once the credit has been given, naturally, on termination of employment, he can get the unavailed leave encashed.
The matter of many employees leaving the establishment without getting confirmed is not an issue related to law but it is to be addressed differently.
From India, Kannur
Mr. Madhu,
What about chapter VIII Clause 79(3) of the Factory Act, 1948? Already shared the attachment yesterday. It's clearly written that in case the services of a worker (employee) is discontinued for whatever the reason, he (or his heir/nominee in case of death) is entitled to receive the payment of accrued eaves he earns at pro rata basis within 2 working days of his last working day.
It's pathetic to see when the law maker had the vision last 80 years ago then but the same rule is ignored in present time. There is the talk of only one eligibility condition where there also exists the rule for those who can't fulfill working 240 days and quit the employment before.
I don't know whether the same clause has been outdated or not. I believe it's still in force. If so, why is there so much lacuna and ignorance in our system for its implementation? The employers are always following the policy in the argument that what is mine will be mine, and what's yours will be shared.
And in the the verdict of Madras High Court in R.Thiagarajan vs Union Of India , the issue also involved termination of employment following not forwarding his application for SI position. The judgment of the High court is truly landmark when it held that every man has the right to life and the right to life includes the right to employment in a democracy and no arbitrariness is sustainable in the law.
From India, Mumbai
What about chapter VIII Clause 79(3) of the Factory Act, 1948? Already shared the attachment yesterday. It's clearly written that in case the services of a worker (employee) is discontinued for whatever the reason, he (or his heir/nominee in case of death) is entitled to receive the payment of accrued eaves he earns at pro rata basis within 2 working days of his last working day.
It's pathetic to see when the law maker had the vision last 80 years ago then but the same rule is ignored in present time. There is the talk of only one eligibility condition where there also exists the rule for those who can't fulfill working 240 days and quit the employment before.
I don't know whether the same clause has been outdated or not. I believe it's still in force. If so, why is there so much lacuna and ignorance in our system for its implementation? The employers are always following the policy in the argument that what is mine will be mine, and what's yours will be shared.
And in the the verdict of Madras High Court in R.Thiagarajan vs Union Of India , the issue also involved termination of employment following not forwarding his application for SI position. The judgment of the High court is truly landmark when it held that every man has the right to life and the right to life includes the right to employment in a democracy and no arbitrariness is sustainable in the law.
From India, Mumbai
You can proceed legally. Please take it forward. Whatever I have shared is based on my knowledge, and since it is not acceptable, and at the same time you have your own interpretations of law, you may move accordingly. You may win the case. But going forward, you will have to find a place to work of your own.
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
As to the limited context of allegation regarding defamation, the facts posted does not suggest any cause for initiating an action in civil or criminal wrong. In the absece of publicity and the wilful intention cause injury, there could be no tortious wrongdoing or an offence amounting to defamation.
The action of the querist in addressing the public authority, even if not the correct, procedure, falls within the exceptions as provided under Section 499 IPC and the corresponding provisions under Section 356 BNS.
In the instant case, it appears that employer is threatening of a civil action. If so, the same defences, as the exceptions in criminal action are available to the defendant. The querist may reply to the Notice highlighting the aspects as above. The employer is unlikely to proceed any further.
And even if a civil action. instituted you have the option to appear party in person; the tone and tenor of your posting suggest that you are endowed with the necessary acumen. Nowadays, you can appear online before any court in our country.
From India, Kochi
The action of the querist in addressing the public authority, even if not the correct, procedure, falls within the exceptions as provided under Section 499 IPC and the corresponding provisions under Section 356 BNS.
In the instant case, it appears that employer is threatening of a civil action. If so, the same defences, as the exceptions in criminal action are available to the defendant. The querist may reply to the Notice highlighting the aspects as above. The employer is unlikely to proceed any further.
And even if a civil action. instituted you have the option to appear party in person; the tone and tenor of your posting suggest that you are endowed with the necessary acumen. Nowadays, you can appear online before any court in our country.
From India, Kochi
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.
Company Letter for Completion 01 Month Notice.docx
Legal Notice.pdf