Employee Absconded on Day Two: What Steps Should HR Take Next?

Hi, please guide me on the following query: "In the case of an employee absconding on the second day of joining, what kind of formalities need to be completed by HR?" Does an absent show cause hold good in this case, or would direct termination suffice? In the case of termination, what should be the hold time after which this action needs to be taken? Let me know of any other actions that I might have missed in such cases.

Regards.

You need to issue him two warning letters, delivered to his place, and then you can terminate him by sending a copy of the termination letter as well. Remember to keep all the records for the letters that you'll post, along with their photocopies.

Handling Absconding Employees

Absconding from duty for two days without information or sanction of leave from the competent authority is misconduct. However, without knowing the reasons, one should not proceed further in the matter. A charge sheet can be issued to the concerned employee for remaining absent from duty without information or sanction of leave from the competent authority.

After receiving the reply to the charge sheet from the employee, the disciplinary authority has to decide whether the reply to the charge sheet is satisfactory or not. If the competent authority does not find the reply to the charge sheet satisfactory, further course of action can take place. However, it is essential to keep in mind that without holding a proper inquiry, an employee cannot be terminated, as per the law; otherwise, termination can be challenged in the Labour Court, resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

Regards,
Mohamad Rafq.

Handling Absenteeism in New Employees

Always ignore the matter if any newly joined employee is not willing to come to work within 7 to 30 days of starting the job (absconding is a harsh term unless you receive a call from their home or have a significant impact on their life or future). If the employee decides to return after some time, take the opportunity to understand the underlying reasons and consider giving them a second chance. Termination should not be the immediate course of action simply because the new employee was absent.

Regards,
P. Rao - Senior Manager

Of course, a probationer, as per the prescribed provision of the organization about termination "without notice," can be resorted to. But never take any hasty step just on a presumption basis unless you are really sure that the employee/probationer is absenting willingly and unauthorizedly. Humanitarian grounds should never be lost sight of if you want loyalty and sincerity from employees. There may be some compulsion with the probationer, like an accident of self or a family member, death of any near relative, or sudden serious illness of self or a family member.

If the candidate has a contact number, you must try to contact him or his family members by phone or through some messenger. If you find some evasive response, only then can you be sure to some extent that the candidate does not want to serve your organization. Get the outcome of contact recorded and bring that to the notice of the competent authority. Only then decide whether to serve him a notice for unauthorized absence or terminate without notice upon getting a formal decision of the competent authority.

Regards,
PS Dhingra
Management & Vigilance Consultant
Dhingra Group of Consultants
New Delhi
[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]
[Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]

It is very clear that he is not interested in his job or your company. He might have had another offer. Having worked for ONE DAY, what does an employee expect? The principles of natural justice, the opportunity to be heard, etc., are to be considered only when someone has put in a considerable number of years of service in an organization. In this case, we are not violating any law. A person, before joining, made an effort to go to the company's website and tried to understand the company's background, etc. Can't he have the courtesy to inform the authorities that, because of such and such a reason, he could not turn up for duty? Does he not have the phone number of the company? If this is the attitude he exhibits, especially the very next day after having joined the company, what kind of commitment can you expect from him?

You know something. There are a lot of people who suddenly disappear without any information and work in some other organization with an offer. They work for 10-15 days or so, and if they like the job, they stay back. If they don't, they come back saying that they had jaundice, one of their close relatives died, they met with an accident, etc., and bring a (false) doctor's certificate. What do you say to this attitude? Establishing their claim, whether it is genuine or not, is a different issue.

In your case, you do not have to initiate any letter to be sent to him. Just keep quiet. Don't even load his data onto the payroll master for processing salary. Don't even consider him as an employee. If he turns up later, depending on the merits of the case, you can decide to have him (as a new joinee) or otherwise.

I am not for this attitude.

Regards,
V. Balaji

With all respect to Mr. Balaji and others who have posted their views, if the company has issued the candidate the appointment letter, it's better to play it safe (for the company and as per the law) and send him warning letters as advised by Riah. Please ensure to keep a copy of it, and the letter should be sent by Government Registered post only with acknowledgment due, and finally, the termination letter.

