Formalities incase of an employee absconding on day Two of his joining?

Hi,

Please guide me on the below query: "In case of an employee absconding on day two of his joining, what kind of formalities need to be done by HR?"
Does absent show cause hold good in this case, or would direct termination suffice? In 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 have missed to be taken up in such cases.

Regards.

You need to issue him 2 warning letters, delivered to his place, and then can terminate him, sending him 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.

Hi,

Thank you for the clarification. I have one more doubt here – during the probation period, the company holds the right to terminate without notice at its discretion. So, why waste so much effort and money? Why not opt for direct termination? Your terms would be more favorable if the employee stays with the company at least until they are confirmed.

Can this be ruled on?

Regards.

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.

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.

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, 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.

PS Dhingra
Management & Vigilance Consultant
Dhingra Group of Consultants
New Delhi
09968076381
dcgroup1962@gmail.com

Dear colleague,

The safest way is the option given by Riah.

But Rajkumar has provided food for thought. I am reminded of a story which was quoted to me a long time back.

It was announced by God to the dead people when they went up to him to choose between Heaven and Hell (the choice was left to them).

They were given the opportunity to visit both Heaven and Hell. Surprisingly, when they visited Heaven, they observed that people were in agony, pain, and were tortured, but the scene in Hell was quite the opposite; people were enjoying, having fun, etc.

Finally, when they all went up to God, most chose to go to Hell. God agreed and sent them accordingly. But the scene in Hell had changed. In short, what they observed in Heaven was transformed into Hell and vice versa. (The scenes were what we have heard from our elders - Original Heaven and Hell)

So it is important for HR professionals like us to really project what our organization's culture is right from day one and not to paint a rosy picture to the candidate before his joining or immediately after he joins. If you don't give him the real picture, you are bound to face such surprises.

But I would not blame the culture that exists in your organization. Each organization has its own culture. The point I am trying to make is to explain it to the new entrants so that they are not taken by surprise. Also, try to create an atmosphere/culture that will retain candidates. Retain good practices in your current organization and try to minimize the harsh/impractical practices and replace them with positive practices for better employee retention. This suggestion is because employee retention is the biggest challenge we face these days.

Best regards,

M.V. Kannan

Dear friend,

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 an employee expects? The principles of natural justice, and opportunity to be heard, etc., are to be considered only when someone puts 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, that too the very next day of 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, and 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 at all 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.

V. Balaji

Hi,

With all respect to Mr. Balaji and others out here who have posted their views,

If the company has issued the candidate the appointment letter, then 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

Dear,

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: rajanassociates@eth.net

Mobile: 9025792684.

Hi!

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.

Pragadeesh
8056711888

Deserting the job after a single day without any information is a gross misconduct. So, if an Appointment Letter was sent, you simply 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 he rejoins, well and good. If he does not, well, he loses the job. This 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.

A probationer does not enjoy the protection of the law of natural justice to hear his point of view for absenteeism. I came across a case in this matter. Leave applied by a probationer was turned down by management as the reason mentioned was not accepted by management. However, the probationer's priority was leave, and he proceeded on leave. Later, he was dismissed. My questions here are:

1. Why should he give a reason for leave? Is it mandatory?
2. If a probationer applies for leave by giving the right reason, and it is not considered, what is the remedy?

Regards,
Ravi

Dear Balaji,

Having been dealing with vigilance and disciplinary cases for about 45 years in the past, I could have been expected to have a more negative attitude, but I find a negative attitude more prevalent in the 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 in the form of staff relations or employee relations. HR does not allow for adopting 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 the management as a whole and the 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, the 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.

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.

Dear Friends,

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 and 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 cases generally raise a lot of questions:

1. Are our recruitment methods proper? Did we select the right man? Did we assess the candidate properly?
2. How does an outsider view us? How are we when compared to other employers?

We must do 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.

JR Kumar, Faculty Director, FAPCCI, Hyd

I agree with Balaji's view.

One-day-old employees do not require this type of treatment. Simply strike off his name...... Nothing is going to happen......

Hi,

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. Else, 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 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.

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.

Hi,

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 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.

Dear Balaji,

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.

Dear VK,

Both Balaji and you seem to be advising to adopt 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. But the advice of both Balaji and you clearly seems to be forbidding him from discharging his genuine duties as an HR personnel.

