Dear Mr. Bhatia,
Appreciate you supporting the 'other' view, this will actually help clarify any remaining doubts from the enquirer's mind.
I know of some companies, that keep a part of salary/stipend on hold during training period, to be paid later on confirmation. This is a valid/legal way to go with, if the contact says so clearly! There are also more other ways of doing this, than to venture into the illegal activities.
I work with service/IT type of industry as well, & know of very few companies that actually provide training that is worth more than bond value + earnings from employee's work during on-job training. Most of them don't even do training cost analysis, for the on-job training period. The bond values are set based on salary structure, generally very high than the actual training costs. The bond periods are set looking at what other peer companies are doing. Many of the posts on this forum indicate this fact!
Only companies that want the cheapest employees, with minimum training, to provide maximum efficiency, opt for such options to increase retention. There is nothing wrong in it, but if the employee expects maximum salary, with minimum skills/training, & the market is allowing growth to the employee elsewhere, then they cannot really expect long term association with employees.
The companies with good environment, ethical policies, transparency, and at-par salary structure, rarely face the attrition problems. And even during the period of market upsets, I have seen employees returning to these companies, after they left for short duration.
Unfortunately, one can easily bend the laws & take advantage of lengthy legal processes to justify these methods; But is it the kind of advice we want to give to the enquirer on this forum?
Best Regards,
Amod.
80Appreciate you supporting the 'other' view, this will actually help clarify any remaining doubts from the enquirer's mind.
I know of some companies, that keep a part of salary/stipend on hold during training period, to be paid later on confirmation. This is a valid/legal way to go with, if the contact says so clearly! There are also more other ways of doing this, than to venture into the illegal activities.
I work with service/IT type of industry as well, & know of very few companies that actually provide training that is worth more than bond value + earnings from employee's work during on-job training. Most of them don't even do training cost analysis, for the on-job training period. The bond values are set based on salary structure, generally very high than the actual training costs. The bond periods are set looking at what other peer companies are doing. Many of the posts on this forum indicate this fact!
Only companies that want the cheapest employees, with minimum training, to provide maximum efficiency, opt for such options to increase retention. There is nothing wrong in it, but if the employee expects maximum salary, with minimum skills/training, & the market is allowing growth to the employee elsewhere, then they cannot really expect long term association with employees.
The companies with good environment, ethical policies, transparency, and at-par salary structure, rarely face the attrition problems. And even during the period of market upsets, I have seen employees returning to these companies, after they left for short duration.
Unfortunately, one can easily bend the laws & take advantage of lengthy legal processes to justify these methods; But is it the kind of advice we want to give to the enquirer on this forum?
Best Regards,
Amod.
Mr Tyagi,
It appears you are an advocate by profession but it's not clear if you have actual industry experience and if yes at what levels. Dear friend holding educational qualification certificates as security is a well accepted practice and prevalent in Indian industry for many many years.here i tell you one more fact that this practice is generally followed for freshers and for employees who have just started career. Any way it my request that this form is to express opinions and why you felt so bad that you have to use such harsh words like half knowledge etc. Gentlemen what ever I have written is the reality and being an advocate I hope you understand the validity or enforce-ability of any contract. So plse understand there is no law in India which prohibit any employer from entering any conditional employment contract. Or tell me the law which prohibit employer from asking for any type of surety or security from an employee. I know you wont be able to find any such law so just try to find few SC rulings if any on this subject or any ruling from Privy Council. I am sure there is nothing such and that's why this practice of holding Certificates is being followed by couple of top Indian IT companies. I can't put there names on records as it will be against law but if you do some home work you will find many such names.
Please go through the records and enlighten yourself and if you find some thing positive please provide the information in this form so many more people will get benefited. But if you don't mind please don't reply any comment by name.
With best wishes.