In case the company has not issued him the appointment letter, then as advised by Mr. Balaji, no action is required, and the company can demonstrate that an offer has been made to him; however, the candidate has not joined.

Regards,
Sachin

In such a case, for the record, you can issue a call letter. If he does not report, then you can issue the termination letter.

With Regards,
Advocates & Notaries & Legal Consultants [HR]

E-mail: [Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]

Mobile: [Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons].

In this circumstance, you should refer to the standing orders/laws of the company. Definitely, absconding without intimation for more than 7 days is misconduct, and he is a probationer as well. Therefore, you can terminate him without intimation. I hope you provided him with the employee handbook (where it is clearly mentioned).

Secondly, there is no need for any humanitarian steps here. Nowadays, there are numerous means to communicate any accident, death, etc.

Regards,
Pragadeesh

[Phone Number Removed For Privacy Reasons]

Handling Job Desertion After One Day

Deserting the job after a single day without any information is considered gross misconduct. If an appointment letter was sent, you should extend the validity of the appointment letter by another week and ask the employee to resume duties within that period. Otherwise, the appointment letter will be deemed to have been withdrawn. If the employee rejoins, that's well and good. If not, they lose the job. This approach will meet the ends of justice.

No disciplinary action or natural justice is required to be followed for an employee who only stayed for a single day just to desert the job or the company.

Dear Balaji,

Having dealt with vigilance and disciplinary cases for about 45 years, I might have been expected to develop a negative attitude. However, I find that a negative attitude is more prevalent among HR executives dealing with general administration.

The point to remember is that HR does not only represent human resources literally but also embodies human relations, such as staff or employee relations. HR should not adopt a solely negative attitude without conducting a detailed analysis. A negative attitude can sometimes have significant consequences in a person's life, particularly for HR personnel.

In fact, HR serves as a crucial link between management and employees. Maintaining a balance on both sides is the primary responsibility of HR. A positive attitude in human relations is essential unless there is clear evidence that the other party is at fault.

The initial step is to analyze the issue with an impartial attitude. Therefore, it is necessary to investigate and analyze the reasons for an employee's absence before taking any stringent action. Even if the employee is found to be at fault, management has the discretion to take stricter action, such as dismissal, for unauthorized absence from duty and taking up another employment without formal release, but only if the employee is proven to be at fault for reasons within their control.

Shortcuts in HR processes can be dangerous not only for employees but also for the reputation and trust of the organization among all its employees.

"Dear friend,

It is evident that he is not interested in his job or your company. He might have received another offer. After working for only one day, what can an employee expect? The principles of natural justice and the opportunity to be heard are typically considered when an individual has served a considerable number of years in an organization. In this case, we are not violating any laws. Before joining, if a person made an effort to visit the company's website and understand its background, shouldn't he have the courtesy to inform the authorities if he couldn't report for duty due to certain reasons? Does he not have the company's phone number? If this is the attitude he displays, especially the day after joining, what level of commitment can you expect from him?

It is known that many individuals suddenly disappear without any communication and start working elsewhere with an offer. They work for 10-15 days, and if they like the job, they stay; if not, they return claiming jaundice, a close relative's death, an accident, etc., supported by a (false) doctor's certificate. What do you think about this attitude? Verifying the legitimacy of their claims is a different matter.

In your situation, there is no need to send him any letters. Stay silent. Do not input his data into the payroll system for salary processing. Do not consider him an employee. If he shows up later, based on the circumstances, you can decide to treat him as a new joiner or not.

I do not support this attitude.

Regards,
V. Balaji

The notion of 'termination' is very much anchored in your mind. As you are also an employee of X employer, you may be aware of the need to adhere to the company policy. If a proper policy is not in place, then establish a solid policy by hiring a good HR consultant. Otherwise, each employee will become an experimental tool for the HR team/yourself on various issues.

I don't think any action should be taken because he has just joined the organization. Maybe he didn't find a friendly atmosphere as he thought, or perhaps the work didn't suit him. It could also be some personal problem, such as a salary issue. The best approach is to call him and ask what his problem is, and then decide based on company policy. Before that, there is no need to take any action.

Actions for Employee Absconding on Day Two

The actions could be manifold, like:

- **Action to be taken if no appointment letter has been issued:** No action.