I am not at all surprised with your presumption also, "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, as 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 like presumption is totally uncalled for in view of the fact 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.

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.

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 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.

Dear Mr. Dhingra,

Let's see 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 do anything big, like issuing show cause notice, conducting domestic enquiry, and terminating him.

All these formalities apply only when someone works for the organization and also 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 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, but he is the one absconding the next day.

Finding reasons for his disinterest, etc., are internal issues that can always be addressed. I knew some people who joined in the morning, went for lunch, and never turned back thereafter. People normally come with preconceived notions, big organization set up, expectations, etc. Once they join the organization, things appear to be different than what they perceived. When things do not seem to be in their taste, they simply vanish without telling the employer. This is exactly what has happened in this case.

If you suggest initiating disciplinary proceedings for those who had shown their faces for 2 hrs, 1/2 day, and one day and sincerely adopt the procedures to be followed as per the law, I have no problem with your spending time on this.

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.

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.

Dear gsk42,

Please read the thread carefully, understand the subject, and post your comments. Here, the discussion is about an employee who is absconding from the 2nd day of joining a new job and not about an employee absconding for 2 days.

Dear Mr. Dhingra,

• Myself and Mr. Balaji have offered a solution to a common problem faced by many of us from HR fraternity. I am facing this situation for almost 2 times every month and I am sure there are many others who are facing it at even higher frequency. 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 a advice and you and some others have also given a advice. It is upto 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 a very second day and who is not bothered to inform anyone in office, has a intention and seriousness to continue to work with you?
• My commonsense will never allow someone to remain on rolls, who has joined and absconded from 2nd 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 employee will remain on rolls and secondly you are presuming that, he/she will put forward claim. Kindly elaborate how he/she can put forward claim? [Do we think that a person was present for only a day, can go for conciliation proceedings what is his locus standi? If at all he goes, what is company's stance? In what section of ID Act he can invoke? (2A cannot be invoked as company did not discharge/dismiss him) it is not that company terminated him or wanting to terminate, but it is he the one absconding the next day.]

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 para 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.

Mr. Dhingra, in response to the last para (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 for the reinstatement of an employee whose services were terminated on similar grounds under the subject matter in discussion.

Thanks!

Dear Balaji,

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

Your latest post clearly suggests, not only your policy is to work arbitrarily by depending only on presumptions and shortcuts, but also you try to read between the lines without understanding what others try 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 that before taking a step to terminate the probationer, the poster of the problem may try to find out the cause of absenteeism and 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 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 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 quite. 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 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 you should not do anything in regard to his termination?

2) Does your suggestion to keep quiet not forbidding an HR personnel to do his genuine duty?

3) Does advising him not to load data on to the payroll master not forbidding him to do his genuine duty?

4) Does advising him not to consider the duly recruited employee as an employee not forbidding him to do his genuine duty?

5) Once an employee is recruited, which provision of law provides you an 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 the 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 not it your presumption only?

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

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

You must know that such type of arbitrary attitude of the HR personnel is the main reason behind the 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 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 of employees. There may be some compulsion with the probationer, like accident of self or a family member, death of any near relative, sudden serious illness of self or family member.

If the candidate has a contact number, must try to contact him or his family members on phone or through some messenger. If you find some evasive response, only then you can 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.”

Dear VK,

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

About being on the rolls of any absconding employee, if you do not do your duty to formally show exit to any employee, he will remain an employee of the organization and can claim his post at any time, regardless of whether he remained absent without pay. Therefore, HR formalities are a must if you want to terminate him. 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 the solutions, but rather the likely cause of aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts. If you have practiced the solution offered by Balaji and you, 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.

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.

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!

Dear Mr. Dhingra,

I would like to reciprocate the advice given in the last paragraph to you as well. Being an HR professional, I would suggest that you analyze the situation as if it happened within your organization. Try to determine whether the management would prefer the HR department to invest more time and energy in addressing such issues. Finding the answer to this question will also satisfy you. However, please do not label me as an anti-employee HR professional. I believe that it is the primary responsibility of every HR professional to conduct a root cause analysis and suggest the best suitable solution to the problem.

Mr. Dhingra, all your suggestions and advice seem one-sided, utilizing a defensive mechanism that does not appear helpful in resolving any issues. The intention behind this discussion is to find an amicable solution to the problem rather than creating a platform for arguments and counter-arguments that lead nowhere.

