Absence or Absconding? Seeking HR Advice on Handling Unnotified Employee Absences

As per company policy, any employee who is absent for more than 3 days without prior notice is termed as an absconding employee. However, the initial 3 days are marked as LOP. Should those days be entered as Absence days or LOP days? And if the employee doesn't return to work, should he be considered absconding from the 1st day of absence or the 4th day of absence? Need advice from HR professionals. Thanks in advance.

1st day of absence would be reckoned as the starting point in this case.

---
The corrected text includes proper grammar and spelling. The sentence is clear and concise.

So if we run the Absconding action in the system from the first day of absence, would we still stand compliant when we state one if called absconded from the 4th day of uninformed absence?

---
So, if we initiate the Absconding action in the system starting from the first day of absence, would we still be considered compliant if we declare someone as absconded from the 4th day of unexplained absence?

To my mind, if an employee has been absconding for 10 days, it will not be treated as 3 LOP and 7 days of absconding. They will lose their pay for all 10 days, in addition to facing disciplinary actions as per company policy.

The absence is to be treated from the day of absence, i.e. the last attendance. If the employee is absent without information or due to some other reasons, the total period of absence is to be treated as absconding, and lawfully, they will lose pay for the entire period. As per the rules of your organization, being absent for up to 3 days does not amount to misconduct, and any excess calls for action. In cases where the period of absence is continuous, the period should be calculated from the first day itself.

I think Abhishek is more interested in how to mark the non-attendance of the employee. "LOP" is the effect of unauthorized absence only. You simply mark him as "absent". In such a situation, he will not be entitled to salary for the entire period of absence, apart from facing disciplinary action, if any instituted.

I have a difference of opinion. The rule states that any employee who is absent for more than three days without prior notice is termed as an absconding employee. Therefore, the presumption of absconding would start counting only after three days, and it cannot be prior to that. I agree that generally, the presumption of abandonment would start from the first day of absence, but here the company policy specifies that the initial three days are to be marked as LOP - Loss Of Pay. Thus, to give a treatment other than LOP would not be in accordance with the rules. Although LOP is the same as absence in terms of effect, if there is a clause for the presumption of loss of lien, the start day has to be the fourth day, and the initial three days cannot be counted. Therefore, the proper course would be to treat those days as LOP days, and if the employee doesn’t return to work, he should be considered absconding from the fourth day of absence.

I recollect that the court has held that in counting the days of absence for drawing the presumption of abandonment, the weekly holidays cannot be counted, and only the working days can be reckoned.

KKHR

If he joined back after days, it would be okay. But if he doesn't join back, counting has to start from Day 1. Think about it logically.

But Nathrao Sir, here the rule is specific and it does not provide for counting absence from day 1. The first three days are Leave Without Pay (LOP) only, which means it is not considered as absence in itself. I have explained the logic in my previous reply.

Dear Mr. KK! HR, At times, logic can be misleading too. Please analyze the opening statement of the thread, which is extracted below:

"As per Company Policy, any employee who is absent for more than 3 days without prior notice is termed as an absconding employee."

It actually means any number of days of consecutive absence without prior notice beyond 3 days would be treated as abscondment of service by the absenting employee. It implies that up to the third such day it is unauthorized absence, but consecutively beyond it, the entire absence becomes absconding. In other words, the absence of the first three days just results in the loss of wages only, but when it goes beyond day three, the unauthorized absence from day one merges with the abscondment in effect.

I agree with the interpretation that, as a general rule for presuming abandonment, the presumption starts from the first day of absence (read: first working day). Since the rule is very specific that the first three days would be treated as LOP, the question remains as to what treatment could be given to the three days of LOP where the absence exceeds the said three days.

Here, we also have to see the intention of absconding from work, which arises only after three days of absence. So, this is a qualifying pre-condition and hence such a condition could not be treated as a substantive one.

Sir, as you are aware, the courts frown upon the presumption of abandonment and have repeatedly held that mere absence alone would not justify the presumption of abandonment, and the Principles of Natural Justice have to be read into it. The rule of three days of absence rendering presumption of abandonment, you would agree, is harsh and inequitable. Having faced a lot of difficulties in warding off the challenge against the presumption of abandonment with 30 days of absence, I would advise a cautious approach.

Your point is well taken, Mr. KK! HR. Yet, here, the discussion is not about the justifiability of the rule but its application only. In general usage, the term "abscond" would mean leaving suddenly without any intimation and remaining untraceable. In the realm of employment, it is considered the most unprofessional and unethical way adopted by any employee to separate from the organization in breach of the contract of employment.

Absence from duty

Absence from duty up to a consecutive period of 3 days without intimation can be initially treated as mere unauthorized absence, which could be authorized after submission of a leave application for any eligible leave, including Leave on Loss of Pay, later on rejoining duty on the 4th day. Thus, the break in the continuity of service of the employee is averted. However, continued absence without any intimation beyond 3 days, as per the rule, enables the employer to arrive at a negative presumption of abscondment and take appropriate action.

Therefore, logically, the abscondence takes effect from the first day of such unauthorized absence only. That's why and how the absconding cases baffle the HR fraternity when they culminate in disciplinary action.