Ethical Dilemma in HR: How Should We Handle Employee Absence Due to Family Health Crisis?

Employee's Absence and Ethical Dilemma

An employee rushed into the cabin after a long absence from work. His face was pale, and upon asking about his whereabouts and the reason for his absence, he replied that his wife was suffering from kidney failure, which was discovered in a recent medical scan. He then asked for help from the organization as he was enrolled in ESIC. We tried our best, but ESIC couldn't assist since his contribution periods were not sufficient for this level of treatment. He then went on leave, and we assured him that we would help him to the best of our ability.

We processed one and a half months of his salary despite his absence. Now, we face an ethical dilemma: we can't hold him in the role for a long time, and we had to take him off the role. At the critical moment of the F&F process, we are in a dilemma about whether to process him as absconded, given that we have processed his salary without data, or if we should forge data and process him as resigned. What else can be done?

Sympathetic Approach and Employee Support

Your sympathetic approach is commendable, and so is your effort to find a middle ground to help the employee. If you opt for the F&F settlement, the employee will certainly have money to meet immediate needs, but these are his life earnings. Once it is exhausted, he will be left without resources. However, treating him as present would set a bad precedent and could be misinterpreted in less genuine cases.

As the situation is genuine, one alternative is to allow him an advance credit of leave covering his absence so that he receives the money he urgently needs, while the organizational interests remain uncompromised. The statement that 'We tried our best but ESIC couldn't since his contribution periods were not enough for this level of treatment' is factually incorrect. The ESI Act only envisages two situations: either the contribution has been paid or not paid as per the salary earned during the relevant contribution period, but the treatment is not linked to the amount of contribution made.

Dear KK!HR,

Thank you for your comment and alternative ideas. They will be very useful in future situations. To provide clarification on ESIC, as per ESIC norms, they require a minimum of 2 years of contributions, which should be made over 4 consecutive contribution periods. The requirement is based on the contribution period, not the amount being paid. In this particular case, the employee had only contributed for 1 year, which equals 2 consecutive periods. Therefore, the employee did not qualify for higher medical attention.

Please let me know if you need any further information or clarification.

Thank you.