From India, Delhi
It appears you are an advocate by profession but it's not clear if you have actual industry experience and if yes at what levels. Dear friend holding educational qualification certificates as security is a well accepted practice and prevalent in Indian industry for many many years.here i tell you one more fact that this practice is generally followed for freshers and for employees who have just started career. Any way it my request that this form is to express opinions and why you felt so bad that you have to use such harsh words like half knowledge etc. Gentlemen what ever I have written is the reality and being an advocate I hope you understand the validity or enforce-ability of any contract. So plse understand there is no law in India which prohibit any employer from entering any conditional employment contract. Or tell me the law which prohibit employer from asking for any type of surety or security from an employee. I know you wont be able to find any such law so just try to find few SC rulings if any on this subject or any ruling from Privy Council. I am sure there is nothing such and that's why this practice of holding Certificates is being followed by couple of top Indian IT companies. I can't put there names on records as it will be against law but if you do some home work you will find many such names.
Please go through the records and enlighten yourself and if you find some thing positive please provide the information in this form so many more people will get benefited. But if you don't mind please don't reply any comment by name.
With best wishes.
From India, Delhi
Things get a little out of hands when such important things are discussed - I am sure he didn't mean to offend you and sees you as a well respected professional. I am editing the line which seems a bit provoking.
Okay let's try to find any relevant cases related to such issues - I couldn't really find anything online and I wonder if any employer was ever taken to court over such an issue.
I think its a valid argument for the employers who withhold documents because they provide training - let me explain the incident where I have seen this happen - this was at a fairly well know CA firm - the person who got effected was a star performer doing her internship - she got selected to join E&Y and the previous employer held her hostage for 2 months. She had no pending projects and had even received commendation for her previous work.
Now, these people who come in for internships or freshers who are being trained are usually somewhat trained (which is why the employer choose them) but require process knowledge - perhaps in some cases the employer has to train a complete novice to a level of competence to work for them - I highly doubt anyone is doing that.
This I think somewhat boils down to the understanding of what goes on in the minds of these freshers - many times they realize the job is not exactly their calling, or they get a better offer.
The question is - is the employer within his rights to hold back documents and enslave the employee against his/her will to make them work just because they feel they have earned the right from the money they spent on the process training?
From India, Gurgaon
Okay let's try to find any relevant cases related to such issues - I couldn't really find anything online and I wonder if any employer was ever taken to court over such an issue.
I think its a valid argument for the employers who withhold documents because they provide training - let me explain the incident where I have seen this happen - this was at a fairly well know CA firm - the person who got effected was a star performer doing her internship - she got selected to join E&Y and the previous employer held her hostage for 2 months. She had no pending projects and had even received commendation for her previous work.
Now, these people who come in for internships or freshers who are being trained are usually somewhat trained (which is why the employer choose them) but require process knowledge - perhaps in some cases the employer has to train a complete novice to a level of competence to work for them - I highly doubt anyone is doing that.
This I think somewhat boils down to the understanding of what goes on in the minds of these freshers - many times they realize the job is not exactly their calling, or they get a better offer.
The question is - is the employer within his rights to hold back documents and enslave the employee against his/her will to make them work just because they feel they have earned the right from the money they spent on the process training?
From India, Gurgaon
Dear Ms Amrita,
The question your boss has asked you to hold documents for 1 year + notice period is having two aspects one is legal and other is ethical. Lots of our friends have given opinion and many of them says it's illegal. Here what I feel may be some of them think all unethical/immoral things are illegal but it's not so. This holding documents in various circumstances has legal sanity and can't be challenged in any court of law. I am sure that's why no one has challenged it in any Indian Superior Court ( High Court or Supreme Court).
The other aspect as said by our Super Moderator (CHR) "The question is - is the employer within his rights to hold back documents and enslave the employee against his/her will to make them work just because they feel they have earned the right from the money they spent on the process training?'
