The employer is at fault for not paying against the notice period of three months, instead paid for two months. Both the employer and employee are liable for the notice period or payment in lieu of notice, 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 similar to a smoke bomb to create panic. Ignore the notice. The complaint against illegal termination cannot be considered as defamation. You are eligible for leave provided you have completed the period of working beyond the probation period. Written confirmation is not required after completing a fixed term; if you don't receive notice of an extension of the probation period, it is termed deemed confirmation.
If you want to know more or shed light on the matter, you can call.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
713The lawyer's notice of defamation is similar to a smoke bomb to create panic. Ignore the notice. The complaint against illegal termination cannot be considered as defamation. You are eligible for leave provided you have completed the period of working beyond the probation period. Written confirmation is not required after completing a fixed term; if you don't receive notice of an extension of the probation period, it is termed deemed confirmation.
If you want to know more or shed light on the matter, you can call.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 can 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 ignored clause 10(h) of the eligibility criteria.
Regarding the leave permissible under the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Regarding the leave permissible under the 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Madhu,
What about Chapter VIII, Clause 79(3) of the Factory Act, 1948? I already shared the attachment yesterday. It's clearly written that in case the services of a worker (employee) are discontinued for whatever reason, he (or his heir/nominee in case of death) is entitled to receive the payment of accrued leaves he earns on a pro-rata basis within two working days of his last working day.
It's pathetic to see that the lawmaker envisioned this 80 years ago, yet the same rule is ignored in the present time. There is talk of only one eligibility condition, but there also exists a rule for those who can't fulfill working 240 days and quit employment before that.
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 regarding its implementation? Employers always follow the policy that what is mine will be mine, and what's yours will be shared.
In the verdict of the Madras High Court in R. Thiagarajan vs. Union Of India, the issue also involved termination of employment following the failure to forward his application for the SI position. The judgment of the High Court is truly landmark when it held that every individual has the right to life, and this right includes the right to employment in a democracy, with no arbitrariness being sustainable in the law.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
What about Chapter VIII, Clause 79(3) of the Factory Act, 1948? I already shared the attachment yesterday. It's clearly written that in case the services of a worker (employee) are discontinued for whatever reason, he (or his heir/nominee in case of death) is entitled to receive the payment of accrued leaves he earns on a pro-rata basis within two working days of his last working day.
It's pathetic to see that the lawmaker envisioned this 80 years ago, yet the same rule is ignored in the present time. There is talk of only one eligibility condition, but there also exists a rule for those who can't fulfill working 240 days and quit employment before that.
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 regarding its implementation? Employers always follow the policy that what is mine will be mine, and what's yours will be shared.
In the verdict of the Madras High Court in R. Thiagarajan vs. Union Of India, the issue also involved termination of employment following the failure to forward his application for the SI position. The judgment of the High Court is truly landmark when it held that every individual has the right to life, and this right includes the right to employment in a democracy, with no arbitrariness being sustainable in the law.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 interpretations of the 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
Acknowledge(1)
Amend(0)
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(1)Amend(0)
As to the limited context of the allegation regarding defamation, the facts posted do not suggest any cause for initiating an action in civil or criminal wrongdoing. In the absence of publicity and the willful intention to cause injury, there could be no tortious wrongdoing or an offense amounting to defamation.
The action of the querist in addressing the public authority, even if not 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 the employer is threatening a civil action. If so, the same defenses, 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 is instituted, you have the option to appear as a 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The action of the querist in addressing the public authority, even if not 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 the employer is threatening a civil action. If so, the same defenses, 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 is instituted, you have the option to appear as a 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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think your main concern is the defamation notice as it can be civil or criminal. I will have to see what you have written in your complaint, and only after that, I will be in a better position to help you. So please share your complaint if you are comfortable.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
I am sorry for the treatment the Company gave to you. I would say that once the probation period is complete and no letter has been issued by the higher management to extend your probation, it is deemed that the probation period is completed successfully, and the employee concerned is to be treated as a permanent employee. The issuance of a confirmation letter is just an administrative matter and may get delayed for various reasons. Most importantly, consider what your appointment letter says. If it states that the closure of probation will only occur after the issuance of the confirmation letter, then their contention will hold good. Your unilateral termination is bad in law.
Regarding the payment of 2 months' basic pay as notice pay, the action is as per the terms of the offer of appointment. As for the legal notice on account of defamation for the reasons stated by you, the legal notice will have no legal consequence upon you. An employee/any citizen has the right to approach the PG portal if his/her grievance is not being addressed by the Company or management despite repeated requests. Approaching the PG portal will never amount to defamation. If the management was so concerned about its reputation, it should have addressed your grievance at the right time and in the true spirit rather than terminating your services.
Your termination without the issuance of a charge memo and without giving ample opportunity to defend yourself in view of the principle of Natural Justice, their action itself warrants a suitable challenge before the appropriate Labour Court/Court of Law.
Good luck.
AK Jain Retired Manager (HR) Coal India Ltd.
From India, New+Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am sorry for the treatment the Company gave to you. I would say that once the probation period is complete and no letter has been issued by the higher management to extend your probation, it is deemed that the probation period is completed successfully, and the employee concerned is to be treated as a permanent employee. The issuance of a confirmation letter is just an administrative matter and may get delayed for various reasons. Most importantly, consider what your appointment letter says. If it states that the closure of probation will only occur after the issuance of the confirmation letter, then their contention will hold good. Your unilateral termination is bad in law.
Regarding the payment of 2 months' basic pay as notice pay, the action is as per the terms of the offer of appointment. As for the legal notice on account of defamation for the reasons stated by you, the legal notice will have no legal consequence upon you. An employee/any citizen has the right to approach the PG portal if his/her grievance is not being addressed by the Company or management despite repeated requests. Approaching the PG portal will never amount to defamation. If the management was so concerned about its reputation, it should have addressed your grievance at the right time and in the true spirit rather than terminating your services.
Your termination without the issuance of a charge memo and without giving ample opportunity to defend yourself in view of the principle of Natural Justice, their action itself warrants a suitable challenge before the appropriate Labour Court/Court of Law.
Good luck.
AK Jain Retired Manager (HR) Coal India Ltd.
From India, New+Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Register and Log In.
Company Letter for Completion 01 Month Notice.docx
Legal Notice.pdf