- **Action to be taken if the appointment letter has not been issued but the employee has not signed in the attendance register:** He is a probationer, and the action to be taken will be as applicable for employees on probation, as suggested by Rhea and others.

The finance action is to credit him with one day's salary and allow him to come collect this amount. Use that as an opportunity to have a terminal interview with him to find out the reasons for discontinuing the employment after serving for one day, apart from legal procedures.

In any case, such situations generally raise a lot of questions:

1. Are our recruitment methods proper? Did we select the right person? Did we assess the candidate properly?
2. How does an outsider view us? How do we compare to other employers?

We must conduct a self-analysis by answering these questions and initiate corrective actions in the interest of the organization and to protect the morale of existing employees.

Regards,
JR Kumar, Faculty Director, FAPCCI, Hyd

First, you have to verify the cause. If there are others who have joined with him (group recruitment), then one of them will surely know what's happening. Otherwise, contact him at his address. Chances are that either he has met an emergency (in that case, he would have left a message with someone) or he has used your organization as a 'filler' while waiting for another opportunity.

In the latter case, you know he has gone for good. You can ask for an explanation via registered mail (and acknowledgement), and in case you don’t get a reply or a suitable reply, the concerned disciplinary authority can take the decision. There will be no use trying to get him to honor the 'bond' if any, except if you know where he has joined.

After this dust settles down and you know that he has left for a better opportunity, you need to analyze if he has left out of disillusionment or if it was a planned action (filler concept). Take corrective action.

Regards

Hi, greetings for the day. Well, if I give insight into the issue, there might be three major issues that have arisen:

1. False commitments/promises given at the time of selection - later not seen by a new joiner.
2. Withdrawal of interest from a new assignment - maybe due to comfort, interest, or any other reason in the new job.
3. He/she may have something very serious and could not connect (very slim chances), giving the benefit of the doubt.

Whatever the situation, you have a candidate who has left after joining. This is becoming a common issue nowadays. Please review your processes not only at the HR level but also at the department level. People generally blame HR, saying there is no "Walk the Talk" approach by HR, showing the big picture but not following through.

If a new joiner has not yet connected with you, then they may not respond. Start searching for a new candidate. At least be thankful that they left in one day; otherwise, it could have happened after a week or a month where they would have gained a lot of information about your organization, undergone induction, and then left.

Keep things moving. Go ahead and hire a new one.

Regards, Maulik

Dear Balaji,

Please calm down and read the story just above your post. Many times an employee is told the highlights of the company and not the hardships he will be facing, such as transport problems, excessive workload, or high expectations. If you think that during probation a company has the right to terminate an employee for any misconduct, whether grave or minor, you are mistaken, my friend. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down rulings stating that even if you wish to terminate a probationer for misconduct, you must conduct an inquiry. The Supreme Court's direction is also the law of the land, so there would be a breach of the law if you terminate an employee this way.

This is the legal aspect of the problem. Another part is I agree that there could be situations with the employee. Even if there is any misunderstanding, please try to take feedback from the employee and attempt to solve their problem. You will not only gain the respect of the employee but also motivate him to give his best for the company. We should think in a positive way.

Let me quote a relevant case here. One of the IT companies (my friend is the HR head there) had a similar case happen. After attending a two-day induction program, a Software Engineer did not show up from the third day. He had completed all joining formalities, including the issuance of the appointment letter and its acceptance. He also signed a service agreement to serve the company for two years. My friend succeeded in contacting him over the phone, and to his surprise, the following were the reasons for his discontinuation:

1. The job description discussed by HR at the time of recruitment did not match with the one discussed/given by his HoD upon joining.

2. There was a mismatch between the position offered and that of the hierarchy conveyed in the department.

3. The perception developed during the induction about the culture of the organization (the reason quoted was that during the introduction, one of the employees did not bother to look at him or wish him).

There was not much my friend could do to retain the person. He felt no need to send any warning letter/termination letter, etc., as one of the clauses in the appointment letter on automatic termination of services in case of continuous absenteeism for seven days and above addressed the same. My friend took the feedback in a positive manner and made necessary processes in place to improve the gray areas to prevent employee churn on such grounds in the future.

You may also try to find out the reason for his departure and take corrective measures. "Prevention is better than cure."

