Hi Ankita, This is not a case of double standards. The HR department is also composed of humans, and there are instances when negotiations are needed beyond the boundaries of policies. Such incidents provide continual learning for HR policies.
With the present case experience, this HR department will now never ask any contracted employee to leave without serving the notice period if they do not want to pay them. However, in the incident that has already happened, the 6-8 days of June that are already gone cannot be left unaccounted for. This will be difficult to sort out for both the employee and the organization. Hence, the suggestion was to mutually agree for it to be non-paid (or paid, if the policies allow) leave. If it is paid leave, then there will be no issue, but the employee's leave balance will reduce unnecessarily (Monetary loss?). If it is unpaid leave, then for the company to pay the employee for one month's salary, the notice period would extend for these leave days.
This will provide justice for the payment the company is making, and there will be no 'gap' in the employment record for the employee. This should be very much in line with company ethics, and I do not see any reason not to negotiate this solution with the employee. Only, as I have already mentioned, this is only possible if the company has not yet issued a relieving letter to the employee.
Now, as per Rakesh's latest post, the company acknowledges the contract for a one-month notice period and agrees to the notice period buyout option, but also, "company not want to continue that employee and don’t want to pay salary of June month". I do not think this argument is really logical. If the employee is persistent, they may have to end up paying this one-month salary to the employee.
I always end my replies with "Best of luck" in such queries, but this time my wishes are with the employee...
Best Regards, Amod.