Can HR force to serve full notice period?

Hi,

My friend is working in a company where he has to serve a three-month notice period. In his offer letter, it's mentioned that a notice period buyout option is available when both parties agree to this. He resigned with the expectation of an early release and intended to serve a one-month notice period, ready to buy out the remaining two months.

Even though he was released from the project after serving one month's notice period and is currently not assigned to any project, HR is insisting that he serve the remaining two months of the notice period. Is it legal for the HR to demand the employee to serve the remaining notice period even though he is willing to buy it out and has been released from the project?

Please let me know if you need further assistance or have any questions.

Dear member,

You have written that "In his offer letter, it's mentioned that the notice period buyout option is available when both parties agree on this."

The important point in the above sentence is "When both parties agree on this". Therefore, if either of the parties does not agree, then the other party cannot grumble.

Nevertheless, more than a legal issue, the internal situation in your friend's company matters more. Why does HR not agree to release your friend early even though he is not involved in any project? Why does the company wish to retain a non-billable resource forcefully even when that resource is ready to separate? There appears to be something more than meets the eye. In most companies, HR is not empowered to make such decisions. They simply execute the decisions. Therefore, let your friend find out who is shooting from the shoulders of HR?

Thanks,

Dinesh Divekar

Hi Dinesh,

Thank you so much for your suggestions. Is there anything we can do legally if someone is engaging in such politics? Your guidance will be very helpful. Please let me know your opinion.

Hello, the answer is a simple no. Separations are governed by the terms in the appointment letter, and it is at the discretion of HR to relax them or waive them for you. There is no other perspective to this; it is fairly simple.

If a notice period in full is required to be served, please serve it, despite the business needs to be on or off a project. It is completely up to an employer to waive the notice period. A buyout for a sum of money is not the deciding factor here, of course.

Practical advice: please set up a meeting with your Reporting Manager and HR to discuss the possibility of an early release. This will give you an idea about the expectations and conditions for your release from the company, from both sides.

Thank you.

In addition to what has been stated by the learned members, one thing should not be lost sight of – HR has to ensure uniformity in dealings, or they may resort to discouraging separations. If there is a policy or decision on not accepting buyout requests, it has to be universally applied. Otherwise, every person to whom it is applied would cry hoarse and feel unfairly treated. This aspect needs to be appreciated in that light.

As far as legality is concerned, the clause in the offer letter stating that the notice period buyout option is available when both parties agree implies that the employee has no vested right to insist on availing the buyout option.

Hello,

If an employee has agreed to a 3-month notice period, he has to honor it. The language of the appointment or offer letter works both ways. Even if the company wants to terminate the services of the employee, the company has to keep him employed for 3 months. The company cannot pay him for 3 months and dismiss him instantly. The clause applies to both the employer and the employee equally. The choice of pay in lieu of notice is an option if both parties agree.

The best approach will be for the employee to maintain good relations with the employer and negotiate an early release.

Vibhakar Ramtirthkar, Pune.

Hello,

This is a tricky situation.

First things first, no company can force employees to serve a full notice period. But, as you mentioned, your friend has already agreed to the company policy that the notice period buyout option is available when both parties agree on this. Therefore, in such a scenario, he has no other option but to serve the remaining notice period.

For the uninitiated, once employees agree to such vital things written briefly in the appointment letter or offer letter, they are bound to follow it.

Here, communication is the only key. Your friend should reach out to his manager or the HR department and try to convince them. Needless to say, this is not going to be easy. So, ask him to have lots of patience until he gets his work done.

Hope this answer helps your friend.

Also, learn more about [How To Stop Candidates From Backing Out During the Notice Period](https://hrone.cloud/stop-candidates-from-backing-out-during-notice-period)?

Hi Sir,

I need to add one clause in the offer letter regarding notice periods. In the event that an employee is deemed unfit for our organization during the probation period, we reserve the right to terminate the employment without a notice period.

Could you please provide guidance on how to properly phrase this in the offer letter? Your suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Hi,

Serving the entire notice period is entirely a prerogative in the hands of the employer, which they can use either in the interest of the company or, in some cases, to harass the employee, which is purely unethical. It all depends on employee-employer relations. Value-driven organizations do not hinder employees' career prospects, and their relieving is done as per the individual's choice. However, the best approach is to amicably handle such situations as the employee is always at a disadvantage.

Organizations with transparent and robust systems deal with it more practically.

JSM