I was working as a Process Associate in an MNC BPO. The job was considered permanent because the retirement age was mentioned in the appointment letter. However, the management transferred me without any notice or letter, which violates the transfer clause of the appointment letter. When I voiced my opposition, the management terminated my employment. They sent the termination letter and relieving letter via email, which I have not accepted to this date. This all occurred within a span of 240 days.
Is the 240-day period applicable in the scenario described above?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Is the 240-day period applicable in the scenario described above?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
sir As per appointment letter term & condition company right ,but normally management issue transfer letter , but company terminate diction is wrong as per laws Brahmanand sharma
From India, Ahmedabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Ahmedabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
37From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 a copy to the Labour Commissioner. Take the help of a knowledgeable person in drafting this letter.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
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 a copy to the Labour Commissioner. Take the help of a knowledgeable person in drafting this letter.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I made the first complaint at the Labour Inspector's office in the Labour department. Management submitted a written reply stating that the employee worked less than 240 days, so reinstatement is not possible.
I wanted to know if the 240-day rule is applicable in this scenario or not. I intend to escalate this matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner's office.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I wanted to know if the 240-day rule is applicable in this scenario or not. I intend to escalate this matter to the Assistant Labour Commissioner's office.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Colleague,
The management's stance on 240 days has no legal validity as far as termination is concerned. You keep escalating this until you see the end of it.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The management's stance on 240 days has no legal validity as far as termination is concerned. You keep escalating this until you see the end of it.
Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sakshi,
"240 days of 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 employee's services for a consecutive 12 months. Completion of this continuous service is one of the preconditions for retrenchment. 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 for retrenchment or wages in lieu thereof, and retrenchment compensation at 15 days' average wages for every year of continuous service rendered.
The Management upholds its unilateral action by disowning its statutory obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25F.
Regarding the merits of the case, under the given circumstances, the claim would not be for retrenchment compensation but for reinstatement only. The argument advanced by the Management seems fallacious to me as it confirms that the termination of employment is a unilateral action foreclosing the implied contract of employment without a valid reason. The days of the Victorian Era of hire and fire at the whims of the employer are gone. However, employment laws have placed reasonable restrictions on the employer's right to terminate an employee. Retrenchment, if fully compliant with the precedent conditions, is a legal mode of termination beyond question. Employee's continuous service of not less than one year in the establishment as well as 240 days during the preceding 12 months for calculation purposes under the ID Act, 1947, would only indicate the statutory concession granted to an employer for retrenching an employee due to some reason, coupled with the payment of retrenchment compensation as provided for under Section 25F. If the employer avoids retrenchment due to the employee not completing the minimum qualifying service but still terminates the employee, it may lead to dismissal. In case of dismissal, the employer must prove that it is based on proven misconduct established through formal disciplinary proceedings in line with the Principles of Natural Justice.
Therefore, I would also recommend raising a dispute under Section 2A(1) of the ID Act, 1947 before the ALC for the area.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
"240 days of 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 employee's services for a consecutive 12 months. Completion of this continuous service is one of the preconditions for retrenchment. 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 for retrenchment or wages in lieu thereof, and retrenchment compensation at 15 days' average wages for every year of continuous service rendered.
The Management upholds its unilateral action by disowning its statutory obligation to comply with the provisions of Section 25F.
Regarding the merits of the case, under the given circumstances, the claim would not be for retrenchment compensation but for reinstatement only. The argument advanced by the Management seems fallacious to me as it confirms that the termination of employment is a unilateral action foreclosing the implied contract of employment without a valid reason. The days of the Victorian Era of hire and fire at the whims of the employer are gone. However, employment laws have placed reasonable restrictions on the employer's right to terminate an employee. Retrenchment, if fully compliant with the precedent conditions, is a legal mode of termination beyond question. Employee's continuous service of not less than one year in the establishment as well as 240 days during the preceding 12 months for calculation purposes under the ID Act, 1947, would only indicate the statutory concession granted to an employer for retrenching an employee due to some reason, coupled with the payment of retrenchment compensation as provided for under Section 25F. If the employer avoids retrenchment due to the employee not completing the minimum qualifying service but still terminates the employee, it may lead to dismissal. In case of dismissal, the employer must prove that it is based on proven misconduct established through formal disciplinary proceedings in line with the Principles of Natural Justice.
Therefore, I would also recommend raising a dispute under Section 2A(1) of the ID Act, 1947 before the ALC for the area.
From India, Salem
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Sakshi,
In your appointment, if a transfer to other branches clause is already mentioned, then your employer will assert that there is no denial of employment in your case. Since you have refused the transfer order, the management proceeded with the termination and issued a relieving letter. However, I believe that the proper legal process was not followed in your termination. Please review your appointment order for any separation clauses.
Thank you.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In your appointment, if a transfer to other branches clause is already mentioned, then your employer will assert that there is no denial of employment in your case. Since you have refused the transfer order, the management proceeded with the termination and issued a relieving letter. However, I believe that the proper legal process was not followed in your termination. Please review your appointment order for any separation clauses.
Thank you.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with Mr. Umakanthan. However, management can terminate your services with notice pay as per the termination clause mentioned in your appointment letter, subject to less than 240 days of working. A complaint or demand notice can be raised, but it appears that your case is weak.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
As per the appointment letter, "Services are transferable after reasonable notice, to any location." The mandatory working days, i.e., 240 days or 8 months, are not mentioned anywhere in the appointment letter. Is such a transfer illegal? What constitutes reasonable notice?
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
Labr laws for Vendor compliance Management.pdf
Stress management.ppt