Confused About Notice Period and Confirmation After Probation – Need Clarity on Contract Terms

Hi, I need to ask regarding my contract. I joined my company, and after four months, my boss is asking for my resignation. This has been the third time, but now I am not interested in continuing my services. My contract states:

"You will be on probation for a period of three months from the date of joining. If you have been considered suitable for the post for which you are appointed, you shall be confirmed. Either party can terminate the contract of employment wherein the employer shall serve one month notice before probation and three months notice after probation."

Confusion Between Contract Clauses

I am a bit confused between two clauses:

1. After three months, am I automatically confirmed, and how much notice period do I have to give as I have not received any confirmation letter?

2. Even though there is no clause that the employee has to give the notice period instead.

Please, can I get clarity on the paragraph mentioned below:

"The contract has a line: Either party can terminate the contract of employment wherein the employer shall serve one month notice period before and three months notice after probation."

From the provision, it is clear that there is no automatic confirmation. Since there is no confirmation order, you are continuing to be on probation. There is no notice period for the employee.

In most companies, confirmation needs to be communicated in writing, as many benefits accrue only to confirmed and permanent employees. However, in this case, it is likely that HR will claim you are confirmed so they can enforce a 3-month notice period. You should then stand your ground.

In your resignation letter, you can specifically state that you are resigning due to the behavior of your manager or because he asked you to do so. Who knows, they may not even require a notice period if they do not wish to retain you in the company.

Confirmation of Successful Completion of Probation

Confirmation of successful completion of the probation period should be in writing, unless there is an explicit clause of deemed confirmation in the contract of employment or service regulations. In the case at hand, both are absent. Therefore, if the individual resigns either voluntarily or due to indirect employer compulsion, they must serve the 3-month notice period without exception.

Discrepancy in Notice Period

Although the discrepancy in the notice period is not justifiable, it is not advisable to engage in a legal battle over this at present, considering the questioner's future interests.

Requesting Waiver or Reduction in Notice Period

If the employer persists in demanding immediate resignation, the individual can request, in writing, a waiver or reduction in the notice period from the employer beforehand.

If there is no letter of confirmation and there is no clause of implicit confirmation, why would he be required to do a 3-month notice period?

Dear Saswat,

In the above post, it seems the poster may have failed to provide the exact notice clause. It is clear that he is still a probationer and, as such, might have been asked to serve only a one-month notice period, hence no necessity for any grievance. However, his current question of inequality at the point of his frustrated resignation suggests the existence of such a clause even while on probation.

I think you'll agree with me that the notice clause on unilateral termination of employment in the contract is a gray area, escaping legal injunctions in India except for the provisions of sec.25-F of the ID Act, 1947, IE(SO) Act, 1946, and most other establishment-specific labor laws like State S&E Acts. This virtually leaves the matter to the discretion of the employer, who is always the superior party to the contract. Of course, the principle of equity demands equality in such terms in cases beyond such legal restrictions. However, the employer can justify it on the grounds of costs related to recruitment and training. Thus, in any case, it becomes an unequal fight if legally agitated by the employee, whose resignation in most cases is for better alternative employment only. That's the gist of my above observation.