Long-term Daily Wager Caught Stealing: What Disciplinary Actions Are Appropriate?

If a daily wager who has been working in an institution for a long time, say 10 years, is caught engaging in unlawful activities such as theft, and is proven guilty following an inquiry, what kind of disciplinary action can be initiated against such an individual?

Dear member,

Principles of natural justice do not depend on the length of service or type of employment, such as permanent employment, probationer, or daily wager. If the appointed person was involved in misconduct and was found guilty in the inquiry, then he deserves suitable punishment. You may proceed with terminating his services.

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Dear Anonymous,

Please clarify whether the said daily wager is on your rolls or on the contractor's rolls. If he is on the contractor's rolls, the contractor should contemplate disciplinary proceedings, and you should be out of the scene.

Shailesh Parikh
99 98 97 10 65
Vadodara

How can you keep someone for ten years as a daily wager? It is outright illegal as they are entitled to all benefits applicable to permanent employees. While disciplinary action for misconduct is justified, the issue has to be seen from a compassionate angle regarding the mindset of someone denied justice for a decade with their aspirations ignored.

My views are as follows:

1. It is a valid point if he is a contractor's worker; you should act behind the scenes, and all actions should be seen to be taken by the Contractor.

2. There is nothing legally wrong with having a daily-rated worker on the roll for any length of time. (When you say daily wage earner, it means a daily-rated worker who is either paid daily or monthly.)

3. Before commenting on the punishment, I presume that the whole process of conducting a domestic enquiry/disciplinary action is done strictly in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

4. While deciding what is the appropriate punishment, one must take into account the gravity of the misconduct and past record. If the concerned worker has committed it for the first time and the theft is of a minor nature, then you may choose to award a lesser punishment like suspension without wages. If the theft proved is of a serious nature and he has committed the same or similar acts of misconduct in the past, then perhaps dismissal is deserved. But before passing the final order of dismissal, please ensure to issue a second show cause notice, legally well-drafted, requiring him to explain why the proposed action of dismissal should not be taken. If his explanation is unacceptable, then proceed to pass the order signed by the punishing authority.

Regards,
Vinayak Nagarkar
HR Consultant

Principles of Natural Justice and Disciplinary Control

The various views offered by the learned members based on the Principles of Natural Justice, the extent and authority of disciplinary control over contract labor, and the stigmatic practice of keeping a person on daily wages for a continuous stretch of 10 long years are fine and acceptable in tune with the dispensation of justice against the person indulging in acts of criminal misconduct.

Though the observation of our learned friend Mr. Nagarkar started from yet another but valid angle from the perspective of the engagement of daily wagers, he also finally subscribed to the view of taking formal disciplinary action according to the PNJ. Only at this point, I beg to differ in general as the post itself is devoid of complete details. Ten years might be the overall stretch of engagement of the individual as a daily wager. The work on which he was employed could be incidental and intermittent and not one performed by any regular employee of the organization, like that of loading and unloading of materials on their occasional arrival and dispatch. Therefore, my view is that awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal for the alleged serious misconduct after subjecting such a casual laborer, particularly if engaged on and off depending on the exigencies of incidental works, to a formal disciplinary action seems unwarranted. He can just be stopped by paying gratuity for the number of years during which he had completed the qualifying minimum service, or a criminal complaint could be filed against him with the police.

Inquiry and Disciplinary Action

If the inquiry mentioned to have been already conducted is just a discreet inquiry, the management may consider the above suggestion. If it is a formal inquiry as per the provisions of the Standing Orders, he can be dismissed forthwith while simultaneously serving a notice under section 4(6) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, forfeiting his gratuity if any.

Dear Colleagues, the query is about what is the appropriate punishment for the allegedly proved misconduct of theft by the daily wager and not the propriety of keeping the daily wager for ten long years in that capacity. In awarding punishment, there are legal and ethical dimensions. Ethical dimensions may prompt someone to take a lenient view and award a lesser punishment than termination or even let the delinquent leave the company without any blemish and resign from the job. But that is management's prerogative.

Here, the query appears to be to know what is the legally right punishment for the allegedly proven act of theft and not about the nature of employment whether daily wager or temporary or permanent. I offered my views confining largely to the query relating to the punishment part only.

Regards, Vinayak Nagarkar HR Consultant

Guidelines for Determining Punishment for Misconduct

For determining the quantum of punishment for an act of misconduct, please be guided by:

i) The provisions of the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the said worker, OR
ii) The provisions of the Codified Service Rules applicable to the said worker. The punishing authority needs to apply his/her mind, keeping in consideration the dictum of "proportionate punishment."

Procedure for Implementing Punishment

Once the quantum is decided, please adhere to the procedure involving:

a) Issuing a proposed punishment letter;
b) Seeking representation against the proposed punishment;
c) Considering the representation, if any, submitted while keeping the service record in mind; and
d) Awarding punishment.

Kritarth Team of Specialists - Workplace Disciplinary Action & Procedures

"Any act unworthy of employment constitutes an act of misconduct."

Dear colleague,

What Kritarth has stated regarding the quantum of punishment in the last two paragraphs, in my view, applies only to the punishment of dismissal and not for any lesser punishment.

Regards,

Vinayak Nagarkar HR-Consultant