Labour Law & Hr Consultant
Management Consultancy
Territory Hr, Mahindra Finance
+1 Other

As per company policy, any employee who is absent for more than 3 days without prior notice is termed as absconding employee. However, initial 3 days are marked as LOP. Should those days be entered as Absence days or LOP days? And if the employee doesn't return to work, should he be considered absconding from 1st day of absence or 4th day of absence? Need advice from HR professionals. Thanks in advance.
23rd January 2018 From India, Jaipur
1st day of absence would be reckoned as starting point in this case.
23rd January 2018 From India, Pune
so if we run the Absconding action in the system from the first day of absence, would we still stand compliant when we state one if called absconded from 4th day of uninformed absence?
23rd January 2018 From India, Jaipur
To my mind if an employee was absconding for 10 days.
It will not be treated as 3 LOP and 7 days absconding.
He will loose his pay for all 10 days, besides disciplinary actions as per company policy.
23rd January 2018 From India, Pune
The absence is to be treated from the day of absence i.e. last attendance. If the employee is absenting without information or due to some other reasons, the total period of absent to be treated as absconding and lawfully he will loose pay for entire period. As per the rule of your organisation, absenting up to 3 days is not amounting misconduct and excess of it called for action. Where the period of absent is conteneous the period to be calculated from the 1st day it self.
24th January 2018 From India, Mumbai
I think Abhishek is more interested in how to mark the non-attendence of the employee. " LOP" is the effect of unauthorised absence only. You simply mark him as " absent ". In such a situation, he will not be entitled to salary for the entire period of absence, apart from facing disciplinary action, if any instituted.
25th January 2018 From India, Salem
I have difference of opinion. The Rule says that , any employee who is absent for more than 3 days without prior notice is termed as absconding employee. So the presumption of absconding would start counting only after three days and it cannot be prior to that. I agree that generally the presumption of abandonment would start from the Ist day of absence but here the company policy specifies that initial 3 days are to be marked as LOP- Loss Of Pay. So to give a treatment other than LOP would not be as per Rules. Although LOP is very same as absence in terms of effect but if there is a clause for presumption of loss of lien, the start day has to be the 4th day and the initial three days cannot be counted. So the proper course would be to treat those days as LOP days and if the employee doesn't return to work, he should be considered absconding from the 4th day of absence. I recollect that Court has held in counting the days of absence for drawing the presumption of abandonment, the weekly holidays cannot be counted and only the working days can be reckoned.
25th January 2018 From India, Mumbai
If he joined back after days it would be ok
But if he doesnt join back counting has to start from Day 1
Think if it logically
25th January 2018 From India, Pune
But Nathrao Sir, here the Rule is specific and it is not providing for counting absence from day 1, the first three days are LOP only, that means it is not absence in itself. I have given the logic in my previous reply.
25th January 2018 From India, Mumbai
Dear Mr.KK!HR,
At times, logic can be misleading too. Please, analyse the opening statement of the thread which is extracted below:
" As per Company Policy, any employee who is absent for more than 3 days without prior notice
is termed as absconding employee."
It actually means any number of days of consecutive absence without prior notice beyond 3 days would be treated as abscondment of service by the absenting employee. It implies that up to the third such day it is unauthorised absence but consecutively beyond it the entire absence becomes absconding. In other words, the absence of the first three days just results in loss of wages only but when it goes beyond day three, the unauthorised absence from day one merges with the abscondment in effect.
30th January 2018 From India, Salem
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.
31st January 2018 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.
31st January 2018 From India, Salem
Add Reply Start A 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™