"1. Legally, no action can be taken as there are a whole lot of loopholes.
4. When such information is deliberately suppressed, the company should take some action for this breach.
5. Will be thankful if you can suggest some more ways to curb this problem of "deliberate suppression of facts."
Legally? Yes, every employer is armed with their SOP or Conduct and Discipline Rules to deal with indiscipline among their employees. If you amend your SOP suitably, there is every possibility to tackle the noncompliance appropriately. Such things can form part of your performance appraisal criterion as well for granting an increment."
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
11584. When such information is deliberately suppressed, the company should take some action for this breach.
5. Will be thankful if you can suggest some more ways to curb this problem of "deliberate suppression of facts."
Legally? Yes, every employer is armed with their SOP or Conduct and Discipline Rules to deal with indiscipline among their employees. If you amend your SOP suitably, there is every possibility to tackle the noncompliance appropriately. Such things can form part of your performance appraisal criterion as well for granting an increment."
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Smitha,
The marital status of an employee does not affect the image of the company; it is a personal issue for the employee, and their legal problems will not damage the company's reputation. As long as the employee is performing well, he/she may be retained. You can assess the performance through the appraisal method, which may be conducted monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and annually. Only candidates who perform well should be retained.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The marital status of an employee does not affect the image of the company; it is a personal issue for the employee, and their legal problems will not damage the company's reputation. As long as the employee is performing well, he/she may be retained. You can assess the performance through the appraisal method, which may be conducted monthly, quarterly, half-yearly, and annually. Only candidates who perform well should be retained.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, LOGINMIRACLELOGISTICS.
Yes, this is very doable, and these simple measures can actually control significant complications that can be very time-consuming to solve. I appreciate your suggestion.
Furthermore, if a company is going to place their confidential work-related information in the hands of their employees, then it is not asking for too much that the employees be honest about certain details. (The ones where the company can also get dragged in for no fault of theirs—like bigamy, cheating, fraud, PF matters.)
For Dinesh: You gave an example of the current PM's non-disclosure and then disclosure of his marriage.
1. He withheld the information but did not give a false answer.
2. In case he had continued to follow this in other areas as well (non-disclosure...then disclose), I am sure all these will add up and would not be taken very lightly—even if we are a democracy. Discrepancies are discrepancies—whatever the area may be.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, this is very doable, and these simple measures can actually control significant complications that can be very time-consuming to solve. I appreciate your suggestion.
Furthermore, if a company is going to place their confidential work-related information in the hands of their employees, then it is not asking for too much that the employees be honest about certain details. (The ones where the company can also get dragged in for no fault of theirs—like bigamy, cheating, fraud, PF matters.)
For Dinesh: You gave an example of the current PM's non-disclosure and then disclosure of his marriage.
1. He withheld the information but did not give a false answer.
2. In case he had continued to follow this in other areas as well (non-disclosure...then disclose), I am sure all these will add up and would not be taken very lightly—even if we are a democracy. Discrepancies are discrepancies—whatever the area may be.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Smita,
We have faced many cases beset with bigamy, deuterogamy, digamy (in a couple of cases employees had more than one wife (one lived with 4 wives all in one house together, and on his demise, all fighting in court). We had to attend different courts to show our records and answer a barrage of questions from the claimants, advocates, and judges. We were questioned by the civil judges as to why we didn't keep our records updated to show the (latest!) family particulars. On many occasions, we were pulled up by the judges for not keeping the perfect record of legal spouses and their children supported with documents. These are disputed litigations not only for F & F settlement of the deceased but also for maintenance from living husbands who deserted them, dependent parents, unmarried/widowed sisters. In many cases, injunctions were issued. Our Labor Officers had to sit in unofficial panchayats to reach an amicable mutual agreement among them to cut short the legal process. There are a couple of cases still unsettled, where husbands who were posted/sent/transferred to sites are still not traceable. The legal wives are running pillar to post to feed their children with no documents left to support their claims, and official records drew a blank as they were obtained before marriage but were not kept updated due to staff lapses. India is full of such cases. There is no bar as educated or uneducated; it happens in many cases of innocent/ignorant, poor young girls from rural/urban backgrounds. I initially never believed the Pancha Pandavas of Mahabharat until these cases proved it. So, a vigilant administrator, especially HR, should not bother about privacy issues, etc., and should keep their records intact come what may. Let us err by doing but not by not doing, which will ultimately help us avoid embarrassments.