You can say the Law has nothing to say against holding of documents but one thing is there why this holding of documents started. I give you an example. An IT company recruits freshers (B.Tech / B.E) from hundreds of Colleges I feel NCR is having over 150 Engg colleges. Those having degree are just having some broad knowledge of IT/CS but they are not fit to perform or provide any output. So companies have to train them in real terms and most of the Companies provide 6 months to 1 year training to groom those graduates to become real Engineers and as per rough estimates it cost at least Rs.3 to 5 lac to train a person properly. Once a person is expert his worth is 5 to 7 lac p/a but here he is getting around Rs 3.5 lac/PA. Just think if Company lets him go as most of them may wishes there will be a net loss of 3 to 5 lac per employee to the Employer. So what is the answer is this moral or immoral.
Here in case of Amrita I don't feel her Company is providing any such training to employees and their only intention is to just hold employees. So we can term their action as immoral but still the law won't help any of those employees as if the Contract/Offer letter is drafted properly you can't take the company to court.
Here I would also like to tell you even this holding documents does not always help the companies as I know couple of cases where the young men were so smart and they procured duplicate Certificates from their respective universities by just giving an add in the some local new papers about loss of Certificates and vanished. So what a company can do in this case, just sack the missing employee and nothing more as good companies are not having time to pursue these minor matters.
Anyway Friends so please note holding certificates may be unethical or immoral but not illegal either in India or even in US or Europe forget Middle East, China or Russia.
With best wishes.
From India, Delhi
The question your boss has asked you to hold documents for 1 year + notice period is having two aspects one is legal and other is ethical. Lots of our friends have given opinion and many of them says it's illegal. Here what I feel may be some of them think all unethical/immoral things are illegal but it's not so. This holding documents in various circumstances has legal sanity and can't be challenged in any court of law. I am sure that's why no one has challenged it in any Indian Superior Court ( High Court or Supreme Court).
The other aspect as said by our Super Moderator (CHR) "The question is - is the employer within his rights to hold back documents and enslave the employee against his/her will to make them work just because they feel they have earned the right from the money they spent on the process training?'
You can say the Law has nothing to say against holding of documents but one thing is there why this holding of documents started. I give you an example. An IT company recruits freshers (B.Tech / B.E) from hundreds of Colleges I feel NCR is having over 150 Engg colleges. Those having degree are just having some broad knowledge of IT/CS but they are not fit to perform or provide any output. So companies have to train them in real terms and most of the Companies provide 6 months to 1 year training to groom those graduates to become real Engineers and as per rough estimates it cost at least Rs.3 to 5 lac to train a person properly. Once a person is expert his worth is 5 to 7 lac p/a but here he is getting around Rs 3.5 lac/PA. Just think if Company lets him go as most of them may wishes there will be a net loss of 3 to 5 lac per employee to the Employer. So what is the answer is this moral or immoral.
Here in case of Amrita I don't feel her Company is providing any such training to employees and their only intention is to just hold employees. So we can term their action as immoral but still the law won't help any of those employees as if the Contract/Offer letter is drafted properly you can't take the company to court.
Here I would also like to tell you even this holding documents does not always help the companies as I know couple of cases where the young men were so smart and they procured duplicate Certificates from their respective universities by just giving an add in the some local new papers about loss of Certificates and vanished. So what a company can do in this case, just sack the missing employee and nothing more as good companies are not having time to pursue these minor matters.
Anyway Friends so please note holding certificates may be unethical or immoral but not illegal either in India or even in US or Europe forget Middle East, China or Russia.
With best wishes.
From India, Delhi
Dear NavneetSarin,
Let's look at your calculations first:
In your view, a company spends 3-5 lacs on an employee for training. Also, it pays the same employee 3-5 lacs as remuneration. Does that mean, the gross profit earned by the company from services of that employee in the first whole year is zero?
Does it means, that the company provides a year full of dedicated training, & even the on-job training is not worth a rupee?
Also, after the training year, if the employee is worth 5-7 lacs, why does the company not raise him to that level then?
The answer is, the company does not spend even 1 lac worth on training, when you compensate it with the profits earned by the employee in that year. These factors are considered when deriving the “training curve” for the new employees. How many organizations even bother to calculate the realistic training curves for these new employees?