Contribute as a "Change Agent" and bring changes in the organizational culture, if need be.

All the best.

I fully agree and endorse the views expressed by Mr. V Balaji. In short, what Mr. Balaji is suggesting is that there is no need to issue a show cause to an employee who has worked only for a day and is absconding without giving any intimation or reason from the very second day of joining the new employment. So, set aside the procedure; there is no need to call for a reason and explanation from the absconding employee, simply treat their case as someone who never joined your company. Mr. Balaji has also added that, in case the employee turns up after a few days with a genuine reason for absconding, you may consider their rejoining on merits.

I agree with the views of the other citehr members that one needs to find out internal and external reasons for such behavior by new joiners and corrective action needs to be taken. But that does not mean that you need to send a show cause to such employees. Your show cause is not going to get any reply, and it is a sheer waste.

I do not find any negative attitude in the suggestions of Mr. Balaji. His attitude appears to be very proactive to me.

Mark my words, a person who is absconding from the very second day of joining without any reason is already having employment offers from other employers and has jumped to another company, showing no commitment, ethics, or consideration to inform you about their decision. So, simply ignore them.

HR's Role in Absconding Cases

Having dealt with vigilance and disciplinary cases for about 45 years in the past, one might have expected me to have a more negative attitude, but I find a negative attitude more prevalent in the HR executives dealing with general administration.

It should not be overlooked that HR does not only represent human resources literally but also human relations in the form of staff or employee relations. HR does not allow adopting a negative attitude without conducting a detailed analysis. A negative attitude can be costly, especially for HR personnel.

In fact, HR plays a crucial role as a link between the management and employees, with the prime responsibility of maintaining a balance on both sides. A positive attitude in human relations is essential unless there is certainty that the other party is at fault.

The first step is to analyze the issue with an impartial attitude. Therefore, investigating and analyzing the reasons for the employee's absence are necessary before taking any stringent action. Even if the employee is proven to be at fault, the management has the discretion to take stricter action, such as dismissal, due to unauthorized absence from duty and taking another job without formal release, but only if the employee is at fault for reasons within their control.

Shortcuts in HR processes can be dangerous not only for employees but also for the organization's reputation and trust with all its employees.

Regards.

Dear VK,

Both Balaji and you seem to be advising shortcuts to a person who has sought sincere advice from community members, so that he may not be wrong in taking any action as a part of his duty. However, the advice from both Balaji and you clearly seems to be discouraging him from fulfilling his genuine duties as an HR personnel.

I am not at all surprised by your presumption, "Mark my words, a person who is absconding from the very second day of his/her joining without any reason is already having employment offers from other employers and has jumped to another company, and he/she has no commitment, ethics, or a heart to inform you about his decision," without resorting to any investigation or trying to know the full background of the case. Many people prefer to work on a presumption basis rather than observing any laid-down processes, formalities, and HR ethics.

Your other advice, "so simply ignore him/her," is also like advising the poster of the question to shirk from his genuine duties.

As an HR personnel, your firm conviction based on presumption is totally uncalled for, given that neither the poster of the question has stated that the absentee has joined another post, nor has he mentioned that there is any clause of termination in the appointment letter or the agreement with the absentee employee.

Formalities for Employee Termination

It is a matter of common sense; if a formality of recruitment has been done by the organization, it is also obliged to complete necessary formalities for the discharge of the employee by taking all necessary steps to terminate, remove, or dismiss from the organization only by observing due formal processes laid down by the organization. Otherwise, the employee would still remain on the rolls of the organization and can put forward his claim at any time if no formal action is taken to remove him by observing due process.

So, if you prefer to adopt shortcuts or presumptions in doing your duty, at least don't advise others not to observe the due policies and formalities of HR.

I fully agree and endorse the views expressed by Mr. V Balaji.

Handling Absconding Employees

In short, what Mr. Balaji is suggesting is that there is no need to issue a show cause to an employee who has worked only for a day and is absconding without giving any intimation or reason from the very second day of his joining the new employment. So keep aside the procedure; there is no need to call for a reason and explanation from the absconding employee, simply treat his/her case as someone who never joined your company. Mr. Balaji has also added that, in case the employee turns up after a few days with some genuine reason for absconding, you may consider his/her rejoining on merits.

