Terminated for Asking About Notice Period: What Are My Rights and Next Steps?

Hi guys, I have a question and need the correct guidance. I have been working for a US-based company in Chennai, and they have suddenly terminated my contract. Here is the reason mentioned: "You inquired about relieving and notice period procedures, and you felt 60 days is certainly huge; hence, we want to inform you that you can be relieved immediately and are no longer employed with xxx from your current position."

This happened just because I inquired about the notice period procedures with HR. In my offer letter, the notice period mentioned is 30 days, and since I heard the new rule is 60 days, I walked up to HR to confirm, and after a couple of days, I was terminated. This decision was conveyed over an email, and it also mentions that I am entitled to the salary for the current month.

What should I do? What do the labor laws state? Please help me before it is too late.

Understanding Termination and Notice Periods Under the Industrial Disputes Act

There is a provision in the Industrial Disputes Act that an employee can be terminated only after giving some days of notice. It is 30 days in the case of establishments employing less than 100 workers and 90 days in the case of establishments having more than 100 workers. Therefore, whatever happened to you is unfair and illegal. However, if you have been working in a supervisory capacity with supervisory functions, then you can be terminated as per the contract of employment. Again, if the appointment order/contract of employment suggests a notice period of 30 days but you were asked to go immediately, then there is also an illegality, like a breach of contract. You can file a civil suit against the employer for that breach of contract and wait at least for 30 years for a verdict to come from the court.

The Consequences of Inquiring About Changes in Service Conditions

Your act of rushing to the HR Manager's cabin to inquire about the change in the service condition (notice period changed from 30 days to 60 days is a change in service condition which can be made only after issuing 21 days' notice as per section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act) should have sounded like an act of taking collective bargaining leadership. You should have been provoked by the others. Finally, what happened? You have lost a job, and all others who kept silent remained in their office. Now the moral of the story is don’t make any decisions so quickly, especially when you are working like a slave of the US capitalists.

Discussing Concerns with HR

But what is wrong with discussing something with the HR department of an organization? HR is in the company to resolve the issues of employees, and employees can share their concerns with HR related to any new or existing rule or policy. The thing that happened to you is wrong. You should speak to your HR and higher officials in a humble way. If nothing good happens, then go for legal action if the contract has no hidden clauses in favor of employers. In every contract, there is a clause for termination as well; you can refer to that also.

Thanks

Termination of a contract employee can only be in terms of the contract. Any violation of contractual terms can legally be questioned in a court of law.

As learned member Madhu stated, legal remedies are long and tortuous. While you spend from your pocket, the company will spend from the company's account, and there is no certainty that you will win. They appear to have given you 30 days' pay.

I suggest you move on and not waste money and resources fighting in court.

Thank you, Madhu, Smonika, and Nathra.

Madhu's Perspective

Madhu: I have been employed by them for over 8 months. This conversation happened casually and was not a formal meeting. The HR is an approachable individual, and I just dropped this question. She conveyed the details to the CEO to confirm the new rule of 60 days or more. I was not provoked, and I am wondering if the others are still not aware of it.

Smonika's Insight

Smonika: I agree with this suggestion, but the entire organization is under the thumb of the CEO. He was Indian, now settled in the US, and takes decisions in the blink of an eye. Speaking to HR, I have already done that, and they are helpless. I requested to get in touch with the CEO, but he is not responding to my calls.

Nathra's Concern

Nathra: I get the point, and I do not have any financial background or time to deal with this trouble in court. Moving on is the only option a middle-class person has. But I am wondering if there is a law that I could mention to get paid for a month or two of salaries from them. It will take some time until I get my next job, and that will have a ripple effect on my family. Do we have a labor law that I can mention in my email to convey a strong response, which might help in getting my additional month's salary and prevent this from happening in the future?

Thank you, guys.

As suggested by me, just move on. Any law you quote will not make the company change. They are aware that individuals cannot spare time and resources to fight battles in courts. It would be better to move on and look for jobs. Not that I recommend bending against injustice, but being practical as money will be spent on legal battles, and that will be more than 2 months' salary.

Understanding Labor Law Implications

The first part of my reply addresses labor law. Certainly, if you had been working in the capacity of a worker, you could quote the relevant sections of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, I would not advise you to do so, considering the HR climate of the country and the way in which employer associations are functioning. This enables them to obtain information about an employee like you.

In this scenario, if you try to demand an extra month's pay or decide to ensure the safety of other employees by teaching the management a lesson through legal action under the ID Act, you may struggle to find employment elsewhere. Therefore, it is better to maintain a good relationship with the management and resign, so that at least HR can assist you when reference verification is required in the future.

Case Study: Employee Termination After Audit

Need your inputs on the following case study: A company, following an observation from an audit, suspected four employees and made them stay away after withdrawing electronic gadgets and accessibility. They were informed that their salaries would continue to be credited until the forensic audit was completed. After four months, they were terminated without being given any audit findings or reasons. Subsequently, the company also asked another four to five employees to leave, stating either they resign or face termination. Among these, a few employees were very loyal to the company and didn't want to jeopardize their careers, so they chose to resign. Do these employees have any options to defend themselves? Or can they file a case against the company?