They just want to have a 'win-win' scenario in either case, even if for employee is left with 'loose-loose'. (If employee leaves, company gets more money than training cost. If he does not leave, company gets a long term trained employee. While if the employee leaves, he pays large amount just for the ‘experience gained’. If he does not leave, he is losing on upgrade in salary in a better place.)
In our country of large unemployment ration, I could not understand why companies have to struggle for retention. Are we not choosing the right people as employees…, OR are we not providing them good enough environment to work for us... OR Do we just want to take the advantage of the large competition for employment & squeeze what we can from them??
A company, if feels the candidate is not up to the mark, can deny the employment, but cannot complain for training requirements later. Training is a part of their curriculum & even experienced new employees have to go through training. The company cannot charge the employee for giving “experience”. They can only charge for “formal Training”.
"Experience" comes as part of services provided by the employee, & not as part of employment provided by employer.
Just to update you: my organization serves middle east clients, & even though some of them ask to surrender the passports for employees on deputation, our organization strictly declines it; at times even at stake of losing business. This is the kind of commitment that drives the organizations towards betterment of ethics; Where instead of thinking of quitting, employees can proudly say that, they are part of the organization & their organization stands for their personal development.
Holding the documents cannot be justified in any scenario. If the document is not provided by the company, it has no right to hold it. The documents provided by government authorities (including educational certificates), can not be withhold by private companies. Companies cannot trade these documents, hence they do not have right to write 'receipts' for these documents.
I said in my previous post, & I would like to repeat it; This forum should not be about how to find loopholes or find bypasses to the laws, but to share how we can help each other improve our organization HR ways.
In the race of survival, many company HR's face dilemma of what's legal/ethical/doable/preferable way to perform better. For this, many people come here (including myself) to seek help with good & genuine intensions. We ought to think what we provide them as answers!
Best Regards,
Amod.
Let's look at your calculations first:
In your view, a company spends 3-5 lacs on an employee for training. Also, it pays the same employee 3-5 lacs as remuneration. Does that mean, the gross profit earned by the company from services of that employee in the first whole year is zero?
Does it means, that the company provides a year full of dedicated training, & even the on-job training is not worth a rupee?
Also, after the training year, if the employee is worth 5-7 lacs, why does the company not raise him to that level then?
The answer is, the company does not spend even 1 lac worth on training, when you compensate it with the profits earned by the employee in that year. These factors are considered when deriving the “training curve” for the new employees. How many organizations even bother to calculate the realistic training curves for these new employees?
They just want to have a 'win-win' scenario in either case, even if for employee is left with 'loose-loose'. (If employee leaves, company gets more money than training cost. If he does not leave, company gets a long term trained employee. While if the employee leaves, he pays large amount just for the ‘experience gained’. If he does not leave, he is losing on upgrade in salary in a better place.)
In our country of large unemployment ration, I could not understand why companies have to struggle for retention. Are we not choosing the right people as employees…, OR are we not providing them good enough environment to work for us... OR Do we just want to take the advantage of the large competition for employment & squeeze what we can from them??
A company, if feels the candidate is not up to the mark, can deny the employment, but cannot complain for training requirements later. Training is a part of their curriculum & even experienced new employees have to go through training. The company cannot charge the employee for giving “experience”. They can only charge for “formal Training”.
"Experience" comes as part of services provided by the employee, & not as part of employment provided by employer.
Just to update you: my organization serves middle east clients, & even though some of them ask to surrender the passports for employees on deputation, our organization strictly declines it; at times even at stake of losing business. This is the kind of commitment that drives the organizations towards betterment of ethics; Where instead of thinking of quitting, employees can proudly say that, they are part of the organization & their organization stands for their personal development.
Holding the documents cannot be justified in any scenario. If the document is not provided by the company, it has no right to hold it. The documents provided by government authorities (including educational certificates), can not be withhold by private companies. Companies cannot trade these documents, hence they do not have right to write 'receipts' for these documents.
I said in my previous post, & I would like to repeat it; This forum should not be about how to find loopholes or find bypasses to the laws, but to share how we can help each other improve our organization HR ways.
