Hi, I am working in a company I have joined a month back. I have resigned on my 20th day there.
Points to note:
1. There is no probation period (hence, confirmed from day 1).
2. The notice period is 3 months.
3. It has been mentioned that "it will be impermissible for you to waive the shortfall in the notice period by buying the said shortfall period in lieu thereof except with written permission."
As someone who has not worked for even a month before submitting the resignation, a 3-month notice period seems like a big punishment to pay for. Is there any way out of this? Can a company really bind an employee with these kinds of clauses? Please help me out here.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
Points to note:
1. There is no probation period (hence, confirmed from day 1).
2. The notice period is 3 months.
3. It has been mentioned that "it will be impermissible for you to waive the shortfall in the notice period by buying the said shortfall period in lieu thereof except with written permission."
As someone who has not worked for even a month before submitting the resignation, a 3-month notice period seems like a big punishment to pay for. Is there any way out of this? Can a company really bind an employee with these kinds of clauses? Please help me out here.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi,
At the time of joining and signing the contract of employment, it is mutually agreed between you and your employer that you will serve a 3-month notice in case of resignation. So obviously, the employer will insist on a 3-month notice. You haven't mentioned why you are leaving your current employer after serving just one month. Considering the short stint with the company, your employer may consider early relieving, as compelling you to serve 3 months would be of no use. Please discuss this with your HR.
In general, when an employee has worked for a considerable time frame, say 2-3 years, insisting on the proper notice period as per the terms and conditions of employment makes sense.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1153At the time of joining and signing the contract of employment, it is mutually agreed between you and your employer that you will serve a 3-month notice in case of resignation. So obviously, the employer will insist on a 3-month notice. You haven't mentioned why you are leaving your current employer after serving just one month. Considering the short stint with the company, your employer may consider early relieving, as compelling you to serve 3 months would be of no use. Please discuss this with your HR.
In general, when an employee has worked for a considerable time frame, say 2-3 years, insisting on the proper notice period as per the terms and conditions of employment makes sense.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In the case of employees covered by the Industrial Disputes Act, it will be the said Act, i.e., ID Act, which will decide whether demanding a notice period is legal or not. But in respect of other employees, the clauses of the appointment order shall be the deciding factors. As such, if you were appointed as an officer with functional responsibilities of a manager, not simply a manager by designation, then you can stay there for three months and get relieved. The fairness of the appointment order should have been questioned before you accepted the offer and joined the company. It is very common among the new-gen employees to read such clauses when they get another job. That is wrong.
Yes, if you did not have any supervisory role, then you can leave without following the notice period clause in the appointment order because as per the ID Act, an employer has to give notice or notice pay if he wants to terminate one employee. But nowhere is it mentioned that an employee/workman should serve a notice period or pay notice pay if he wants to quit.
IT companies, per se, are also governed by the ID Act. Techies are also workmen under the ID Act. But what makes it different or prevents them from following the protocol is that they have a very good system whereby other IT companies can track the background of any employee as to his approach towards his manager/employer. Therefore, think twice and decide. After all, any decision will involve an element of risk, and the decision that you took a month back has come to be wrong, and for that, you cannot blame others.
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, if you did not have any supervisory role, then you can leave without following the notice period clause in the appointment order because as per the ID Act, an employer has to give notice or notice pay if he wants to terminate one employee. But nowhere is it mentioned that an employee/workman should serve a notice period or pay notice pay if he wants to quit.
IT companies, per se, are also governed by the ID Act. Techies are also workmen under the ID Act. But what makes it different or prevents them from following the protocol is that they have a very good system whereby other IT companies can track the background of any employee as to his approach towards his manager/employer. Therefore, think twice and decide. After all, any decision will involve an element of risk, and the decision that you took a month back has come to be wrong, and for that, you cannot blame others.
From India, Kannur
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.