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, "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 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 Gopal,

Regarding the question of time and energy, the answer to your comments can be found in Neha's brief but fitting response to your comments, placed just after yours. However, I understand that you may not be inclined to admit when your presumptions and policies are incorrect. Perhaps you consider yourself the most expert HR professional?

In reality, it is not the management but the individual HR professional who may be reluctant to spend even a few minutes at the initial stage to uncover the root cause rather than rely on their own presumptions.

You suggest that I analyze the situation, yet instead of resorting to analysis, you seem to adhere to your one-sided presumptions. Your analysis lacks an attempt to understand the basic cause of an employee's absence by simply reaching out to them via phone or written notice. My suggestion stems from my practical experience of nearly 40 years, where I always analyzed situations before taking action rather than making assumptions, as you seem to do when dealing with employees' careers.

You also advocate for every HR professional to conduct a root cause analysis for problem-solving, yet you appear hesitant to engage with employees to truly understand the circumstances. How can you claim to perform a root cause analysis without considering factors such as illness, accidents, or internal policies? It is essential to comprehend the true meaning of "root cause analysis" rather than using the term arbitrarily.

I have not labeled you as anti-employee, but your actions may suggest otherwise.

My suggestions are not one-sided and do not represent a defensive mechanism; rather, I propose involving both management and employees in finding solutions. Conversely, your advice appears one-sided, relying on presumptions without delving into the core of issues. Your responses to my queries seem defensive, emphasizing your assumptions about employees' work ethic.

Had you viewed this forum as a platform for constructive discussion rather than argumentation, you could have considered my suggestions more thoughtfully. However, your defensive stance seems to prioritize proving your perspective as the only valid root cause analysis, leading to counterarguments.

I regret to point out, dear, that you are revealing more of yourself than perhaps intended.

---

Dear Mr. Dhingra,

I would like to extend the advice given in the last paragraph to you as well. As an HR professional, I recommend analyzing situations as if they occurred within your organization to determine whether the management would support HR investing more time and energy in such matters. This approach will likely provide you with a satisfactory answer. Please refrain from categorizing me as anti-employee. I firmly believe that conducting a root cause analysis is a fundamental responsibility of all HR professionals to propose optimal solutions to problems. Your suggestions and advice, Mr. Dhingra, appear one-sided, relying on a defensive mechanism that may not contribute effectively to issue resolution. The purpose of this discussion is to identify amicable solutions rather than engaging in fruitless arguments.

Thank you.

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,

[Your Name]

Dear Mr. Dhingra,

With reference to your comment on the 2nd paragraph, I am of the view that you jumped to a conclusion without referring to the whole matter. You may refer to my posting on 25th Oct for clarity. I think you need to be a little bit more flexible in your approach. While respecting your age and experience, I would like to reiterate my stance that no corporates/organizations, as of now, would be willing to invest resources in non-productive activities, like the one you have been referring to and recommending throughout – even if one may brand it as the cause of aggravating problems in employee-employer conflicts and subsequent repercussions.

Furthermore, it seems that there is a need to change the 'think' process as it is very old and will not hold good in the current scenario. Just to quote an example, nobody is using C or C++ now for programming but has progressed with .NET or similar. There are many more examples to quote. For survival, one needs to adopt change. Change is imperative – not only in technology but in attitude, behavior, and approach of an individual too. To face the cutthroat competition and to achieve the business goals, employers are always looking/experimenting with new things, and in relation to Human resources, they expect that HR professionals need to be totally in line with the business requirements.

As such, only in the name of maintaining industrial relations, I don't think that issues like the one which is the subject matter of the entire discussion will create an employee-employer conflict leading to industrial unrest.

By the way, thank you for the time you are spending to educate on legal/IR aspects, but I am sorry to say that it is not in line with the new HR concept. Have a nice day, and I am not going to respond any further on the subject matter.

Dear Gopal,

Thanks for your comments. However, your pointless reply to my comments shows that you are still adopting a defensive mechanism, which contradicts your own earlier views. By doing this, you are exposing more and more of your wrong and anti-employee policies.

I have not jumped to any conclusions. To arrive at a conclusion after proper analysis, I clearly suggested investigating the reason for the employee's absence. In contrast, you jumped to the conclusion that the employee was unwilling to work in the company without even trying to understand the reason behind their absence. Your friend tried to find out the cause of an employee's absence in his organization and could analyze the situation, but you failed to learn any lesson from him.

