Hello,
Could you please provide me with information on any laws against companies that take advantage of a recession by laying off employees, even if the company is not or will not be affected by the recession?
My friend works in the manufacturing sector for a partnership company that is not impacted by the recession. Despite this, they are exploiting the situation by terminating employees with only one month's salary.
I would appreciate your prompt advice on this matter.
Regards,
Shalini Nair
9833357339
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
5Could you please provide me with information on any laws against companies that take advantage of a recession by laying off employees, even if the company is not or will not be affected by the recession?
My friend works in the manufacturing sector for a partnership company that is not impacted by the recession. Despite this, they are exploiting the situation by terminating employees with only one month's salary.
I would appreciate your prompt advice on this matter.
Regards,
Shalini Nair
9833357339
From India, Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Labor laws are enacted to protect sweated labor. However, many of these Acts, or at least some provisions of many Acts, are applicable only to establishments employing 10, 20, 50, or 100 employees. There is a provision in the Industrial Disputes Act not to retrench employees, but such provision is not applicable to an establishment in which not more than 50 employees are working. The issue is that such an establishment is a tiny organization that requires protection.
Financial loss is not a genuine reason for retrenchment. There are provisions in the ID Act that state financial loss cannot be considered a sufficient ground for closure under circumstances beyond the control of the employer.
Recession may be temporary, but retrenchment is a permanent action by the employer. When the recession ends and the employer is prepared to resume work, can they expect to retain the same human resources? No, if the human resource is not retained, it will be lost, and future employers will struggle to find suitable labor. It is with these considerations in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and similar enactments are made. However, during a period when the economy boomed, and employees had substantial earnings, they seemed to forget about these Acts and their importance. This was particularly evident in the case of IT sector employees who viewed themselves as "professionals" rather than "laborers." They reacted negatively when a survey was conducted to analyze the relevance of labor laws to them. Now, they have begun forming trade unions.
The initiative should come from the State, whether Central or state government. Employers who retrench employees without following the provisions of the ID Act should face penalties. However, how is this possible when the democracy in place has a parallel business structure where many of our elected representatives are shareholders? Additionally, how is it feasible when trade unions are controlled by politicians who have shares and financial interests in the same companies?
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Financial loss is not a genuine reason for retrenchment. There are provisions in the ID Act that state financial loss cannot be considered a sufficient ground for closure under circumstances beyond the control of the employer.
Recession may be temporary, but retrenchment is a permanent action by the employer. When the recession ends and the employer is prepared to resume work, can they expect to retain the same human resources? No, if the human resource is not retained, it will be lost, and future employers will struggle to find suitable labor. It is with these considerations in mind that the Industrial Disputes Act and similar enactments are made. However, during a period when the economy boomed, and employees had substantial earnings, they seemed to forget about these Acts and their importance. This was particularly evident in the case of IT sector employees who viewed themselves as "professionals" rather than "laborers." They reacted negatively when a survey was conducted to analyze the relevance of labor laws to them. Now, they have begun forming trade unions.
The initiative should come from the State, whether Central or state government. Employers who retrench employees without following the provisions of the ID Act should face penalties. However, how is this possible when the democracy in place has a parallel business structure where many of our elected representatives are shareholders? Additionally, how is it feasible when trade unions are controlled by politicians who have shares and financial interests in the same companies?
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear,
In case your friend is terminated and cannot find an alternate job providing equal remuneration, he is free to challenge such termination by raising an Industrial Dispute.
With Regards
E-mail: rajanassociates@eth.net
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In case your friend is terminated and cannot find an alternate job providing equal remuneration, he is free to challenge such termination by raising an Industrial Dispute.
With Regards
E-mail: rajanassociates@eth.net
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)CiteHR is an AI-augmented HR knowledge and collaboration platform, enabling HR professionals to solve real-world challenges, validate decisions, and stay ahead through collective intelligence and machine-enhanced guidance. Join Our Platform.
Employee What to do during recession.ppt