The rule of HR on weekly off is correct.
The name itself is weekly off which means a off after week days working.
And mostly companies follow the rule of day preceding the leave and after day as leave.
In other words if an employee takes leave on Saturday and Monday Sunday also goes as a leave.
The establishment is following 5-day week from Monday to Friday with the following Saturday and Sunday being holidays common to all the employees in the establishment. Therefore, no employee in the establishment can work for a minimum of 48 hours or 6 days in a week as contended by the HR. Besides, I think that the HR might have been confused with "weekly-off" generally followed in a 7-day working establishment on rotation basis with the "weekly holiday" in a 5 or 6-day working establishment. Weekly-off presupposes that the employee should have worked for the preceding 6 days including authorised leave, if any to avail of the 7th day as the off. In an establishment adopting a 5-day week the rider clause in sec.16(1) of the TNSE Act,1947 can not be applied either generally or selectively. Even if it is contended that the employee should have worked for a minimum of 5 days or 40 hrs in the week to avail of the weekly holidays, it would be applicable only in respect of unauthorised absence and not in the case of duly sanctioned leave for the proviso includes the authorised leave in the minimum days worked. I also think that taking cue from the moratorium on deduction of wages imposed by sec.16(4) of the Act, the HR adjusted the two days as leave.
I, therefore, concur with the view of Mr.KK!HR.
The leave period of 2 days appearing as weekly off day should not be considered as leave, since it is not coming in between. This is erroneous decission on part of your HR. You check-up with leave rule of the establishment & description under the standing order, if any.