I was working as Process Associate in MNC BPO. Job was permanent because retirement age mentioned in Appointment letter. Management transferred me without any notice or letter which is violation of transfer clause of Appointment letter. I opposed and management terminated me. They sent termination letter and relieving letter in email which I didn't accept till date. It was happened within 240 days.
1. Is 240 working days days applicable in the above scenario?
From India, New Delhi
1. Is 240 working days days applicable in the above scenario?
From India, New Delhi
Dear, On the given facts, it seems that the termination is illegal but what do you mean by the applicability of 240 days. Pl mention clearly then we can suggest better options. Regards,
From India, Delhi
29From India, Delhi
Dear Colleague,
Your termination, prima facie is illegal and unjustified.
Raise a dispute by writing to your top authority giving full facts about your verbal transfer and subsequent termination and demand reinstatement into service with back wages.
Mark copy to the Labour commissioner .Take help of knowledgeable person in drafting this letter.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Your termination, prima facie is illegal and unjustified.
Raise a dispute by writing to your top authority giving full facts about your verbal transfer and subsequent termination and demand reinstatement into service with back wages.
Mark copy to the Labour commissioner .Take help of knowledgeable person in drafting this letter.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
I made first complaint in Labour Inspector office in Labour department. Management submitted written reply stating that employee worked less than 240 days so reinstatement is not possible.
So I wanted to know that 240 days is applicable in such scenario or not. I want to escalate this matter to Assistant labour commissioner office.
From India, New Delhi
So I wanted to know that 240 days is applicable in such scenario or not. I want to escalate this matter to Assistant labour commissioner office.
From India, New Delhi
Dear Colleague,
The Management's stand on 240 days has no legal validity as far as termination is concerned. You keep escalating this till you see the end of it.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
The Management's stand on 240 days has no legal validity as far as termination is concerned. You keep escalating this till you see the end of it.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Dear Sakshi,
"240 days service" by an employee in an industrial establishment is one of the parameters to conclude whether he has rendered "continuous service" under the same employer in a given period of one year as per section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.. It is counted backwards from the date of termination of the services of the employee for a period of consecutive 12 months. Completion of this continuous service is one of the preconditions for retrenchment.That is as per section 25F of the ID Act,1947 no employee who has completed one year of continuous service in the same establishment should be retrenched without giving one month's prior notice containing the reasons reasons for retrenchment or wages in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation @ 15 days average wages for every year of continuous service rendered by him. That's why the Management upholds its unilateral action by disowning its statutory obligation to comply with the provisions of sec.25F.
Coming to the merits of the case, under the given circumstances, the claim would not be for retrenchment compensation but for reinstatement only. That apart, such an argument advanced by the Management seems to me fallacious for it confirms the fact that the termination of employment is certainly a unilateral action of foreclosing the implied contract of employment at the behest of the employer without any valid reason. Gone are the days of the Victorian Era of hire and fire at the whims and fancies of the employer. However, no employment law has simply taken away the right of the employer to fire his employee but put some reasonable restrictions only. For instance and to be more specific with reference to the argument of the Management, retrenchment, if fully complied with the precedent conditions, is a legal mode of termination of employment beyond any questions. In other words, employee's continuous service of not less than one year in the establishment mentioned in sec.25F as well as 240 days during the preceding 12 months mentioned in sec 25(2)(a) for calculation purpose under the ID Act,1947 respectively would only indicate the statutory concession granted to an employer for retrenching his employee due to some reason to be mentioned coupled with the payment of retrenchment compensation thus provided for u/s 25F. If the employer takes refuge under the non-completion of the minimum qualifying service by the employee and thus skips retrenchment but still terminates the employee, he automatically falls into the trap of dismissal. In case of dismissal, the employer has the onus to prove that it is based on proven misconduct established by means of a formal disciplinary proceeding in tune with the Principles of Natural Justice.
Therefore, I would also recommend raising a dispute u/s 2A(1) of the ID Act,1947 before the ALC for the area.
From India, Salem
"240 days service" by an employee in an industrial establishment is one of the parameters to conclude whether he has rendered "continuous service" under the same employer in a given period of one year as per section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947.. It is counted backwards from the date of termination of the services of the employee for a period of consecutive 12 months. Completion of this continuous service is one of the preconditions for retrenchment.That is as per section 25F of the ID Act,1947 no employee who has completed one year of continuous service in the same establishment should be retrenched without giving one month's prior notice containing the reasons reasons for retrenchment or wages in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation @ 15 days average wages for every year of continuous service rendered by him. That's why the Management upholds its unilateral action by disowning its statutory obligation to comply with the provisions of sec.25F.
Coming to the merits of the case, under the given circumstances, the claim would not be for retrenchment compensation but for reinstatement only. That apart, such an argument advanced by the Management seems to me fallacious for it confirms the fact that the termination of employment is certainly a unilateral action of foreclosing the implied contract of employment at the behest of the employer without any valid reason. Gone are the days of the Victorian Era of hire and fire at the whims and fancies of the employer. However, no employment law has simply taken away the right of the employer to fire his employee but put some reasonable restrictions only. For instance and to be more specific with reference to the argument of the Management, retrenchment, if fully complied with the precedent conditions, is a legal mode of termination of employment beyond any questions. In other words, employee's continuous service of not less than one year in the establishment mentioned in sec.25F as well as 240 days during the preceding 12 months mentioned in sec 25(2)(a) for calculation purpose under the ID Act,1947 respectively would only indicate the statutory concession granted to an employer for retrenching his employee due to some reason to be mentioned coupled with the payment of retrenchment compensation thus provided for u/s 25F. If the employer takes refuge under the non-completion of the minimum qualifying service by the employee and thus skips retrenchment but still terminates the employee, he automatically falls into the trap of dismissal. In case of dismissal, the employer has the onus to prove that it is based on proven misconduct established by means of a formal disciplinary proceeding in tune with the Principles of Natural Justice.
Therefore, I would also recommend raising a dispute u/s 2A(1) of the ID Act,1947 before the ALC for the area.
From India, Salem
Hi Sakshi,
In your appointment if transfer to other branches clause is already mentioned then your employer will present that there is no denial of employment in your case. Since you have refused the transfer Order of Management proceeded with termination and relieving letter. Still I think in the legal process is not followed properly in your termination. Please check your appointment order on the separation clause if any.
From India, Madras
In your appointment if transfer to other branches clause is already mentioned then your employer will present that there is no denial of employment in your case. Since you have refused the transfer Order of Management proceeded with termination and relieving letter. Still I think in the legal process is not followed properly in your termination. Please check your appointment order on the separation clause if any.
From India, Madras
I agree with Mr Umakanthan.M.
However management can terminate your services with notice pay as per clause of termination or so if mentioned in your appointment letter subject to less than 240 days working .
Complaint or demand notice can be raised but it seems your case is poor
From India, New Delhi
However management can terminate your services with notice pay as per clause of termination or so if mentioned in your appointment letter subject to less than 240 days working .
Complaint or demand notice can be raised but it seems your case is poor
From India, New 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.
Labr laws for Vendor compliance Management.pdf
Stress management.ppt