Dear Friends,
I would like to know a few things. If someone can reply, please do so. If someone is forced to resign not because of any fault of his own but because he, as an HR person, raised his voice for justice in a particular company where there are lots of anomalies in the application of rules and the labor department is solely focused on money, kindly suggest what actions, as an HR professional, you may take other than sacrificing your job.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
2I would like to know a few things. If someone can reply, please do so. If someone is forced to resign not because of any fault of his own but because he, as an HR person, raised his voice for justice in a particular company where there are lots of anomalies in the application of rules and the labor department is solely focused on money, kindly suggest what actions, as an HR professional, you may take other than sacrificing your job.
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First, management should understand what the HR is trying to say. If HR raises its voice, it is for the management's benefit and growth, not for personal savings. Anyhow, you can talk to your management again with all the reports to explain the purpose for which you have raised your voice and clarify the benefits. Even after explaining the benefits, if they insist that you resign, there is no option but to comply.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Raising voice by HR for a management cause is not a reasonable cause to terminate. There is no need to resign. Pl specify nature of your organisation and in which State you are working. Thanks Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is not the job of HR to get "justice" done for the employees. That would be the job of the trade union or the welfare officer mandated under the Factories Act. This is the reason why the welfare officer rules are there and they cannot be removed from their job.
The job of the HR department is to protect the interests of the company by ensuring that employees are motivated, discipline is maintained, attrition is reduced, and employees have long-term loyalty to the firm. The most important function is to insulate the company from loss on account of labor disruption.
So first, get your job and purpose clear.
If you feel the company is doing something wrong, you need to analyze the impact on the long-term survival of the firm, legal issues that can crop up, and how it will affect the owners and management. Once that is done, you should try and convince the management of the benefits of being compliant, fair, and in line with best practices.
If you cannot convince, then you need to do what the management wants you to do, short of unethical action (e.g., promising something that is not going to be approved). If you can't do that, then you should look for a company that is more in line with your expectations and ethics.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The job of the HR department is to protect the interests of the company by ensuring that employees are motivated, discipline is maintained, attrition is reduced, and employees have long-term loyalty to the firm. The most important function is to insulate the company from loss on account of labor disruption.
So first, get your job and purpose clear.
If you feel the company is doing something wrong, you need to analyze the impact on the long-term survival of the firm, legal issues that can crop up, and how it will affect the owners and management. Once that is done, you should try and convince the management of the benefits of being compliant, fair, and in line with best practices.
If you cannot convince, then you need to do what the management wants you to do, short of unethical action (e.g., promising something that is not going to be approved). If you can't do that, then you should look for a company that is more in line with your expectations and ethics.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is the duty of the HR Head to keep the industrial atmosphere in good shape for smooth production and achievement of fixed targets. Redressal of employees' grievances is also part of HR responsibility, not of the Labour Union President. He is only the instrument for raising matters. First of all, convince the management of the pros and cons of the issue and put forward your views. Good management will always adhere to your views. In case they do not agree with your views, then it will be up to you either to dance to the tune of management or find some other alternative.
N.K. SHARMA
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
N.K. SHARMA
From India, Chandigarh
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From what I understand of the post, it's not settlement of grievance but HR taking up the demand for "Justice" that has caused the termination. HR is a part of the management and has to toe the management line. Being responsible for maintaining industrial peace and being knowledgeable in the subject, HR often raises points before the management of where their policy is wrong and how it can affect the long-term effectiveness of the organization. But HR cannot fight for justice of workmen. That is what the union is there for, that is what the welfare officers are appointed for. Unless, of course, the action is so blatantly illegal that it affects the ethics of the person in HR. I assume that has not happened. So, I would still say HR is out of line if he is fighting for justice. (As different from bringing to management's notice what is wrong and suggesting that they should change)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Banerjee,
You are right that HR is there to save the interest of the company by maintaining discipline, attrition, and so on. However, you also mentioned that HR is there to sort out long-term gain if a company is not looking after its own employees and does not have an ethical approach. How will it achieve long-term gain where human assets are the most important assets of any organization, and HR is there to look after them.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You are right that HR is there to save the interest of the company by maintaining discipline, attrition, and so on. However, you also mentioned that HR is there to sort out long-term gain if a company is not looking after its own employees and does not have an ethical approach. How will it achieve long-term gain where human assets are the most important assets of any organization, and HR is there to look after them.
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Vinod Venu,
You have mentioned quite a few things in your query. What is the main issue:
Is it asking for justice and raising your voice in favor of employees?
Is it the anomalies in the implementation of rules/laws and chasing by the labor department?
Is it termination of HR for raising its voice for employees?
First of all, the issue has to be clear.
In my opinion, the role of the HR dept. is two-way. It is a bridge between employees and employers. HR communicates Management's views and expectations to employees. HR is also supposed to communicate concerns of employees to Management. Union comes up when employees are aggrieved and Management fails to look after employees.
