email@example.comOne of the female employee is absent since 29.04.2015. It is a hear say that she is arrested by police and send to jail for dowry death of her daughter-in-law. As HR what action to be taken.
From India, Delhi
PROFESSIONALS AND BUSINESSES PARTICIPATING IN DISCUSSION
Partner - Risk Management
International Corporate Trainer / Hr (od)
Administrative Officer In A School
Insolvency N Gst Professional
Recruitment/talent Acquisition, Career Counselling
Consultant In Legal Matters
Retired From Air India
nathraoThe company will have to verify this information by checking up with family members as shown in employee records.
If actually arrested and convicted,the company will have to strike off the name of employee from company after following due process of verifying all company documents/property and latest state of work.
Do your standing orders speak about actions to be taken on conviction by court of law?
What is the period of conviction?
Will the company want to continue with employee after release from imprisonment?
From India, Pune
saswatabanerjeeTo the best of my knowledge, HR does not have any direct relation with private matters of the employee. You are not required to defend or provide any help to the concerned employee from the company.
On the other hand, if you do not wish to keep the employee because of the criminal investigation against her, you should send her a notice asking her to join back, especially if she has been absent without approval.
Depending on the response you get, you should proceed. Follow the procedure inBathe standing orders. Generally if an employee does not respond or rejoin you can terminate her
From India, Mumbai
Certainly HR has no direct relation with private matters,but without knowing where the employee has disappeared,without knowing where the company property if any is held with the concerned employee,HR cannot finalise the matter of termination etc.
HR will have to find out the details of the conviction etc to obtain decision of company management, whether to dismiss the employee or keep her under suspension till she gets bail etc.
From India, Pune
firstname.lastname@example.orgA news about the same case in my co. that a male cadidate is also indulge in dowry case. He has asked to resigned from company. When he insisted, mgmt clearly told him, we will give u an opportune when u submit NOC from police administration. Presently, he is out from co.
From India, Bhadohi
I think you have mis-read/misunderstood what Budhpal mentioned: '.......she is arrested by police and send to jail........'.
In all probability this means that the employee has been sent to Judicial custody after the FIR has been lodged--so the aspect of 'conviction' doesn't even figure at this point of time. That would come much later--after the Charges are framed by the Police in the Court, the Court hearings/arguments, etc, which would be at least a few years from now.
As HR, the minimum that can & should be done would be to ascertain the facts of the case. A normal enquiry @ the concerned Police Station would give the full facts of the case.
However, given that many [NOT most] of the Dowry-related cases have a very low Conviction rate--as even the Supreme Court has remarked recently--suggest tread carefully while contemplating any action like Termination. What IF the employee is later found to be Not-guilty & then files a case against the Company?
In PSUs, the First step is usually the put the concerned employee under suspension [AFTER getting the relevant paperwork from the PS/Court] & then revoke the suspension once he/she is exonerated by the Court [but the employee would loose the seniority, promotions for the period of absence--to the extent I know]....in case the employee is convicted, then termination follows automatically.
However, any Company action does NOT include HOLDING any payments like Salary, allowances,PF, Gratuity, etc that the employee is due to get--ALL payments will have to be made as per HR policies as the indictment is purely personal in nature & not official.
From India, Hyderabad
nathrao"" think you have mis-read/misunderstood what Budhpal mentioned: '.......she is arrested by police and send to jail........'.
In all probability this means that the employee has been sent to Judicial custody after the FIR has been lodged--so the aspect of 'conviction' doesn't even figure at this point of time.""
This shows importance of writing properly and clearly so that different interpretations are not made by posters who will not know facts of the case.
In case employe is only arrested by police and not yet convicted,PSUs will have to suspend her if she is on custody for more than 48 hours.
On being released the lady can rejoin unless offences alleged in FIR are very serious and then management can keep her under suspension.
Conviction by court will off course mean dismissal from service .that is all in the futuredepdning on how the case goes on.
From India, Pune
tajsateeshI am ABSOLUTELY with you on this Nathrao--'This shows importance of writing properly and clearly so that different interpretations are not made by posters who will not know facts of the case'.
Unfortunately, that's always been one major problem with quite a few thread initiators since years now--giving half-facts/inputs and sometimes even misleading inputs.
From India, Hyderabad
email@example.comThe queriest seems to belong to Delhi thus governed by Delhi Shops and Establishment Act Rules. In the rule 13, there is no no misconduct pertaining to commission of crime outside the premises of the establishment. Thus the following decision as stated in Glaxo case is applicable:
Ranjan Lakule Vs. Council of Architecture India Habitant Centre and ors. - Court Judgment, 2009(2)BomCR479
"22. The issue can also be considered from another aspect. The misconduct must be in the course of his professional work as an Architect and the alleged misconduct must render him unfit to practice as an Architect. The misconduct therefore, must be related to the profession of Architecture. At the relevant time when the petitioner applied for the post of Principal, he was working as professor in the Sir J.J. College of Architecture. The application for the post of Principal was not in connection with his work in the profession of architect. The academic post which he held had no connection with the profession of an architect i.e. because as Section 30(1) it self notes, that if the misconduct is proved, that must render him unfit to practice as an Architect. When a penal provision is construed, that must be considered strictly. This is the normal course of construction of penal provisions. The provision therefore, regarding misconduct in the Regulations must be strictly construed. See: (Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer Labour Court Meerut and Ors. : (1984)ILLJ16SC . Once so construed in the absence of the alleged act, having no connection with the practice of profession of an Architect, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner must be quashed."
Further the payment of subsistence allowance is to be governed by the rules of the company and if there is no such rule then the employee is entitled to his full remuneration for the period of his interim suspension:
A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in R.P. Kapur v. Union of India, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 787 laid the law that:
"The general principle therefore is that an employer can suspend an employee pending an inquiry into his conduct and the only question that can arise on such suspension will relate to the payment during the period of such suspension. If there is no express term in the contract relating to suspension and payment during such suspension or if there is no statutory provision in any law or rule, the employee is entitled to his full remuneration for the period of his interim suspension; on the other hand if there is a term in this respect in the contract or there is a provision in this statute or the rules framed thereunder providing for the scale of payment during suspension, the payment would be in accordance therewith.”
Thus the close scrutiny of rules and regulations, standing orders whichever is applicable has to be carried out by the HR.
From India, New Delhi
SAIBHAKTAThe originator of the thread Mr Budhpal has written that "....it is hear say that the employee has been arrested by the police and is in lock up[....." which means he is not sure about it.The HR then may verify from Police and if found true ,has to place the concerned employee under suspension.If subsequently bail is granted then suspension can be revoked but company's action should be based on final outcome of the case.What if she is acquitted ? Why should she be made to suffer ? If on the other hand she is convicted then the management has tp terminate her.Regarding morality ... are not many of our MPs/MLAs facing court cases for serious crimes ?
From India, New Delhi