I joined an Indian software MNC in July 2010. The company offer letter had a clause that "If an employee does not produce the copy of his/her passport within a year, his/her probation will be extended." There was one more clause in my offer acceptance document. It stated that "if the employee does not have a passport, the employee will bear the cost of a background check that will be performed in lieu of a passport."
My passport application got stuck, and I could not get it by August 2011 (which was the end of the stipulated probation period). The latter clause of "background verification in lieu of passport" was invoked. However, a problem occurred. The probation was extended, but the payment was reduced. There was a component that had to be paid ONLY during the probation period. It was eliminated in the extended probation period. I contested that if the probation is extended, the same payment should be continued, or the organization should clarify my designation/status in the organization. The reduced pay did not conform to any policy, neither did it correspond to any designation. I left the organization finally in January 2013 but kept sending them emails. They never replied with any significant policy or any substantial logic; they just paraphrased my query. I have explained all the further details in the attachment.
Challenging the Contradiction Between Clauses
My point is to challenge the contradiction between the two clauses mentioned in the first paragraph and make a point to stop the organization from reducing my payment. That is:
I. If the background verification was done, and my background was found clear, I should have been confirmed.
II. Even if I was not confirmed, and my probation was extended, the same payment should have been extended.
I want to send a legal notice now. But I would like to understand this from a collaborative perspective to be sure that this really is a case. Adding to it, the authorities are shying away from giving any substantial reply. One of the very senior authorities told me to avoid documented communication and work on a "let bygone be bygone" basis. I have serious doubts if he is really my well-wisher or if he is just avoiding any legal aspect.
Any lead will be greatly appreciated. In case it happens to be a legal issue.
Thanks!
My passport application got stuck, and I could not get it by August 2011 (which was the end of the stipulated probation period). The latter clause of "background verification in lieu of passport" was invoked. However, a problem occurred. The probation was extended, but the payment was reduced. There was a component that had to be paid ONLY during the probation period. It was eliminated in the extended probation period. I contested that if the probation is extended, the same payment should be continued, or the organization should clarify my designation/status in the organization. The reduced pay did not conform to any policy, neither did it correspond to any designation. I left the organization finally in January 2013 but kept sending them emails. They never replied with any significant policy or any substantial logic; they just paraphrased my query. I have explained all the further details in the attachment.
Challenging the Contradiction Between Clauses
My point is to challenge the contradiction between the two clauses mentioned in the first paragraph and make a point to stop the organization from reducing my payment. That is:
I. If the background verification was done, and my background was found clear, I should have been confirmed.
II. Even if I was not confirmed, and my probation was extended, the same payment should have been extended.
I want to send a legal notice now. But I would like to understand this from a collaborative perspective to be sure that this really is a case. Adding to it, the authorities are shying away from giving any substantial reply. One of the very senior authorities told me to avoid documented communication and work on a "let bygone be bygone" basis. I have serious doubts if he is really my well-wisher or if he is just avoiding any legal aspect.
Any lead will be greatly appreciated. In case it happens to be a legal issue.
Thanks!
1 Attachment(s) [Login To View]