Dear Mr. Satish Kumar,
While, in general, I agree with your above reply (definitely a wise and commonsense point of view), I do not think there is really anything wrong in a prospective employee using the letter of appointment (wisely, discreetly, and if warranted to strengthen one's point) for negotiating a better deal with other prospective employers than the one who had issued an appointment letter. Much depends upon the circumstances and typical situations of the particular case.
For example, say Mr. X from India has been in Dubai for 1 1/2 months seeking a job. Subsequent to having attended an interview in a particular company (Head Office: Dubai), Mr. X gets the appointment letter to take up the position in Qatar instead of in Dubai, where this company's branch office is present. All the time, the prospective employee is not apprised or kept informed in advance about his posting. Mr. X receives the appointment letter, he signs the copy of the appointment letter as having "received the original copy," without specifically mentioning that he is "accepting the appointment." Moreover, Mr. X (who comes to know informally about this prospective offer at the eleventh hour), orally and also immediately before receiving the appointment letter, through e-mail, makes it known to the company (Senior Manager (HR)) his inability to join in Qatar for certain valid reasons and requests the management to consider his posting in Dubai itself. Mr. X says he is ready to wait for a month or so though the prospective employer is under no obligation to post him in Dubai or provide any employment in Dubai. Now, will Mr. X's receiving the appointment letter amount to his acceptance? Not necessarily, and this is evident from your observation too, I guess.
Now since he cannot take up the job in Qatar and at the same time not wishing to go back to India empty-handed, he takes the appointment letter. Since his visa processing has to be done by the company's H.O (through its another branch office in India) that issued him an appointment order, Mr. X, after having expressed his inability to do so, requests the company (H.O) not to process his visa for Qatar, and further requests them to consider his posting in Dubai even if it takes some more time in the future. He receives an informal reply from a person representing the management that they will try, though nothing is guaranteed. Mr. X says he will still wait for the offer but also keep trying for job opportunities meanwhile in India. (Let us assume that the final informal talks have no legal bearing and have no significance to what I am trying to point out here now). Now, Mr. X also keeps seeking job opportunities on his return to India. Can he use this appointment order to demonstrate a point with (other) prospective employers (in India) with whom he is attending an interview and negotiations or not? How you look at this is dependent on that specific situation. Does not Mr. X have the right to project his case of worthiness and employability if deemed necessary or where a point so arises to defend his terms of negotiation, with other prospective employers if warranted?
When it comes to the prospective employee, is it wrong, whereas when it comes to the negotiations/bargaining by the prospective employer, anything they do and say is right? Don't we see that most of the time it is the prospective employers who have an advantage, an upper hand, and a better say (usually)? And how ethical and morally right are the so-called representatives of these prospective employers who keep telling the prospects, without themselves in any way being sure, that "the sky is the limit" for the prospective employees' growth; "will consider this or that at the time of confirmation or 6 months later, etc."? For instance, what moral right or business do prospective employers have to negotiate on the BASIS of the employee's previous CTC? Is it not a free market where the supply and demand and the negotiating abilities and ethics should be equally applicable? (I am against the eye for an eye tactics or unethical methods).
To draw conclusions, including from what you have said, either party can have a right to know certain pertinent information they require, but they cannot solely use that as the point of reasoning out or basing their argument or justifying their offers or built-up biases to coerce the other party into it when the other party feels that the information revealed is being unjustly the basis for the other's unfair negotiating tactics or being used against him. THAT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT OUGHT TO BE THE CASE, IS A DIFFERENT MATTER. But before any party points out a finger at the other, the finger pointer should also see how many of his/her own fingers are pointed towards himself/herself. One ought not to stereotype the other. Your comments, please?!
Regards,
M.A. Ganju
Now, Mr. X returns to India