I agree with the views of other CiteHR members that one needs to find out internal and external reasons for such behavior by new joiners and corrective action needs to be taken. But that does not mean that you need to send a show cause to such employees. Your show cause is not going to get any reply, and it is a sheer waste.

I do not find any negative attitude in the suggestions of Mr. Balaji. His attitude appears to be very proactive to me.

Mark my words, a person who is absconding from the very second day of his/her joining without any reason is already having employment offers from other employers and has jumped to another company, and he/she has no commitment, ethics, or a heart to inform you about his decision. So simply ignore him/her.

Regards.

Dear Mr. Dhingra,

Let's examine the case carefully. The question was, "What to do with the absconding employee on the second day?" What I am suggesting is that there is no need to take any major actions, such as issuing a show cause notice, conducting a domestic enquiry, or terminating him.

All these formalities apply only when someone works for the organization and the organization intends to initiate disciplinary proceedings. What do we suggest here? Do we think that a person who was present for only a day can go for conciliation proceedings? What is his locus standi? If he does go, what is the company's stance? Under which section of the ID Act can he invoke? (Section 2A cannot be invoked as the company did not discharge or dismiss him.) It is not that the company terminated him or wants to terminate him; he is the one absconding the next day.

Finding reasons for his disinterest, etc., are internal issues that can always be addressed. I know some people who joined in the morning, went for lunch, and never returned. People normally come with preconceived notions, expectations of a big organizational setup, etc. Once they join the organization, things appear to be different from what they perceived. When things do not seem to be to their taste, they simply vanish without informing the employer. This is exactly what has happened in this case.

If you suggest initiating disciplinary proceedings for those who have shown their faces for 2 hours, half a day, or one day, and sincerely adopt the procedures to be followed as per the law, I have no problem with your spending time on this.

Regards,
V. Balaji

Well, even we have faced instances where an employee has absconded after just 1 or 2 days of work. In such situations, we only try to contact the person by phone. If they answer, we inquire about the reason. If the reason is genuine, we ask them to come back after some time. If not, we inform them over the phone that, as per their appointment letter, being absent from duty without information is misconduct. If they are not willing to return and rejoin, a termination letter is sent to their address within 3 days, referencing the conversation, especially if they expressed unwillingness to return.

If the person does not answer calls or emails, after a week, a show-cause letter is sent. If there is no response after the 10th day, a termination letter is issued, stating that despite our numerous attempts to contact them, the individual has been absent without information and is therefore terminated.

After about 5 days, we begin the search for a new person because typically someone who has not shown up within 5-7 days will likely not come.

Handling Employee Absence: Best Practices

If an employee is absent from work for two days, they should not be terminated. Best HR practices dictate that management should first recognize the problem before taking any further steps.

Regards.

Please read the thread carefully, understand the subject, and post your comments. Here, the discussion is about an employee who is absconding from the second day of joining a new job and not about an employee absconding for two days.

Dear Mr. Dhingra,

- Myself and Mr. Balaji have offered a solution to a common problem faced by many of us in the HR fraternity. I face this situation almost twice every month, and I am sure there are many others who face it even more frequently. The solution offered by Mr. Balaji is practiced by me, and I have not faced any problem so far, as feared by you.
- You are at liberty to label our practice as a 'shortcut,' but I feel it is a practical solution tried and tested by me.
- We are not forbidding anybody from discharging their duties. We have given advice, and you and some others have also given advice. It is up to the advice seeker to carefully choose from the many alternatives available, keeping in view the actual reality and situation best known to him/her.
- I am not presuming anything. But I do not understand what makes you presume that a person who has joined just a day before dares to abscond from the new job on the very second day and who is not bothered to inform anyone in the office has the intention and seriousness to continue to work with you?
- My common sense will never allow someone to remain on the rolls who has joined and absconded from the second day, as feared by you. I think most organizations have a very basic function of Attendance & Time Office in place.

Firstly, you are presuming that such an employee will remain on the rolls, and secondly, you are presuming that he/she will put forward a claim. Kindly elaborate on how he/she can put forward a claim? Do we think that a person who was present for only a day can go for conciliation proceedings? What is his locus standi? If at all he goes, what is the company's stance? In what section of the ID Act can he invoke? (2A cannot be invoked as the company did not discharge/dismiss him). It is not that the company terminated him or wanted to terminate him, but it is he who absconded the next day.

