On December 26, 2025, The Economic Times reported a story shared on Reddit by an employee who felt his attempt to resign turned into a punishment. He informed HR over a phone call about his intention to leave due to his inability to manage extensive travel and ongoing health issues. Within a day, he received an email from HR instructing him to report in person for a medical assessment by a company-approved doctor. He interpreted this as an attempt to complicate his resignation. He also alleged that his salary began getting delayed and new conditions were imposed. The employee, who was on probation and had been placed on sabbatical leave, stated that he had not signed an employment bond, notice period clause, or any formal acknowledgement binding him to extended service. He described a punishing commute and serious health symptoms, expressing his desire for pending salary and clean exit documents to focus on his recovery.
This kind of workplace story can discourage other employees from speaking up. The emotional message is clear: if you try to exit, the system may trap you. When salary becomes a lever, it is not just financial stress; it is psychological captivity. The forced-medical-assessment element adds another layer of fear: that your body will be used as a compliance weapon, that you will be labelled "unfit", that your exit will be delayed until you give up. The most corrosive part is the audience: every colleague watching learns what happens to someone who tries to prioritise health over demands. This is how toxic cultures replicate - not through speeches, but through consequences.
From a compliance perspective, wage payment is not a "nice-to-have". The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 contains clear expectations on timely wage payment, and it also contemplates prompt payment of earned wages upon termination by or on behalf of the employer. Even on probation, wages already earned are not optional. Separately, medical assessments should be tightly governed: role-relevance, consent/notice, confidentiality, and minimal data handling. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, health-related information is personal data and must be processed with clear purpose and safeguards; sloppy handling here is not just unethical, it is a future regulatory nightmare. For HR leaders, the control lesson is simple: resignation processes must be standardized and non-retaliatory. Design an exit policy where payroll cannot be "paused" as leverage, where medical checks (if any) are policy-based and documented, and where final settlement timelines are tracked like statutory compliance. Exits are where organisational character is most visible.
When a company makes exit painful, what is it really protecting - business continuity, control, ego, or fear of precedent - and what does that do to the moral credibility of HR?
What guardrails would prevent "salary as leverage" and "process as punishment" during resignation - auto-triggered Full and Final (F&F) timelines, escalation to an ombudsperson, documented medical-assessment rules, or external audit of exits?
This kind of workplace story can discourage other employees from speaking up. The emotional message is clear: if you try to exit, the system may trap you. When salary becomes a lever, it is not just financial stress; it is psychological captivity. The forced-medical-assessment element adds another layer of fear: that your body will be used as a compliance weapon, that you will be labelled "unfit", that your exit will be delayed until you give up. The most corrosive part is the audience: every colleague watching learns what happens to someone who tries to prioritise health over demands. This is how toxic cultures replicate - not through speeches, but through consequences.
From a compliance perspective, wage payment is not a "nice-to-have". The Payment of Wages Act, 1936 contains clear expectations on timely wage payment, and it also contemplates prompt payment of earned wages upon termination by or on behalf of the employer. Even on probation, wages already earned are not optional. Separately, medical assessments should be tightly governed: role-relevance, consent/notice, confidentiality, and minimal data handling. Under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, health-related information is personal data and must be processed with clear purpose and safeguards; sloppy handling here is not just unethical, it is a future regulatory nightmare. For HR leaders, the control lesson is simple: resignation processes must be standardized and non-retaliatory. Design an exit policy where payroll cannot be "paused" as leverage, where medical checks (if any) are policy-based and documented, and where final settlement timelines are tracked like statutory compliance. Exits are where organisational character is most visible.
When a company makes exit painful, what is it really protecting - business continuity, control, ego, or fear of precedent - and what does that do to the moral credibility of HR?
What guardrails would prevent "salary as leverage" and "process as punishment" during resignation - auto-triggered Full and Final (F&F) timelines, escalation to an ombudsperson, documented medical-assessment rules, or external audit of exits?