Labour Law & Hr Consultant
Legal Analyst, Hrm
Director - Hr
16th January 2016 From India, Salem
Thank you for your reply.
Regarding the query, no charge is pending against him when he is a Workman. He is charged for misconduct after his promotion as a result of later finding for things he has done when he was an Workman.
As per our company policy, an workman does not have any supervisory power and he is not covered under the Conduct Discipline and Appeal (CDA) rules. He is covered under the Standing Orders.
But here the employee after becoming an Officer is charged under CDA rules for misconduct done during the period he was a workman.
Thanks & regards,
18th January 2016
19th January 2016 From India, Pune
Thank you for your reply.
"The Officer is charged for technically recommending a party and also accepting the change in quoted price during tendering process done when he was an Workman."
Being an Workman, he does not have the competence and technical knowhow or the authority for making technical recommendation.
The Workman does not have any authority to decide upon any matter including financial matters but only facilitates the functioning of the office as per the directors of the Superior. The entire tendering process was conducted under the direct supervisions and directions of the higher authorities
As a Workman he is governed under the Certified Standing Order and the misconduct charges leveled against him does not fall under any of the provisions of the said Standing Order.
Standing Order and CDA Rules are different. As per Standing Order, a Workman is a person employed directly by the company in its factory or any of its Establishments to do any manual, technical, operational, clerical or other work for hire or reward but excludes any one performing supervisory duties.
19th January 2016
It seems the Company waited till the Workman got promoted to Officer level and than it implicated charges on him as per CDA rules.
Can the employee appeal against the disciplinary action as he did not had any supervisory power during the time of tendering and he had done on the advise / instruction of his seniors
19th January 2016
In my view, he needs to be left alone.
20th January 2016 From India, Hyderabad
A workman does not have any such authority.
It looks like he is being made a scapegoat.
Case has no legal strength in its present form.
22nd January 2016 From India, Pune
Whatever may be the offence committed in whatever position during service of an employee is punishable as per the conduct and discipline rules applicable, as per the position held by him, at the time of serving the charge sheet.
23rd January 2016 From India, Delhi
What, if an sr.officer is niether terminated on account of self abondend of her service(just company settled her dues in cluding Gratuity as per CDA rules,not issued termination letter) nor company conducted enquiry as per public sector organization's cda rules...?
Any provision to remove her from attendance/role/company as per Indian law OR Company must have obtained approvals from Board/vigilence/ministry to exercise un ethically.
Very high legal risk for company..?
Any such reference cases in India pls give your views & consequences to company and employee.
Tnx for your time.
25th January 2016 From India, Bangalore
I fully endorse the view of Mr.Nathrao. Having said so, I also have to add that it is purely managerial politics in that the very promotion of the individual might be a ploy to make him a scapegoat in order to save someone else actually responsible and accountable as well for the alleged lapse. Any act of omission or commission that could be brought within the four corners of the term " misconduct " so defined in the rules, regulations etc applicable is the precursor to the disciplinary proceeding. When you are so sure that it was not at all an enumerated misconduct in the Standing Orders by virtue of his employment position at the time of the occurrence, why the management is bent upon fixing him after his promotion? From an ethical perspective, it is certainly not correct. However, in the legalistic approach, if the impact of the alleged lapse has several and long-lasting ramifications which compel disciplinary action on all involved, it is immaterial whether it is an enumerated misconduct or not for the reason that it could be an act of negligence on the incumbent's lower position and as such he can not resist it successfully. But what is important is that he alone shall not be punished just for hushing up the matter. In such an exercise satisfying both legal and moral norms, I would subscribe to the suggestion of Mr.Dhingra.
25th January 2016 From India, Salem