HR has to act keeping in view the real issue.
If the real issue is anomalies in the implementation of labor laws/rules and consequent trouble by the labor dept., then HR should study the anomalies and their impact on the company/business, and sensitize the management accordingly.
If the issue is injustice with employees, then HR has to understand what the injustice is and how it is impacting the employees. Is it happening due to the ignorance of the Management or this is Management's style and strategy of running the company. Are employees coming to HR with grievances or HR has taken it as a self-proclaimed responsibility? Here the issue has to be handled with tact, diplomacy, and sensitivity. Ultimately HR has to support the Management to run the business as ethically as possible.
If HR acts after due diligence of the matter and communicates with the Management in a responsible and tactful manner, I do not think an HR person will be terminated for putting the issues on the table.
If none of these approaches is workable, then you may be in the wrong place and should look for a company where alignment of your personality with the company culture is possible.
All the best to you.
Indu Wadhwa
Founder & Principal Consultant
Aspiring People
Mobile: 09811513715
Email: indu.wadhwa@aspiringpeople.in
Website: www.aspiringpeople.in
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You have mentioned quite a few things in your query. What is the main issue:
Is it asking for justice and raising your voice in favor of employees?
Is it the anomalies in the implementation of rules/laws and chasing by the labor department?
Is it termination of HR for raising its voice for employees?
First of all, the issue has to be clear.
In my opinion, the role of the HR dept. is two-way. It is a bridge between employees and employers. HR communicates Management's views and expectations to employees. HR is also supposed to communicate concerns of employees to Management. Union comes up when employees are aggrieved and Management fails to look after employees.
HR has to act keeping in view the real issue.
If the real issue is anomalies in the implementation of labor laws/rules and consequent trouble by the labor dept., then HR should study the anomalies and their impact on the company/business, and sensitize the management accordingly.
If the issue is injustice with employees, then HR has to understand what the injustice is and how it is impacting the employees. Is it happening due to the ignorance of the Management or this is Management's style and strategy of running the company. Are employees coming to HR with grievances or HR has taken it as a self-proclaimed responsibility? Here the issue has to be handled with tact, diplomacy, and sensitivity. Ultimately HR has to support the Management to run the business as ethically as possible.
If HR acts after due diligence of the matter and communicates with the Management in a responsible and tactful manner, I do not think an HR person will be terminated for putting the issues on the table.
If none of these approaches is workable, then you may be in the wrong place and should look for a company where alignment of your personality with the company culture is possible.
All the best to you.
Indu Wadhwa
Founder & Principal Consultant
Aspiring People
Mobile: 09811513715
Email: indu.wadhwa@aspiringpeople.in
Website: www.aspiringpeople.in
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
What I feel, his job is to do his job properly. In all cases, HRs are not the decision-makers but the proposers. He should work closely with the company's legal team, and any anomaly towards implementation should be formally presented before the management as prospective exposure for the company and its impact on the company, both from a legal and financial point of view. If such a presentation fails to grab the attention of the management, then HR has no way available other than to implement the faulty process.
In my opinion, HRs are the key persons between the management and the staff. Hence, doing anything other than his job means he is not doing it properly. In case of any wrongdoing done by the management, then it should be answerable before the court. HR is in no way responsible to do justice but to make the best use of any worst situation. However, that's what I feel.
From India, Tumkur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In my opinion, HRs are the key persons between the management and the staff. Hence, doing anything other than his job means he is not doing it properly. In case of any wrongdoing done by the management, then it should be answerable before the court. HR is in no way responsible to do justice but to make the best use of any worst situation. However, that's what I feel.
From India, Tumkur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
HR manager is responsible for compliance with various labor laws. If, at the behest of an employer, he makes false entries in the register of employees and shows a lesser number of employees to benefit the employer and cause losses to employees, he is responsible for facing prosecution. For example, under section 14 of the EPF Act, the words "whoever" makes false representation will be liable for imprisonment for one year. Thus, the HR manager, being responsible for finalizing the list of covered employees, will have to face the consequences. Similarly, under the Shops and Establishment Acts, if he makes false entries in registers, he will be prosecuted. For instance, under the Bombay and Delhi Acts, the words used are "manager" and "person," respectively, for such provisions. The law does not provide him protection to claim that the employer forced him to do so. Neither under the IPC can such a defense be taken. In today's era of Right to Information (RTI), things cannot remain hidden regarding true affairs. An aggrieved employee will, someday, fight for his rights, and then only will the manager be caught. In such a situation, if the HR wants to raise his voice for justice or protect his position or the interests of management, sacrificing his job is not necessary because in some State Shops and Establishment Acts, such termination will be set aside.