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
We have faced many cases beset with bigamy, deuterogamy, digamy (in a couple of cases employees had more than one wife (one lived with 4 wives all in one house together, and on his demise, all fighting in court). We had to attend different courts to show our records and answer a barrage of questions from the claimants, advocates, and judges. We were questioned by the civil judges as to why we didn't keep our records updated to show the (latest!) family particulars. On many occasions, we were pulled up by the judges for not keeping the perfect record of legal spouses and their children supported with documents. These are disputed litigations not only for F & F settlement of the deceased but also for maintenance from living husbands who deserted them, dependent parents, unmarried/widowed sisters. In many cases, injunctions were issued. Our Labor Officers had to sit in unofficial panchayats to reach an amicable mutual agreement among them to cut short the legal process. There are a couple of cases still unsettled, where husbands who were posted/sent/transferred to sites are still not traceable. The legal wives are running pillar to post to feed their children with no documents left to support their claims, and official records drew a blank as they were obtained before marriage but were not kept updated due to staff lapses. India is full of such cases. There is no bar as educated or uneducated; it happens in many cases of innocent/ignorant, poor young girls from rural/urban backgrounds. I initially never believed the Pancha Pandavas of Mahabharat until these cases proved it. So, a vigilant administrator, especially HR, should not bother about privacy issues, etc., and should keep their records intact come what may. Let us err by doing but not by not doing, which will ultimately help us avoid embarrassments.
Thank you.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If I recollect, the querist raised a question of morality or a deliberate lie/non-disclosure. It did not concern the nomination, which could be an offshoot of a wrongful (not necessarily illegal) act.
The first question that arose in my mind is: how does it affect the company?
A S Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The first question that arose in my mind is: how does it affect the company?
A S Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Member,
I believe marriage is a personal matter for employees. If he or she feels that they may not disclose it to society, including the employer, there may be some reasons. Therefore, we should not directly blame the employee. HR is not against the employee, so we need to discuss and understand the reasons for this behavior.
We should be more concerned about his or her performance at the workplace rather than personal matters, but morally one may choose to disclose it.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I believe marriage is a personal matter for employees. If he or she feels that they may not disclose it to society, including the employer, there may be some reasons. Therefore, we should not directly blame the employee. HR is not against the employee, so we need to discuss and understand the reasons for this behavior.
We should be more concerned about his or her performance at the workplace rather than personal matters, but morally one may choose to disclose it.
From India, Bhubaneswar
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, there could be many hassles in exceptional cases because of the wrong information provided to the employee. However, there could be no law that can authorize the Controlling Officer or the Official Superior to adopt an officious approach and micromanage the personal affairs of the employees in their charge. This is particularly true in the case of public servants because it has been repeatedly held that they do not forfeit their Fundamental Rights by joining public service.
The Supreme Court, in the case of Capt. Paul Anthony v. Union of India, stated: "On joining Government service, a person does not mortgage or barter away his basic rights as a human being, including his fundamental rights, in favor of the Government. The Government, simply because it has the power to appoint, does not become the master of the body and soul of the employee. The Government, by providing job opportunities to its citizens, only fulfills its obligations under the Constitution, including the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The employee, upon taking up employment, only agrees to subject himself to the regulatory measures concerning his service. His association with the Government or any other employer, like Instrumentalities of the Government or Statutory or Autonomous Corporations, is regulated by the terms of the contract of service or Service Rules made by the Central or the State Government under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or other Statutory Rules, including Certified Standing Orders.
The fundamental rights, including the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution or basic human rights, are not surrendered by the employee."
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The Supreme Court, in the case of Capt. Paul Anthony v. Union of India, stated: "On joining Government service, a person does not mortgage or barter away his basic rights as a human being, including his fundamental rights, in favor of the Government. The Government, simply because it has the power to appoint, does not become the master of the body and soul of the employee. The Government, by providing job opportunities to its citizens, only fulfills its obligations under the Constitution, including the Directive Principles of State Policy.
