Hello,
This is response to the entire mail trail.
Arguments on the matter should be looked at on MORAL/ETHICAL/SYMPATHETIC grounds are endorsed by me too.
But I wish to know and am seeking confirmation of my following presumptions:
1) Mr. X is NOT a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
2) Other non-workmen in the company have also NOT received "closure benefits" under V-A or V-B of the ID Act 1947 as may be applicable.
3) If he was NOT granted any salary increases for past FIVE years, how does he now feel justified in demanding the same? The need for money at this stage of life and career is understandable but to be obstinate and difficult about it is counter productive and will defeat self interests.
Let us understand that industrial organizations are first and foremost ECONOMIC organizations and REASON comes ahead of EMOTION! HR is NOT in driver's seat to make such organizational decisions driven by emotions, sympathy, ethics and morality. Of course the HR can quit right away as is being suggested also but doing so will be at his own peril!
Depending upon the level of the HR in the hierarchy of decision makers will put a limit on his free and independent acts!
As far as Mr. X's case is concerned, he can be separated in terms of his contract of employment (now especially since he wishes to try being unreasonable in seeking a benefit that is essentially NOT his legitimate due) and what was he doing for past five years anyway!. In fact he could have refused to handle the closure assignment and taken his chances then only.
The company is being decent to retain him and as I notice, it is the "office politics" that is out to get him. I feel this is the area HR can influence proceedings and salvage Mr. X's career and employment or working out a decent and dignified separation package for Mr. X.
I entirely DISAGREE that HR must quit. (He may do so if he chooses-but NOT on moral or ethical disagreement with powers that be but out of his inability to ensure the right decision/s being taken.) But then he will have run away from virtually every organization since most industrial organizations will respect ECONOMISM first and only the HUMAN perspectives anyway!
My two bit worth for everyone's consideration please. Kindly note that no offense is intended and all views are respected. I am only putting across MY views!
Regards
samvedan
September 19, 2013
----------------------------
From India, Pune
315This is response to the entire mail trail.
Arguments on the matter should be looked at on MORAL/ETHICAL/SYMPATHETIC grounds are endorsed by me too.
But I wish to know and am seeking confirmation of my following presumptions:
1) Mr. X is NOT a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act 1947.
2) Other non-workmen in the company have also NOT received "closure benefits" under V-A or V-B of the ID Act 1947 as may be applicable.
3) If he was NOT granted any salary increases for past FIVE years, how does he now feel justified in demanding the same? The need for money at this stage of life and career is understandable but to be obstinate and difficult about it is counter productive and will defeat self interests.
Let us understand that industrial organizations are first and foremost ECONOMIC organizations and REASON comes ahead of EMOTION! HR is NOT in driver's seat to make such organizational decisions driven by emotions, sympathy, ethics and morality. Of course the HR can quit right away as is being suggested also but doing so will be at his own peril!
Depending upon the level of the HR in the hierarchy of decision makers will put a limit on his free and independent acts!
As far as Mr. X's case is concerned, he can be separated in terms of his contract of employment (now especially since he wishes to try being unreasonable in seeking a benefit that is essentially NOT his legitimate due) and what was he doing for past five years anyway!. In fact he could have refused to handle the closure assignment and taken his chances then only.
The company is being decent to retain him and as I notice, it is the "office politics" that is out to get him. I feel this is the area HR can influence proceedings and salvage Mr. X's career and employment or working out a decent and dignified separation package for Mr. X.
I entirely DISAGREE that HR must quit. (He may do so if he chooses-but NOT on moral or ethical disagreement with powers that be but out of his inability to ensure the right decision/s being taken.) But then he will have run away from virtually every organization since most industrial organizations will respect ECONOMISM first and only the HUMAN perspectives anyway!
My two bit worth for everyone's consideration please. Kindly note that no offense is intended and all views are respected. I am only putting across MY views!
Regards
samvedan
September 19, 2013
----------------------------
From India, Pune
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.
Legal Clarification on Absconding Employee, Contract Labour Engagement & Leave Entitlement Ammen.pdf
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc