Absenteeism and Disciplinary Procedure
A company has a laid-down policy on absenteeism and disciplinary procedures concerning unauthorized absenteeism. This is a progressive policy aimed at educating and reforming the habitual absentee workman in a step-by-step manner. There are 21 steps involved in disciplining the absentee workman, which include, at the outset, counseling, followed by written advice, further followed by a written warning, and then punitive suspension ranging from one day to a maximum of four days (all in writing) for each successive act of unauthorized absenteeism unless a duration (gap) between the previous absence, for which the workman has been dealt with as per procedure, and the next incident of unauthorized absence exceeds three months.
That is to say, if the workman shows good attendance (without a single day of unauthorized absence) for three months after the last incident of absenteeism for which he would have been counseled, warned, or suspended, depending on the frequency between one action and the next, the management gives the absentee workman the benefit of being proceeded on the first step, viz counseling/warning, instead of taking his instance act of unauthorized absence cumulatively, leading to awarding him the extreme punishment of dismissal (after a formal domestic inquiry being conducted by an external Enquiry Officer).
Final Action and Legal Considerations
Following the aforesaid absenteeism and discipline policy, if the workman happens to get into the 21st action mode (wherein he has absented within three months after the last unauthorized absence, i.e., the 20th action mode involving suspension for four days as the last but one action), he will be issued a show cause notice as a precursor to a full-fledged domestic inquiry by an external enquiry officer in pursuance of the final action, i.e., dismissal from service (upon receipt of findings from the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of habitual unauthorized absenteeism).
The action mode triggers even if the unauthorized absence by the workman is for a single day. Here, the views/opinion required are whether it would be appropriate to dismiss a workman who happened to be found guilty of misconduct for indulging in one day of unauthorized absence, considering his habitual act of unauthorized absence (past record of attendance establishes the fact) as grounds for dismissal. Whether the action of management to dismiss his services would be tenable in a court of law if challenged. Of course, he is a confirmed workman.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
A company has a laid-down policy on absenteeism and disciplinary procedures concerning unauthorized absenteeism. This is a progressive policy aimed at educating and reforming the habitual absentee workman in a step-by-step manner. There are 21 steps involved in disciplining the absentee workman, which include, at the outset, counseling, followed by written advice, further followed by a written warning, and then punitive suspension ranging from one day to a maximum of four days (all in writing) for each successive act of unauthorized absenteeism unless a duration (gap) between the previous absence, for which the workman has been dealt with as per procedure, and the next incident of unauthorized absence exceeds three months.
That is to say, if the workman shows good attendance (without a single day of unauthorized absence) for three months after the last incident of absenteeism for which he would have been counseled, warned, or suspended, depending on the frequency between one action and the next, the management gives the absentee workman the benefit of being proceeded on the first step, viz counseling/warning, instead of taking his instance act of unauthorized absence cumulatively, leading to awarding him the extreme punishment of dismissal (after a formal domestic inquiry being conducted by an external Enquiry Officer).
Final Action and Legal Considerations
Following the aforesaid absenteeism and discipline policy, if the workman happens to get into the 21st action mode (wherein he has absented within three months after the last unauthorized absence, i.e., the 20th action mode involving suspension for four days as the last but one action), he will be issued a show cause notice as a precursor to a full-fledged domestic inquiry by an external enquiry officer in pursuance of the final action, i.e., dismissal from service (upon receipt of findings from the Enquiry Officer holding him guilty of habitual unauthorized absenteeism).
The action mode triggers even if the unauthorized absence by the workman is for a single day. Here, the views/opinion required are whether it would be appropriate to dismiss a workman who happened to be found guilty of misconduct for indulging in one day of unauthorized absence, considering his habitual act of unauthorized absence (past record of attendance establishes the fact) as grounds for dismissal. Whether the action of management to dismiss his services would be tenable in a court of law if challenged. Of course, he is a confirmed workman.
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Termination for Absenteeism: Legal Considerations
Termination for absenteeism at the first instance will boomerang if it is challenged. You have to build a record over a period, that is to say, take quarterly reviews of absenteeism and initiate action after the conclusion of a domestic inquiry. The first can be a warning, the second can be a one-day suspension without wages. Progress to 2, 3, and 4 days of suspension, all after conducting a domestic inquiry. If absenteeism still continues, suspend the employee for 4 more days, and then it is safer to terminate him as you would have followed the due course of the law. I know this is cumbersome, but it is the legally correct way to address absenteeism or other misconduct. Moving faster than this may cause harm.
Regards, Shrikant Prabhudesai
[Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(3)
Amend(0)
274Termination for absenteeism at the first instance will boomerang if it is challenged. You have to build a record over a period, that is to say, take quarterly reviews of absenteeism and initiate action after the conclusion of a domestic inquiry. The first can be a warning, the second can be a one-day suspension without wages. Progress to 2, 3, and 4 days of suspension, all after conducting a domestic inquiry. If absenteeism still continues, suspend the employee for 4 more days, and then it is safer to terminate him as you would have followed the due course of the law. I know this is cumbersome, but it is the legally correct way to address absenteeism or other misconduct. Moving faster than this may cause harm.
Regards, Shrikant Prabhudesai
[Email Removed For Privacy Reasons]
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(3)Amend(0)
Dear Sen,
Have you followed the due process of law as laid down in the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act/Certified Standing Orders of the company in issuing warnings, suspensions, etc., and built up proper records of actions taken?
If yes, you can proceed with the termination by following the proper process of conducting an inquiry by appointing an inquiry officer.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Have you followed the due process of law as laid down in the Industrial Employment Standing Orders Act/Certified Standing Orders of the company in issuing warnings, suspensions, etc., and built up proper records of actions taken?
If yes, you can proceed with the termination by following the proper process of conducting an inquiry by appointing an inquiry officer.
Warm Regards,
Bharat Gera
HR Consultant
9322404765
From India, Thane
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.
Disciplinary policy and procedure.doc
DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS PROCEDURE.xls