Is Blocking Access During Notice Period a Termination? Seeking Guidance on Compensation Eligibility

Hi seniors, requesting your guidance on this particular case. An employee was advised to proceed with a transfer, for which he expressed his inability, citing domestic issues (his mother passed away recently). He was asked to submit his papers verbally if not proceeding with the transfer. Accordingly, he submitted a resignation letter in which he promised to continue during the notice period, which is 3 months (or compensation in lieu) as per terms. After 2 days, his email was blocked, and his permit was withdrawn, making the office premises inaccessible to him. Does this amount to termination? He demanded compensation in lieu of the notice period, which the company denies. Is he eligible to receive the compensation? Please guide.

I would suggest that people specify the side they are representing, whether from the employer's perspective or the employee's perspective, when posting questions. This way, we can provide a more targeted and accurate response, addressing what is right or wrong in that particular context.

For blocking of mail, the employer can cite different issues, including IT errors/problems. However, if the employee is denied entry into the premises, it will be considered a refusal of employment, equivalent to termination, which can be challenged under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is better from the employer's perspective to pay the notice and complete full and final settlement as per the law to end the matter on a smooth note.

Employer's Prerogative and Employee's Rights in Transfer Situations

As a transfer is an incidence of service, the employer has the prerogative to decide when, where, and for how long an employee has to work based on the exigencies of work. Therefore, the personal inconveniences, if any, to be experienced by the employee in this regard are generally immaterial. However, it cannot be a colorable exercise of power on the part of the employer and specifically create a situation entailing impossibility of compliance on the part of the employee as well.

A son cannot be indifferent in the matter of performing certain traditional rites relating to the obsequies of his beloved mother. When such a reason was cited by the employee for his inability to comply with the orders of transfer, the response of the employer asking him either to comply or to resign his job forthwith only shows his insensitivity and nothing else. Instead, the employer could have kept the orders of transfer in abeyance for some time.

However, when the employee chooses the inevitable option of resignation, serving the notice period of three months, the acts of immediately blocking his email and withdrawing the permit of access to office premises are neither legal nor ethical. Since the post is silent about the formal acceptance by the management of the resignation, the presumption is illegal denial of employment only. So, it is a case of termination of employment at the instance of the employer, and therefore, the employee is entitled to reinstatement or compensation in lieu thereof. The modus operandi is dependent on his status, i.e., whether a workman or otherwise.

The employee termination appears as a hasty decision by the management. The details provided indicate that this could lead to a potential legal process, which would only benefit the employee.