No Tags Found!

sujiitmishra
I joined a Indian software MNC in July 2010. The company offer letter had a clause that "If an employee does not produce the copy of his/her passport within a year, his/her probation will be extended". There was one more clause in my offer acceptance document. It stated that "if the employee does not have a passport, the employee will bear the cost of background check that will be performed in lieu of passport".

My passport application got stuck and I could not get it by August, 2011 (which was the end of stipulated probation period). The latter clause of "background verification in lieu of passport" was invoked. But a problem occurred. The probation was extended but the payment was reduced. there was a component that had to be paid ONLY during probation period. It was eliminated in the extended probation period. I contested that if the probation is extended, the same payment should be continued or the organization should clarify my designation/status in the organization. the reduced pay did not conform to any policy, neither did it correspond to any designation. I left the organization finally in January, 2013 but kept sending them mails. They never replied with any significant policy or any substantial logic. they just paraphrased my query. I have explained all the further details in the attachment.

My point is to challenge the contradiction between the two clauses mentioned in the first paragraph and making a point to stop the organization from reducing my payment. That is:

I. If the background verification was done and my background was found clear, I should have been confirmed.

II. Even if I was not confirmed and my probation was extended, the same payment should have been extended.

I want to send a legal notice now. But I would like to understand this from a collaborative perspective so as to be sure that this really is a case. Adding to it, the authorities are shying away from giving any substantial reply. One of the very senior authorities told me to avoid documented communication and work on a "let be gone, be by gone" basis. I have serious doubt if he is really my well wisher or he is just avoiding any legal aspect.

Any lead will be greatly appreciated. In case, it happens to be a legal issue. Thanks!

From India, Bangalore
Attached Files (Download Requires Membership)
File Type: docx Case_General_Description.docx (13.2 KB, 51 views)

Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.





Contact Us Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2024 CiteHR ®

All Copyright And Trademarks in Posts Held By Respective Owners.