Industrial Relations And Labour Laws
+1 Other

Thread Started by #moumachee

Dear Members,
I am employed with a software company(services).I have a query regarding notice period.
As per the employment terms policy of my employer
\" On confirmation of your services in the
Company, your services shall be terminable by giving three months notice or three
months basic pay in lieu thereof on either side at the sole discretion of the management\"
My query is:
If one resigns and is willing to serve the complete notice period but the company wants to relieve the employee early, can the company ask the employee to pay the basic instead? I understand that under such circumstances, it\'s the company which should pay the employee basic for those particular months. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.
The above question arises from the fact that in the past, employees have been forced to pay basic to the company, even though they were willing to serve the notice period of 3 months. Is this legally right?
Kindly let me know your views.
9th September 2012 From India, Bangalore
In such scenarios the employer has to pay notice pay to the employee. In such cases, it should be full salary and not the notice pay (basic salary) that should be paid because the employee is willing to work for the notice period in full. Notice pay is applicable when an employee wants an early relieving or when an employer wants to terminate the service with immediate effect. Since an employee has every right to withdraw his resignation before the date becomes effective, an employee should not be asked to go before date. Therefore, it is advisable to pay full salary for three months inorder to relieve immediately.
9th September 2012 From India, Kannur
There is some catch in the contract you have signed with the company. The relevant clause says that service is terminable with three months notice or three months pay in lieu of notice by either party but at the sole discretion of the company.The company , it seems, is invoking this clause to relieve the employee earller than the notice period and contends that since the employee has not served the notice period, he has to pay the notice pay and at the same time it denies the liability to pay 3 months pay under " the sole discretion" clause if you demand by it by contending that it amounts to termination since he relieved you earlier though you wanted to servce the notice period. Though the calsue is discriminatory but nevertheless mischievous and not palin.
HR & Labour Law Advsior
10th September 2012 From India, Mumbai
Reply (Add What You Know) Start New Discussion

Cite.Co - is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors. Register Here and help by adding your inputs to this topic/query page.
Prime Sponsor: TALENTEDGE - Certification Courses for career growth from top institutes like IIM / XLRI direct to device (online digital learning)

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2019 Cite.Co™