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In continuation of my above post of 16th Feb 2015, which has unfortunately been converted into Anonymous and the next reply is not visible to me, I wish to add that under sections 76 to 79, IPC, it is no defense to carry out unlawful orders of one's superior, vide Rathi v State (CBI) decided by Delhi High Court on 18th September 2009. Thus, HR should not carry out illegal and unlawful directions of superiors which may later entail him into prosecution even if he has left the company.
Thanks,
Sushil
Sushilkluthra@gmail.com
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks,
Sushil
Sushilkluthra@gmail.com
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is learned that a query intended to know the ruling about forced resignation. It is settled that forced resignation is illegal termination, but it has to be pleaded and proved that the resignation was forced because of undue influence, force, coercion, etc. Please see the decision in The Management of Madura Coats vs. Presiding Officer decided in 2010.
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Further in the thread "Harassment by the previous employer after leaving the job," I have extracted the relevant passages of an Allahabad High Court decision in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce v SM Chopra decided in 1999. In the said case, it was proven how resignation was extracted by coercion.
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Shushil,
You have put in some important perspectives. However, the original poster has not bothered to tell us what the real situation is or replied to anything we have put. So we are all left shooting in the dark now.
However, I would like to thank you for the additional info given.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You have put in some important perspectives. However, the original poster has not bothered to tell us what the real situation is or replied to anything we have put. So we are all left shooting in the dark now.
However, I would like to thank you for the additional info given.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for acknowledging new thoughts. I have tried to illustrate how, in real practice, an innocent HR professional can be put in dangerous situations that leave a lasting scar. Every action should be well thought out, considering its pros and cons; otherwise, experts should be consulted.
Never mind the original thread because, in pursuing this discussion, we are given the opportunity to research these issues and perspectives for the benefit of mankind.
Thank you,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Never mind the original thread because, in pursuing this discussion, we are given the opportunity to research these issues and perspectives for the benefit of mankind.
Thank you,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think many of us write on the forum in hope that someone will read the thread later and benefit from the details we post. Unfortunately, I find that most people simply post again instead of trying to read the earlier threads.
With regard to the origin of the post, I find that he wrote the words - raising voice for justice, not pointing out compliance issues to the board. When you point out compliance matters, refuse to sign, or object to being asked to sign wrong documents, it would be different. It would not be a question of raising voice for justice. However, your points are important to anybody working in HR, and that has not changed.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
With regard to the origin of the post, I find that he wrote the words - raising voice for justice, not pointing out compliance issues to the board. When you point out compliance matters, refuse to sign, or object to being asked to sign wrong documents, it would be different. It would not be a question of raising voice for justice. However, your points are important to anybody working in HR, and that has not changed.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The use of words in the original post by him, where he raised points regarding justice and the labor department, suggests that the enforcement machinery is prioritizing money over true facts. His protest for justice implies that the system may not be considering the genuine issues at hand and may be influenced by monetary concerns. The concept of justice encompasses ensuring that the names of excluded individuals, who are entitled to benefits under the law, are included. It also involves safeguarding his interests.
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks,
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First of all, it is not clear what injustice happened? To whom? Any employee or HR itself?
Secondly, raised voice means what exactly done by you? Which resulted in your termination.
All are replying only considering some injustice happened and voice raised. But, without clarity of the entire scene, no one can give proper and exact advice on it.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Secondly, raised voice means what exactly done by you? Which resulted in your termination.
All are replying only considering some injustice happened and voice raised. But, without clarity of the entire scene, no one can give proper and exact advice on it.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In this site we should not insist for revealing identity of a queriest as to whether he is himself victim or speaking on behalf of other. Particularly we have to keep in view that if he is an HR he is a white collar employee which category does not come out with nitty gritties of complaint easily because this forum is not to adjudicate upon issues but give broad guidelines so that the queriest may take appropriate decision after we are able to render any assistance to him. Queriest has spoken in a precise manner that there are anomalies in rule applications and labour department is just behind money. A reasonable person can deduce the real problem behind the screen. We cannot expect this category of person to reveal minutely the violations or anomalies especially when read with the following words thereafter. Raising voice is nothing but protesting against something which one does not feel like chewing. The following words in query are extracted:
“ voice for justice, in the particular company. There are lots of anomaly in the rules applications and labour department is just behind money”
Sometimes advice is sought on limited issues and not on entire gamut of scenario. We should not shirk to help except on our terms, subject to revealing everything. The narration of whole scenario will ultimately has to be done by a queriest before an Advocate or court. We are not adjudicators.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
“ voice for justice, in the particular company. There are lots of anomaly in the rules applications and labour department is just behind money”
Sometimes advice is sought on limited issues and not on entire gamut of scenario. We should not shirk to help except on our terms, subject to revealing everything. The narration of whole scenario will ultimately has to be done by a queriest before an Advocate or court. We are not adjudicators.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Join Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
TAMIMI LAbor LAw.pdf