Cite.Co is a repository of information and resources created by industry seniors and experts sharing their real world insights. Join Network
That depends upon how your state’s administration functions. For this purpose, I would say, you need not engage a lawyer but you can tell your grievances by yourself.
The Covid-19 pandemic disease the Government of India implemented a nationwide lockdown in India there by reducing salaries of employees and/or terminating their employment-read more -
I refer to the discussion at #21 and #23 above.

My say on this as as under:

1. The employee did not worked from home;

2. The employee did not attended single meeting (I suppose, the meetings were called online platform);

3. The employee did not attended his duty after opening the office (I suppose, the opening of office is as per the guidelines with following due SOP by Government. I suppose,the employee has informed accordingly and offer is given to him to attend his duty under this circumstances).

In the above circumstances the employee, whether he is in managerial cadre or in non-managerial cadre, is liable for disciplinary action. The employee should be given an opportunity to be heard as per the principal of natural justice. Before terminating, disciplinary procedure is required to be completed.

Termination of the employee with out following the disciplinary procedure may leads to termination improper, unjust and illegal.

Termination of the employee during lockdown is against the directives of MHA which are mandatory.

When the termination of employee is not proper and the same is unjust and illegal, the employee can justify his stand of not responding the emails by the company and return the laptop etc.

It seems there is need of hiring good advocate by the company.


Akhil Bhartiya

I refer to the discussion at #25 by Nathrao.

There is no such order by Honorable SC quashing MHA order to mandating payment during lockdown period. This is totally misleading everyone.

However, it is a fact that all the earlier orders by MHA have been ceased from 18/05/2020.

But in the State of Maharashtra, vide its order dated 19.05.2020 it is stated that all its earlier orders shall be aligned with this order and shall remain in force up to 31.05.2020.

This means that the clause of mandating payment of wages in the State of Maharashtra stands good.

This may be a debatable issue. I have my own view in this, which is as under:

The orders by MHA (Government of India) issued by and in the capacity as Chairman NEC are in exercise of powers conferred under the section 10(2)(1) of DM Act 2005. All those orders are directives to Ministries / Departments of Govt. of India, all States, UT and its authorities. The State Governments orders, therefore should be aligned with the orders by MHA.

Since the MHA fresh order has removed the clause of mandating wages as stated above, no State Government can insist the clause removed by the MHA. The Maharashtra Govt order dated 19.05.2020 is not aligned with the order(s) by MHA, as what I feel.

Hope the readers will understand what I said here.

Dear Seniors, I am working for a private limited company based at Delhi. It been approx 1 and half year since I am working with this company, i recently got increment. Now, the problem is in lock down company has paid only 30% to it's only 1/3 rd of its employees, when I approached the manager to pay fair amount, they have sent me below email (termination with immediate effect). Please see below content and advise how to handle it.

Letter as below:-

"As you aware, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic effect on all of the businesses in our region. Due to this situation, we regret to inform you that your employment as HR Manager will be stood down temporarily as your work cannot be done safely while the coronavirus is spreading.

This stand down is effective immediately (May 29, 2020) and we anticipate that it will last until this situation is getting over. As per the Fair Work Act, your stand down will be unpaid.

I want to emphasize that this stand down is temporary and that, while it is unfortunate, we look forward to your return when we are able to resume business. In this time of period, if you find any Better Oppotunity somewhere else, you can go for that.

Please acknowledge this letter as soon as possible and submit all the things that company provides during your fulltime employment."

Looking forward for Support, please help.

This is happening with a lot o employees including those under managerial positions. The explanations given by your employer is only safe play. i don't understand why he has quoted Fair Work Act!! What is that? You are working in India. I have not heard of such an Act in India though in Australia an Act called Fair Work Act is available.

Anyway, the order terminating you is not stigmatic, I think. Moreover, you being a Manger cannot take the matter to Labour Dispute redressing machinery. Therefore, have a discussion and then settle it amicably.

Regarding discussion no.34

I request the poster to peruse the following link.

I have not received the copy of judgement in this regard.



This refers to your post at #37.

The link given by you is not authentic. What is authentic is the order by court. There is no such order by the Honorable SC.

The link given by you is last updated on 18.05.2020. The matter was called on for hearing on 15.05.2020 and then on 26.05.2020. It may come on board once again in the first week of June 2020.

PFA the order dated 15.05.2020 and dated 26.05.2020 for your reference to support my say.

Attached Files
File Type: pdf SC_FicusPax_order15.05.2020.pdf (24.9 KB, 1 views)
File Type: pdf SC_FicusPax_Order26.05.2020.pdf (38.2 KB, 2 views)

Dear Madhu.T.K,

This refers to your post #36 above.

What I feel, no employer can reduce the salary / wage during the lockdown and also terminate the employment of any person. This is a breach of various orders and guidelines by MHA, orders and guidelines by Various departments of Union Government and even by all most all State Governments.

All those orders and guidelines are under the DM Act 2005 and the aggrieved person can approach various authorities for relief / justice irrespective of his cadre / nature of duties etc., including the Nodal officer at the level of the Ministry to deal with “Employee Grievances with respect to COVID-19, Govt. of India, as what I feel.


Akhil Bhartiya

Akhil Bhartiya

Thanks for attaching SC order on Ficus Pax P Ltd.

Case referred in my earlier discussion no.37 is different. If you go through the link
you may get some information. As I said in my earlier post, I am yet to receive SC judgement.

In this context, petitioner is M/s Nagreeka Exports (P) Ltd., Mumbai, and the petition was
filed in SC on 14/4/2020, based on which, after the prayer of petitioner was heard by SC,
SC quashed MHA order. (This information was appeared in the newspaper.)

Please Login To Add Reply

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2020 Cite.Co™