KK!HR
Management Consultancy

Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
There came an employee rushing in to the cabin after a long absence to work. His face was pale and asking about his whereabouts and reason for his absence, he then replied that his wife is suffering form both her kidneys failed and this was found in the recent medical scan. He then asked help form the organisation as he was enrolled in esic. We tried our best but esic couldn't since his contribution periods were not enough for this level of treatment. He then went on leave and we said that we'll help him with our best efforts. So we processed one and half months of his salary irrespective of his absence. Now the ethical part we can't hold him long time we had to take him of the role. Now in the neck of the moment for F&F process we're now in dilama whether to process him as absconded but we have processed salary which we have no data or we can forge data and process him a resigned. What else can be done?
Your sympathetic approach is laudable and so is your effort to find a via media to help the employee. If you go for F&F settlement the employee will surely have money to meet the immediate needs but then these are his life earnings. Once it is exhausted he will be on the road. But to treat him as being present will be setting a bad precedent and is likely to be misquoted in not so genuine matters. As the situation is genuine, one alternative is to allow him advance credit of leave covering his absence, so that he gets money which he direly needs and on the other hand the organisational interests are not compromised. The statement of the case that 'We tried our best but esic couldn't since his contribution periods were not enough for this level of treatment.' is factually incorrect as there are only two situations envisaged in the ESI Act, that is, the contribution has been paid or not paid as per the salary earned during the relevant contribution period but the treatment is not linked to the amount of contribution made.
Dear KK!HR,
Thanks for your comment and alternative ideas. It'll be very useful in coming situations. Putting forth the clarification for Esic, As per esic norms they require minimum of 2year contribution which is of 4 consecutive contribution period. The need is the contribution period not the amount being paid. In this case the employee only had 1 year of contribution which is 2 consecutive periods. So that didnt qualify for higher medical attention.

This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.






About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™