In the race of survival, many company HR's face dilemma of what's legal/ethical/doable/preferable way to perform better. For this, many people come here (including myself) to seek help with good & genuine intensions. We ought to think what we provide them as answers!
Best Regards,
Amod.
Dear Members/Moderators......
Greetings for the day.....
This topic is well dealt I appreciate one and all. In overseas jobs such kind of bonds are implemented but in India its not possible. Once i happened to work in Dubai where our Passport has to be kept with the employer for security purpose which is illegal but... no option. Even though there are laws governing such kind of matters but of no use when it comes to an individual employee.
Any way I concur with the views of all and thanks for sharing.....
From United States, Chicago
Greetings for the day.....
This topic is well dealt I appreciate one and all. In overseas jobs such kind of bonds are implemented but in India its not possible. Once i happened to work in Dubai where our Passport has to be kept with the employer for security purpose which is illegal but... no option. Even though there are laws governing such kind of matters but of no use when it comes to an individual employee.
Any way I concur with the views of all and thanks for sharing.....
From United States, Chicago
It is not correct to say that no case have been filed in Indian courts against bond/holding of originals.Cases were filed in Delhi HC,SC,and in Kerala HC .Delhi HC had termed the system of holding originals as bonded labour and ordered the govt to frame guide lines on these issues.
Members may read the judgement in the following cases, and form their opinions,
Shamshad Ali vs Director(Police-Radio) UP Police and Others,
ITC Ltd Vs Gagandeep Singh Sodhi and Anr
High Polymer Labs Pvt Ltd vs RK Mutreja and Anr
R Babu vs TTK LIG Ltd
Varghese Mathew
9961266966
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Members may read the judgement in the following cases, and form their opinions,
Shamshad Ali vs Director(Police-Radio) UP Police and Others,
ITC Ltd Vs Gagandeep Singh Sodhi and Anr
High Polymer Labs Pvt Ltd vs RK Mutreja and Anr
R Babu vs TTK LIG Ltd
Varghese Mathew
9961266966
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Dear Friends,
One of our friend has quoted some cases on this thread and after going through all of them thoroughly I have observed none of these cases were regarding holding of documents and more over the courts had not even granted relief to the employees. Anyway our question is different. I too feel very much against this practice and many more other similar practices.but here the question is legality of Holding documents and law is silent on this and I doubt if anyone can obtain and help from law.
With best wishes.
From India, Delhi
One of our friend has quoted some cases on this thread and after going through all of them thoroughly I have observed none of these cases were regarding holding of documents and more over the courts had not even granted relief to the employees. Anyway our question is different. I too feel very much against this practice and many more other similar practices.but here the question is legality of Holding documents and law is silent on this and I doubt if anyone can obtain and help from law.
With best wishes.
From India, Delhi
Dear NavneetSarin,
Article 19 (1)(g) of labour act provides a citizen right as follows:
"All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business."
Now this is a fundamental right.
This right can be restricted by Clause (6) of the article, by making a law in the interest of the GENERAL PUBLIC.
"nothing in Sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause............"
If the impugned bye-law is a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g) then it is not invalid. But no by-law has been yet made either by the Parliament or any state assemblies empowering the employers to impound the originals of the employees. The employer is infringing the right of employee to practice the profession or occupation of his choice with some other employer by keeping the original documents with him.
Now, original documents are the property of the employee, the burden is on the employer to show the employee the existence of any law, bye-law, rules, notifications etc. allowing him to keep the original documents of the employee while issuing the appointment letter. As there is no such law, the employer cannot succeed.
Further, keeping the original documents by the employer changes the relationship of employer and employee into one of mortgagor and mortgagee and the original documents become mortgaged property and this is not permissible in service law.
Lawfully, the employer can protect his interest by appropriately framing the clauses in the appointment letter and detailing the damages if his interest is affected (for example, if the employee leaves the job during the lock-in period, he has to pay damages of certain quantity, 3 months notice or notice pay in lieu of notice, and not taking up any new job within prescribed period in any other organizations, where similar business is going on etc.).