The employee, upon taking up employment, only agrees to subject himself to the regulatory measures concerning his service. His association with the Government or any other employer, like Instrumentalities of the Government or Statutory or Autonomous Corporations, is regulated by the terms of the contract of service or Service Rules made by the Central or the State Government under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution or other Statutory Rules, including Certified Standing Orders.
The fundamental rights, including the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution or basic human rights, are not surrendered by the employee."
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Members,
Abedeen: Yes, there is a very fine line here.
1. We have different areas of life that overlap, and as 'Loginmiracelogistics' told us, although the company has nothing to do with an employee's personal life, yet whenever a problem arises, the company is dragged in. At that point, 'nobody' - not the court nor the law - buys the logic that it is personal.
2. As I mentioned, different areas overlap. In this particular case, the employee got married claiming to be unmarried and single, and the only place the lady could find out his previous records was the company. Unfortunately, there is no portal in our country to provide this information.
3. The marriage didn't last, and much later, the girl came to know his previous history.
4. I understand this is personal, but the girl claims because the records were clean, she married him.
5. Where does that leave us? Do we say we don't care, or that's her problem as she believed our records and took a decision?
6. Legally, nothing can be done, but it leaves a very bitter taste.
7. If such people are left scot-free and not questioned, we are encouraging this behavior. The court and law have too many loopholes.
Pvenu1953: Technically, you are right. Unfortunately, such 'exceptional cases' are on the rise. Most people, men/women, keep quiet about it, as they are ashamed to admit they have been duped.
History has shown, like in 'sati pratha', the court rulings didn't stop it. The awareness of the public stopped it. I appreciate all the views; it has brought out a lot of different aspects, and eventually, the issue is very subjective.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Abedeen: Yes, there is a very fine line here.
1. We have different areas of life that overlap, and as 'Loginmiracelogistics' told us, although the company has nothing to do with an employee's personal life, yet whenever a problem arises, the company is dragged in. At that point, 'nobody' - not the court nor the law - buys the logic that it is personal.
2. As I mentioned, different areas overlap. In this particular case, the employee got married claiming to be unmarried and single, and the only place the lady could find out his previous records was the company. Unfortunately, there is no portal in our country to provide this information.
3. The marriage didn't last, and much later, the girl came to know his previous history.
4. I understand this is personal, but the girl claims because the records were clean, she married him.
5. Where does that leave us? Do we say we don't care, or that's her problem as she believed our records and took a decision?
6. Legally, nothing can be done, but it leaves a very bitter taste.
7. If such people are left scot-free and not questioned, we are encouraging this behavior. The court and law have too many loopholes.
Pvenu1953: Technically, you are right. Unfortunately, such 'exceptional cases' are on the rise. Most people, men/women, keep quiet about it, as they are ashamed to admit they have been duped.
History has shown, like in 'sati pratha', the court rulings didn't stop it. The awareness of the public stopped it. I appreciate all the views; it has brought out a lot of different aspects, and eventually, the issue is very subjective.
Regards,
Smita
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
Of course, a rational advocate of marriage is one's personal affair, agreed. However, informing the same to the office/employer is not personal but mandatory official compliance for various obvious reasons. It is the prerogative of the administration, and if anybody is not willing to reveal this information, he/she shall have no place in the establishment.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Of course, a rational advocate of marriage is one's personal affair, agreed. However, informing the same to the office/employer is not personal but mandatory official compliance for various obvious reasons. It is the prerogative of the administration, and if anybody is not willing to reveal this information, he/she shall have no place in the establishment.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Is there no lapse on the part of the company for having shared an employee's personal details with an outsider (that lady who believed these records) without the permission of the employee himself? What is disclosed to the company is in good confidence.
Of course, what has happened with the lady is very, very unfortunate.
A. S. Bhat
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Of course, what has happened with the lady is very, very unfortunate.
A. S. Bhat
From India, Pune
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.
Tamilnadu conferment to permanant status to workmen notification-13 .jpg
West Bengal Minimum Wages Notification 1st July 2017.pdf