It is surprising that there were six paragraphs in my comments, yet you only offered your comments on the second paragraph. This raises the question: why did your response specifically target only the second paragraph of my comments? Why not address all six paragraphs? This suggests that you have no argument against the other five paragraphs and you agree with 83% of the points I raised. Even regarding the second paragraph of my comments (17% only), your response contradicts your earlier stance where you stated that it is the prime responsibility of every HR professional to conduct a root cause analysis to provide the best solution to the problem. However, you still do not want to engage in a root cause analysis by obtaining a response from the employee, nor do you want to spend even a few minutes determining whether the employee is willing to serve your company. I will repeat the contents of the second paragraph of my earlier comments here to refresh your memory:

"In fact, it is not the management, but it is the individual HR professional who doesn’t like to spend even a few minutes at the very initial stage to find out the root cause as against his own presumptions."

Your own post from 25th October 2010 indicates that when your friend contacted the absent employee, he discovered a defective and deceptive HR policy, as the management did not fulfill what was promised to the employee. On one hand, you advocate analyzing the situation, yet on the other hand, you are reluctant to reach out to the employee to understand their viewpoint on their absence. This contradiction undermines your earlier advocacy for analyzing the root cause.

You mentioned a "new concept of HR." What is this new concept, and which scholar or researcher has proposed it? I would like to study this "new concept." Does it imply abandoning essential tasks to make the recruitment process merely informal in order to accommodate the whims of an individual HR professional who avoids fulfilling their responsibilities either under the guise of management's desires or this "new concept"?

For your information, I challenge the theoretical ideas of some of the world's top 20 Management Gurus through Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business Publishing of Harvard University, Wharton University, BNET, etc. While some acknowledge their shortcomings, others try to delete my comments out of fear that it may harm their reputation. At one point, Harvard University, one of the world's most renowned universities, had to reinstate my comments when they realized that removing them would damage the university's reputation. I also serve as an Executive Member of McKinsey & Co. for McKinsey Quarterly and Aberdeen, two of the world's renowned management consultancy companies. I have not encountered any such "new concept" that you are attempting to promote. I am certain that if you had the ability to moderate or delete comments on this forum, you would also try to delete mine.

You attempted to teach me about the need to be flexible in my approach. When I suggested a flexible approach to the problem, you, on the contrary, displayed inflexibility by persisting in the HR professional's tendency to shirk work. By urging me to be a bit more flexible, did you mean that I should refrain from criticizing your unethical and inflexible approach?

Your assertion that no corporation or organization is willing to invest resources in non-productive activities is merely a facade. Instead of rectifying your impractical and irrational approach to business activities, you are engaging in a non-productive activity by wasting time defending your flawed and unethical policies. Therefore, you or your organization are indeed investing in non-productive activities. Conversely, no corporation or organization would want its HR professional to neglect essential processes to efficiently resolve issues and prevent future problems, as you suggested in the case mentioned in the thread.

In your frantic attempt to defend your flawed policy, you cited a flawed example: "nobody is using C or C++ now for programming but progressed with .net or similar." This assertion is profoundly mistaken. The fact that you are not using something does not mean it has been universally discarded. .Net was available even when 'C' was developed in 1979 and improved further as 'C++' in 1983. Both 'C' and 'C++' are still taught and widely used in the software industry. C++ is one of the most popular programming languages ever created, with applications in systems software, application software, device drivers, embedded software, high-performance server and client applications, and entertainment software such as video games. C++ has significantly influenced other popular programming languages, particularly C# and Java. Therefore, .Net would not be as effective without C++ until it is replaced by another innovative software.

You mention the need for change in technology, attitude, behavior, and approach of individuals. However, change does not mean neglecting essential processes. Change requires establishing and completing certain processes. While you can simplify a process in accordance with the law of the land, you should not neglect it entirely. It is essential to understand the change process fully.

Employers may constantly seek and experiment with new approaches, but as an employee of an organization, you should not neglect your duties and responsibilities in the name of your employer or the pursuit of new things. Ignoring a process is not a novel concept; it is an old tactic used by employees to avoid their duties and responsibilities.

Feel free to share your comments if you still have any doubts about avoiding exposure by yourself.