But for achieving this end, forcing the employee to surrender originals is not permissible by law. Employee may give the originals to employer consensually, but it is only valid until he is lawfully employed by the contract. If the contract seizes by resignation or termination, the contract can be challenged by law, & law does not yet permit holding the employee property against it.
If an employee chooses to go to labour commissioner with complaint ‘during’ or ‘after’ employment, the employer will have to provide justification to frame such clause in the contract.
Furthermore, If any company challenges this dispute by finding such a by-law proving the power of ‘employment contract’ over ‘Article 19 (1)(g)’; Appeal can be made against the validity of the said sections of by-law itself, claiming that it is if found restricting the fundamental rights. If the applicant contends that the act does not lay down clear guidelines for the exercise of power by the company and so the decision of the company is bound to be discriminatory and arbitrary, against fundamental rights dotted down by Article 19 (1)(g), the by-law can be is declared ultra-vires by the court.
Best Regards,
Amod.
Article 19 (1)(g) of labour act provides a citizen right as follows:
"All citizens shall have the right to practice any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business."
Now this is a fundamental right.
This right can be restricted by Clause (6) of the article, by making a law in the interest of the GENERAL PUBLIC.
"nothing in Sub-clause (g) of the said clause shall affect the operation of any existing law in so far as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing, in the interests of the general public, reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause............"
If the impugned bye-law is a reasonable restriction on the exercise of the right conferred by Article 19(1)(g) then it is not invalid. But no by-law has been yet made either by the Parliament or any state assemblies empowering the employers to impound the originals of the employees. The employer is infringing the right of employee to practice the profession or occupation of his choice with some other employer by keeping the original documents with him.
Now, original documents are the property of the employee, the burden is on the employer to show the employee the existence of any law, bye-law, rules, notifications etc. allowing him to keep the original documents of the employee while issuing the appointment letter. As there is no such law, the employer cannot succeed.
Further, keeping the original documents by the employer changes the relationship of employer and employee into one of mortgagor and mortgagee and the original documents become mortgaged property and this is not permissible in service law.
Lawfully, the employer can protect his interest by appropriately framing the clauses in the appointment letter and detailing the damages if his interest is affected (for example, if the employee leaves the job during the lock-in period, he has to pay damages of certain quantity, 3 months notice or notice pay in lieu of notice, and not taking up any new job within prescribed period in any other organizations, where similar business is going on etc.).
But for achieving this end, forcing the employee to surrender originals is not permissible by law. Employee may give the originals to employer consensually, but it is only valid until he is lawfully employed by the contract. If the contract seizes by resignation or termination, the contract can be challenged by law, & law does not yet permit holding the employee property against it.
If an employee chooses to go to labour commissioner with complaint ‘during’ or ‘after’ employment, the employer will have to provide justification to frame such clause in the contract.
Furthermore, If any company challenges this dispute by finding such a by-law proving the power of ‘employment contract’ over ‘Article 19 (1)(g)’; Appeal can be made against the validity of the said sections of by-law itself, claiming that it is if found restricting the fundamental rights. If the applicant contends that the act does not lay down clear guidelines for the exercise of power by the company and so the decision of the company is bound to be discriminatory and arbitrary, against fundamental rights dotted down by Article 19 (1)(g), the by-law can be is declared ultra-vires by the court.
Best Regards,
Amod.
Dear Amod Ji, Generally I avoid replying directly but as you have spent lots of time in writing me I feel I must clarify few points but please do not take my message negatively as I just wish to explain the factual position on practice of Holding qualification. Here I would also like to mention that I am neither in favor of Holding Certificates nor wish to support those companies who are following such practices. But sir when it comes to legal status I must tell you the reality. Which I believe is following:
1. Please understand Companies holding the Certificates are not violating this section strictly as per this law. as they keep the documents in custody as per the terms of Offer Letter & Contract of Employment duly signed and accepted by the Employee himself.
