Handling Workplace Politics and Unfair Treatment
Your boss has set the ball rolling to create a pile of records against you, with copies marked to line managers and HR to create evidence of 'Loss of Confidence'. You should submit a fitting reply and start building an irrefutable record.
The actions of your boss may have the tactical approval of line management/HR and might be happening as per a script. The issue is that you might be sending replies by intranet mail without any copy to yourself. Although the company is the custodian of records, it may not provide access to your communications. Hence, find a way to keep copies or reply from a personal email or by letter through registered post.
Handling the boss is a skill, and any skill can be acquired. Such matters are best handled by employee unions, trade unions, works committees, or grievance redressal committees when individual efforts fail.
Are you aware that the state of Karnataka has made it mandatory for all establishments to have a 'Grievance Redressal Committee' with an equal number of employees? Also, the 'Works Committee' is an authority as per the ID Act.
Rowdiness of bosses is not unknown, and even courts of law have passed judgments bypassing 'Rowdiness' on record. I have discussed it in detail in the following thread:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/foru...p#.VMueTS2qr5Y
Rajasthan High Court Case Reference
Bhanwarlal And Ors. vs Rajasthan State Road Transport
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/510946/
“We have to travel through a plethora of decisions of the Apex Court, and yet we are not wiser. No one can tolerate gross indiscipline, corruption scandals, violent and rowdism in 'Boss chambers' or Corporation corridors, and Courts can ill-afford to encourage them bordering on abetment. But veiled, camouflaged, and masked actions of termination simpliciter in such cases, whether they raise eyebrows of 'rule of law', 'natural justice' patronagists, is an important facet in such 'endeavours'. Termination, in an economy cursed by massive unemployment, may be termed as a draconian measure of last resort. 'Causa causans' of misconduct needs enquiry and not 'termination simpliciter' under Standing Orders, and the Court can unveil and unmask the hidden foundation by removing the plaster of 'innocuous' camouflage.
'Loss of confidence' of the employer, whether it consists of the same old wine of 'service at pleasure' in the 'new bottle' and whether it can be used as 'Aladdin's lamp' again to 'hire and fire' and demolish and diminish 'status' to pure 'master and servant' 'contract' is yet another dimension of this debate. The new Industrial jurisprudence of the 'Third world', whether it articulates, recognizes, or postulates 'security of service' to workmen, is a broad issue, all of whom have been bid 'Goodbye' unceremoniously overnight, sacked without being told 'why so' and 'why this homicidal lottery draw against them only'? In the rule of law, whether such powers are autocratic despotic and yet no exception can be taken to them due to limitations of Article 311? If so, whether Chapter V-A of the I.D. Act occupies this field making Clause 13 redundant is yet another important highlight of it."
Regards.