I agree with the interpretation that as a general rule for presuming abandonment, the presumption starts from the first day of absence (read first working day). Since the rule is very specific that the first three days would be treated as LOP, the question remains as to what treatment could be given to the three days of LOP where the absence exceeds the said three days. Here we also have to see the intention of absconding from the work, it arises only after three days of absence. So this is a qualifying pre-condition and hence such a condition could not be treated as substantive one.
Sir, as you are aware the courts frown upon the presumption of abandonment and has repeatedly held that mere absence alone would not justify the presumption of abandonment and the Principles of Natural Justice have to be read into it. The rule of three days of absence rendering presumption of abandonment, you would agree, is harsh and unequitable. Having faced a lot of difficulties in warding off the challenge against presumption of abandonment with 30 days of absence, I would advice a cautious approach.
From India, Mumbai
1530Sir, as you are aware the courts frown upon the presumption of abandonment and has repeatedly held that mere absence alone would not justify the presumption of abandonment and the Principles of Natural Justice have to be read into it. The rule of three days of absence rendering presumption of abandonment, you would agree, is harsh and unequitable. Having faced a lot of difficulties in warding off the challenge against presumption of abandonment with 30 days of absence, I would advice a cautious approach.
From India, Mumbai
Your point is well taken, Mr.KK!HR. Yet, here, the discussion is not about the justifiability of the rule but its application only. In general usage, the term "abscond " would mean leaving suddenly without any intimation and remaining untraceable. In the realm of employment, it is considered as the most unprofessional and unethical way adopted by any employee to separate from the organization in breach of the contract of employment. Absence from duty up to a consecutive period of 3 days without intimation can be initially treated as mere unauthorised absence which could be authorised after submission of leave application for any eligible leave including Leave on Loss of Pay later on rejoining duty on the 4th day and thus the break in the continuity of service of the employee is averted. But, continued absence without any intimation beyond 3 days, as per the rule, enables the employer to arrive at a negative presumption of abscondment and take appropriate action. Therefore, logically, the abscondence takes effect from the first day of such unauthorised absence only. That's why and how the absconding cases baffle the HR fraternity when they culminate in disciplinary action.
From India, Salem
From India, Salem
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Legal Clarification on Absconding Employee, Contract Labour Engagement & Leave Entitlement Ammen.pdf
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc