Is It Legal to Fire Someone After 3 Months Due to Background Check Issues?

Hello, I have a query regarding my friend's termination. He was terminated after he completed 3 months in the company, and the reason given was BACKGROUND VERIFICATION FAILED. Is it legal to terminate an employee after he completes 3 months in a company with the above reason? Please help.

Background Verification (BGV) Process

Background verification (BGV) is a process by which the employer checks the authenticity of the information the candidate provides at the time of joining. If the past salary particulars, period of past service, designation, reasons for leaving past employments, or past service record are found to be incorrect, the employer can terminate the service of the employee.

Some companies conduct BGV prior to the candidate's joining. However, many companies conduct it after the employee joins. The reason for this is that most companies outsource BGV to professional organizations, and there is a cost involved. If the employee doesn't join, the amount spent doesn't serve the purpose.

My suggestion to your friend is to introspect the reason for the BGV failure and correct it if he has provided any such information inadvertently. Generally, companies do not reveal the reasons for BGV failures.

Regards, M.V. Kannan

Background Verification and Employment Practices

Generally, companies do not reveal the reasons for background verification (BGV) failures. "BGV after joining"—don't you think it is a merciless and inhumane treatment, spoiling a person's career? How much has he/she struggled to break the competition? Why can't companies check before joining or before issuing the offer letter? I suggest approaching an advocate for this injustice. To make the BGV process transparent, the government should establish a government organization, and there should not be any other way for BGV. If mistakes are made, the candidate can go to court. This is just my view and proposal, not practical now.

Questioning Company Practices

After joining, asking to sign the appointment order with terms and conditions— which way is legally correct? The offer letter does not contain all terms and conditions. In the past, an offer letter with appointment order terms would be given. Upon joining, the signed order should be submitted. Will any corporate company sign a contract after starting work with only a few basic terms? Why do companies show partiality? Why do employees not insist on a government body to establish a fair recruitment process?

Regards

Reasons for Conducting Background Verification (BGV) After Joining

As indicated by me, the BGV process can, of course, be done before the candidate joins. However, companies are often unable to do this prior to the candidate's joining for the following reasons:

1. The prospective candidate supposed to join does not join for various reasons.

2. An employee working in the organization quits without giving the required notice period, creating pressure to fill the vacancy quickly.

3. The HR department may have time to fill the vacant position, but in the current scenario, they can't take chances and try to close the position as soon as possible.

4. The time taken for thorough BGV for one candidate is around 15 days.

These are the causes for conducting BGVs after the candidate joins.

If we fill a few vacancies a year with BGV before joining, it is feasible. However, when hundreds of candidates are recruited, it becomes impractical to do BGV beforehand, though I would still advocate for BGV before joining.

In my experience, we have encountered candidates who provide references of relatives, even though friends/relatives can't be given as references, incorrect past CTC data, incorrect past experience data, and masked breaks in service in their career.

If a candidate provides the right information, BGV is not a matter of concern. Challenging in court could lead to embarrassment as the BGV data will be made public. This is my opinion.

Regards,
M.V. Kannan