Regards.

Dear Neha, I am surprised that HR people get this much time to spend on a new person whose trustworthiness towards the organization or continuity is under a big question mark! You should do a PONC to find out the cost implication on the organization on such issues. In the modern HR context, Personnel Management has a limited role to play.

I am 100% in agreement with what V. Balaji commented in the third paragraph above. In my view, if there are no positive results from the initial probing, one should not spend much time on such non-productive activities.

Court Rulings on Employee Reinstatement

Mr. Dhingra, in response to the last paragraph (highlighted in red) of your reply to V. Balaji, I would suggest that if you could quote any relevant rulings of any learned court in India ordering the reinstatement of an employee whose services were terminated on similar grounds under the subject matter in discussion.

Thanks!

With your latest post, you have clearly exposed yourself and your arbitrary style of working without observing any HR norms and standards.

Your latest post clearly suggests that not only is your policy to work arbitrarily by depending only on presumptions and shortcuts, but you also try to read between the lines without understanding what others are trying to communicate.

If you properly go through my original posting, you will find that the very opening sentence of my suggestion was, “Of course, a probationer, as per the prescribed provision of the organization about termination without notice, can be resorted to.” BUT my suggestion was quite simple: before taking a step to terminate the probationer, the poster of the problem may try to find out the cause of absenteeism to avoid any hasty step.

JUST TRY to reread my original comments and, as presumed by you, intimate me—

WHERE DID I SUGGEST TO START DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS?

If you don’t want to go back to read my original comments, I reproduce them here at the end of this discussion for your convenience.

ON THE OTHER HAND, your contention, “What I am suggesting is that there is no need to do anything big,”I would like to draw your attention to your own suggestion, where you gave a very big and wrong piece of advice to shirk from the duty, clearly forbidding him not only on one count but on several counts, by clearly stating—

“In your case, you do not have to initiate any letter to be sent to him. Just keep quiet. Don’t even load his data onto the payroll master for processing salary. Don’t even consider him as an employee.”

All this provides us with what type of HR duties you would be doing and advising to others also. In this respect, I would like to put straight questions to you:

1) If you have recruited an employee, by which provision of law should you not do anything regarding his termination?

2) Does your suggestion to keep quiet not forbid an HR personnel from doing his genuine duty?

3) Does advising him not to load data onto the payroll master not forbid him from doing his genuine duty?

4) Does advising him not to consider the duly recruited employee as an employee not forbid him from doing his genuine duty?

5) Once an employee is recruited, which provision of law provides you with arbitrary authority not to treat him as an employee unless you formally terminate or dismiss him?

6) What is the basis of your firm conviction that things would not have happened to the taste of the employee, as you have stated, “This is EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED in this case”? Is it not your presumption only?

7) Are all the recruitment formalities adopted by your organization farce and fictitious?

8) Which provision of law provides you, as an HR person, the authority to arbitrarily function at your sweet will and not discharge your duties and responsibilities towards employees and the organization of which you are also an employee?

You must know that such an arbitrary attitude of HR personnel is the main reason behind HR not commanding due respect amongst the employees of the organizations.

EXTRACT OF MY ORIGINAL COMMENTS DATED 23.10.2010

“Of course, a probationer, as per the prescribed provision of the organization about termination “without notice” can be resorted to.

BUT, never take any hasty step just on a presumption basis unless you are really sure that the employee/probationer is absenting willingly and unauthorizedly. Humanitarian grounds should never be lost sight of if you want loyalty and sincerity from employees. There may be some compulsion with the probationer, like an accident of self or a family member, death of any near relative, sudden serious illness of self or a family member.

If the candidate has a contact number, you must try to contact him or his family members by phone or through some messenger. If you find some evasive response, only then can you be sure to some extent that the candidate does not want to serve your organization. Get the outcome of contact recorded and bring that to the notice of the competent authority. Only then decide whether to serve him a notice for unauthorized absence or terminate without notice upon getting a formal decision from the competent authority.”