2. These Companies (genuine one) are not impounding the certificates of employee and they always return them within 3 days of either of completing the Bond period or settlement of Dues if employee has resigned. You can't take them to court under this section as if company has refused to return the documents as per the terms of employment no court will come in support the errant employee.
3. Employer does not require to do this as these terms along with Bond period, Notice period, Exit policy and all the other important terms of employments are clearly mentioned in the Offer Letter and any one who disagree with these terms can decline the Job, same way employer will also not issue Joining letter to those employees who have any reservations about the terms of Offer Letter or Companies HR policies.
4. I agree with you that once the contract of employment ceases to exist or completed Employer does not have any right to hold them but one important legal point is contract cannot be treated as finished just on the submission of resignation of employee. Here acceptance of the resignation is important and acceptance will only come once the terms of exit are fulfilled as per the Job Contract..
5.. Yes being an Citizen of India every one has the right to Go to the court and fight for Justice but Mr Amod you will agree that court will also instruct the employee to act as per the terms of his contract with the Company and settle the accounts.
Dear Sir, If India has to grow and become a real International Economy there is a need of discipline at all levels. Moreover our socialist Government is bringing a new Labour Law and there will be drastic changes in the Employee rights. We are heading towards a regime of Hire & Fire. Although there will be some safe guards to protect the interests of Employees but still dear terms of employments will become more harsh and moreover an Employee can't fight the big Company.
So I am of the view that although this practice may be immoral/unethical/harsh or what ever name we may give it but I have not come across any law which can effectively protect any employee specially an employee who does not care about the agreement/contract he signed without reading or understanding the terms of offer.and who himself is breaching the terms of Contract of Employment.
Anyway thanks for reading all this. may be all the HR forums/Chapters should submit a memorandum to the parliament to amend the Laws to protect employees from this problem.
With best wishes.
From India, Delhi
1. Please understand Companies holding the Certificates are not violating this section strictly as per this law. as they keep the documents in custody as per the terms of Offer Letter & Contract of Employment duly signed and accepted by the Employee himself.
2. These Companies (genuine one) are not impounding the certificates of employee and they always return them within 3 days of either of completing the Bond period or settlement of Dues if employee has resigned. You can't take them to court under this section as if company has refused to return the documents as per the terms of employment no court will come in support the errant employee.
3. Employer does not require to do this as these terms along with Bond period, Notice period, Exit policy and all the other important terms of employments are clearly mentioned in the Offer Letter and any one who disagree with these terms can decline the Job, same way employer will also not issue Joining letter to those employees who have any reservations about the terms of Offer Letter or Companies HR policies.
4. I agree with you that once the contract of employment ceases to exist or completed Employer does not have any right to hold them but one important legal point is contract cannot be treated as finished just on the submission of resignation of employee. Here acceptance of the resignation is important and acceptance will only come once the terms of exit are fulfilled as per the Job Contract..
5.. Yes being an Citizen of India every one has the right to Go to the court and fight for Justice but Mr Amod you will agree that court will also instruct the employee to act as per the terms of his contract with the Company and settle the accounts.
Dear Sir, If India has to grow and become a real International Economy there is a need of discipline at all levels. Moreover our socialist Government is bringing a new Labour Law and there will be drastic changes in the Employee rights. We are heading towards a regime of Hire & Fire. Although there will be some safe guards to protect the interests of Employees but still dear terms of employments will become more harsh and moreover an Employee can't fight the big Company.
So I am of the view that although this practice may be immoral/unethical/harsh or what ever name we may give it but I have not come across any law which can effectively protect any employee specially an employee who does not care about the agreement/contract he signed without reading or understanding the terms of offer.and who himself is breaching the terms of Contract of Employment.
Anyway thanks for reading all this. may be all the HR forums/Chapters should submit a memorandum to the parliament to amend the Laws to protect employees from this problem.
With best wishes.
From India, 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.
Registration for EPF-Procedures & documents.docx
Wanna jump-breath taking.zip
Why don’t the documents get downloaded.ppt