Dear VK, you may like to read the reply to Balaji's response. I think you will find answers to your queries there.

On the Rolls of an Absconding Employee

If you do not formally show an exit for any employee, they will remain an employee of the organization and can claim their post at any time, regardless of whether they remained absent without pay. Therefore, HR formalities are a must if you want to terminate them. You should not leave any loopholes open to be taken advantage of by anyone simply by omitting any HR formality.

So, the solutions offered by Balaji and you were not solutions, but rather the likely cause of aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts. If you have practiced the solution offered by Balaji and yourself, provide me with complete particulars of the employees (including their addresses) whom you would have treated as non-employees without observing the prescribed formalities of their formal exit from your organization. I will prove my stance practically by legally compelling your organization to rejoin any one or more of those employees.

Anyway, if you still have any more questions, you are most welcome.

Dear Mr. Dhingra, myself and Mr. Balaji have offered a solution to a common problem faced by many of us in the HR fraternity. I face this situation almost twice every month, and I am sure there are many others who face it even more frequently. The solution offered by Mr. Balaji is practiced by me, and I have not faced any problems so far, as feared by you.

You are at liberty to label our practice as a 'shortcut,' but I feel it is a practical solution tried and tested by me.

We are not forbidding anybody from discharging their duties. We have given advice, and you and some others have also given advice. It is up to the advice seeker to carefully choose from the many alternatives available, keeping in view the actual reality and situation, best known to him/her.

I am not presuming anything. But I do not understand what makes you presume that a person who has joined just a day before dares to abscond from the new job on the very second day and who is not bothered to inform anyone in the office has an intention and seriousness to continue to work with you?

My common sense will never allow someone who has joined and absconded on the second day to remain on the rolls, as feared by you. I think most organizations have a very basic function of Attendance & Time Office in place.

Firstly, you are presuming that such an employee will remain on the rolls, and secondly, you are presuming that he/she will put forward a claim. Kindly elaborate on how he/she can put forward a claim? Do we think that a person who was present for only a day can go for conciliation proceedings? What is his locus standi? If at all he goes, what is the company's stance? In what section of the ID Act can he invoke? (2A cannot be invoked as the company did not discharge/dismiss him) It is not that the company terminated him or wants to terminate him, but it is he who absconded the next day.

Dear Gopal, I hope you will also find answers to your queries in reply to the responses of Balaji and VK. About the direct and indirect costs of fresh recruitment formalities for substitutes and the cost of a simple investigation to find out the cause of an employee's absconding, it would be better for you to calculate it yourself or ask a cost accountant to do it for you. You will find an alarming difference beyond your imagination. Neither recruitment nor employee retention and employee relations are child's play, let alone the discharge of HR responsibilities as a whole.

Legal Considerations and Employee Treatment

Why refer to any previous examples of court rulings? Just provide me with complete particulars of the employees (including their addresses) whom you would have treated as non-employees without observing the prescribed formalities of their formal exit from your organization. I shall practically prove my stance when I legally compel your organization to rejoin any one or more of those employees.

I would like to advise you to try to command respect as a rational HR professional, rather than earning the hate of employees with arbitrary actions or inactions.

Dear Neha, I am surprised that HR people have this much time to spend on a new person whose trustworthiness towards the organization or continuity is under a big question mark! You should conduct a PONC to find out the cost implications on the organization regarding such issues. In the modern HR context, Personnel Management has a limited role to play.

I am 100% in agreement with what V. Balaji commented in the third paragraph above. In my view, if there are no positive results on the initial probing, one should not spend much time on such non-productive activities.

Request for Legal Precedents

Mr. Dhingra, in response to the last paragraph (highlighted in red) of your reply to V. Balaji, I would suggest that if you could quote any relevant rulings of any learned court in India ordering the reinstatement of an employee whose services were terminated on similar grounds under the subject matter in discussion.

Thanks!

Well, Gopal, thank you for your opinion. Personally, our management doesn't find it useless if we try to contact the person. In terms of our time, it takes 2 minutes and money just for local call charges. So, probably you estimated my long comment as expenses, but it still takes very little time and energy to try to speak to the person. If not answered, then one letter, and the person is out. Again, standard registry charges apply. I didn't mean to be offensive, but probably this was my first thought after reading your comment.

Regards,
Neha

Dear Mr. Dhingra, I have carefully gone through your response to my post and the posts of Mr. Balaji and Mr. Gopal. I have the following comments to offer. These are my final comments, and I will not be commenting further to avoid stretching this post.

• I think a very basic and important fact in this case is, "The employee has deserted you on the second day of his joining. He is not interested in working with you and has stopped attending duties on the second day of his employment without informing you." I feel you are not taking notice or cognizance of this fact.

• Legally and technically, you are correct in saying that the employee may claim employment since he has not resigned, been terminated, or relieved. But what are the chances of such a claim from an employee who is not interested in working with you and is gainfully employed elsewhere?

• There are occasions when 40 or more employees join on a single day, and entering their data in the HRMS and Payroll System may take 4-5 days. What is the point of entering and keeping the data of an employee who is no longer with you?

• I have already mentioned in my earlier post that if the employee turns up after a few days with a genuine reason for absconding, you may consider their rejoining based on merits.

• I fail to understand how ignoring a past employee who worked with you for only one day and is not interested in working with you will lead to "Aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts."

• It would be better if you could enlighten us on how exactly you plan to prove your stance practically regarding an employee who is not interested in being our employee, let alone rejoining or reinstatement.

• There is no possibility of these kinds of employees hating us. They are not interested in working with us, and we have not troubled them in any way during or after their one-day stay with us.

Dear VK,

In your first bulleted point, you have stated that the employee is not interested in working with you. The question arises, how could you come to this conclusion without even trying to contact him? Is it not your presumption? You have further stated, "I have not at all been taking notice and cognizance of this fact." The question arises, which fact? Do you consider your presumption as the fact when you have not tried to verify the reason from the employee? The fact is that which is established beyond any doubt. Simply using the word "fact" does not make it a fact.

In your second point, you have admitted at least one thing - legally and technically, I am right in saying that the employee may claim employment since he has not resigned, been terminated, or relieved. Regarding your point about the chances of such a claim from an employee not interested in working with you and who is gainfully employed elsewhere, you are making two more presumptions by stating "not at all interested in working with the employer" and "who is gainfully employed elsewhere." How did you come to the conclusion that he was not interested in working with the employer, whether he is willing or not, and whether he is employed elsewhere gainfully, when you have never tried to verify these things and are still not ready to verify?

Regarding your query about entering and keeping the data of an employee who is no longer with you, which law provides an exemption for the employer not to enter and keep the data of a formerly employed person? You have already admitted that legally and technically he remained an employee of the firm. Even if he is terminated after one day, you cannot escape entering the data, as you cannot withhold his salary for the day he worked with you. Does commercial accounting, profit and loss accounts, and assets and liability accounts of a firm allow not showing its liability for one day's salary, which became due to the employee for his work with the firm?

About your point on an employee turning up after a few days with a genuine reason for absconding, the question arises, when you are not considering him as your employee, and your employment record is blank about his employment, where is the question of the management agreeing to his claim for rejoining? He will surely be left in a lurch due to the inhuman and arbitrary policy adopted by the HR from the initial stage.

Regarding your inability to understand how ignoring a past employee can lead to the aggravation of employee-employer conflicts, I am sure that with more experience in HR, you will learn and remember my point. Once the ignored employee puts forth his claim and the management hesitates to admit his claim to rejoin, do not think he will keep quiet. He would likely publicize the HR's policies, potentially causing conflict and even leading to a lockout, as seen in recent instances in other companies.

In another query, trying to exert your presumption, you have twisted my question by putting your own presumption of an employee not interested in being with your company. Where did I mention the employee was not interested in being your employee? This shows a reliance on presumptions rather than facts. Please re-read my last response, especially regarding your claim about not taking any action or entering data for the salary of absent employees. If you have practiced the solution offered by Balaji and you, provide me with complete particulars of the employees you treated as non-employees without following prescribed formalities for their formal exit from your organization.

Regarding the issue of employees' hatred, you seem to focus only on those employees not officially on your rolls. I suggest conducting an independent survey within your organization to gauge how much respect your HR department enjoys among all employees. It may reveal further insights into any drawbacks in your HR practices.

Sincerely