Dear All members,
I want to present to you a scenario that is currently prevailing in XYZ company these days. The Director hires people for multiple tasks, and when he finds that these resources are not yielding good returns, without any notice, he calls for a meeting and, without inquiring about the issue, says, "You are terminated w.e.f....".
He thinks he can hire and fire resources at his own will. He has not even issued any advisory notes or show-cause notices to the employees. He directly gives a termination letter and puts pressure on them to deliver the task on time to be relieved at the earliest.
The situation is worsening day by day, but the director seems to be unaffected by all these things.
My query is, how can an employee fight this situation? Can the employees sue the employer in the court of law? If yes, how can they proceed? What supporting documents must they have?
Regards,
Revathi
From India
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
2I want to present to you a scenario that is currently prevailing in XYZ company these days. The Director hires people for multiple tasks, and when he finds that these resources are not yielding good returns, without any notice, he calls for a meeting and, without inquiring about the issue, says, "You are terminated w.e.f....".
He thinks he can hire and fire resources at his own will. He has not even issued any advisory notes or show-cause notices to the employees. He directly gives a termination letter and puts pressure on them to deliver the task on time to be relieved at the earliest.
The situation is worsening day by day, but the director seems to be unaffected by all these things.
My query is, how can an employee fight this situation? Can the employees sue the employer in the court of law? If yes, how can they proceed? What supporting documents must they have?
Regards,
Revathi
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello friend,
You have raised a very relevant and important issue. I do not have an authoritative answer to your question. However, I feel that such behavior can be taken to a court of law. However, an individual employee has very little strength to go to court. He needs to earn and support his family - he is not in a position to fight for justice.
In the market economy and capitalist society, these are the evils that one has to probably accept. For example, this is how we, as common citizens, behave with a servant maid in our house - one fine morning we decide to terminate the services - we have no time to listen to her side of the story. The same is the case with other companies too.
One more point is that such an organization will not be able to achieve sustainable growth as people are working under tremendous pressure and may fear termination for no reason.
Of course, some legal experts will be able to advise on how to go about it in courts - who will have the strength and energy to fight the battle.
Regards,
Nishikant
From United States, Greensboro
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You have raised a very relevant and important issue. I do not have an authoritative answer to your question. However, I feel that such behavior can be taken to a court of law. However, an individual employee has very little strength to go to court. He needs to earn and support his family - he is not in a position to fight for justice.
In the market economy and capitalist society, these are the evils that one has to probably accept. For example, this is how we, as common citizens, behave with a servant maid in our house - one fine morning we decide to terminate the services - we have no time to listen to her side of the story. The same is the case with other companies too.
One more point is that such an organization will not be able to achieve sustainable growth as people are working under tremendous pressure and may fear termination for no reason.
Of course, some legal experts will be able to advise on how to go about it in courts - who will have the strength and energy to fight the battle.
Regards,
Nishikant
From United States, Greensboro
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Revathi Just one question before I answer In what way you are connected w2ith this company?????? Answer this Then I may thrfow some light Siva
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Good Morning SiVa, My brother is working in the same company. as well as the HR of that company is my batchmate. Regards, Revathi
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Revathi,
I strongly support your view that the Director is wrong and warrants stern action, but who will bell the cat. If the Boss is bad, why don't people walk out or seek other opportunities and keep moving. If resources move in and out continuously, no boss can show his performance.
One wild question: are people tolerating the guy because the company is paying remunerations far exceeding the market? Legally, you would be able to do very little as he is only asking you to perform the duties at a peak performance level all the time.
Look out for opportunities and ditch the guy when he needs you the most.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I strongly support your view that the Director is wrong and warrants stern action, but who will bell the cat. If the Boss is bad, why don't people walk out or seek other opportunities and keep moving. If resources move in and out continuously, no boss can show his performance.
One wild question: are people tolerating the guy because the company is paying remunerations far exceeding the market? Legally, you would be able to do very little as he is only asking you to perform the duties at a peak performance level all the time.
Look out for opportunities and ditch the guy when he needs you the most.
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
Is it not awful to note that still such bad examples of Theory X exist? 😱 Such individuals may do well for a short time, but history is replete with such bosses meeting their nemesis sooner or later.
I personally know a case where a CEO was a terror in a large manufacturing company. 😈 He used to derive a lot of pleasure in embarrassing others, particularly middle-level executives and individual workmen. He would very liberally use abusive language. One day he found a small group of workmen gossiping just outside the workplace. He went and shouted at the workmen, using all expletives. They were in a group and were not working since there was no electricity inside the block. Unable to accept that he was in the wrong, the boss demanded the gate pass of the workmen. Soon the whole group threw their gate passes on his face. (He used to take the gate pass of any workmen found loitering in the shop and would make them run from pillar to post to get the pass back). In no time, more workers joined, and more than 200 passes were flung at him. They all cornered him and demanded an apology for the abusive language. He had to be rescued from that tight situation by the security personnel, and that was the last time he went to the shop floor. Shortly thereafter, he was transferred from this unit, and a major embarrassment was averted.
The learning from the incident is that one could be a real tiger while dealing with an individual worker or a helpless executive. But one day, he will become too audacious and get into trouble. Then nobody can save him.
In the present situation, the workmen have a legal remedy. A workman having crossed 240 days of service cannot be just thrown away like that. Unless the procedure of disciplinary action is taken, the termination would be viewed as retrenchment, and he would get reinstatement with full back wages. The law is very clear on this. You can get in touch with a legal expert on labor matters for more details.
Regards,
KK Nair 😄
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Is it not awful to note that still such bad examples of Theory X exist? 😱 Such individuals may do well for a short time, but history is replete with such bosses meeting their nemesis sooner or later.
I personally know a case where a CEO was a terror in a large manufacturing company. 😈 He used to derive a lot of pleasure in embarrassing others, particularly middle-level executives and individual workmen. He would very liberally use abusive language. One day he found a small group of workmen gossiping just outside the workplace. He went and shouted at the workmen, using all expletives. They were in a group and were not working since there was no electricity inside the block. Unable to accept that he was in the wrong, the boss demanded the gate pass of the workmen. Soon the whole group threw their gate passes on his face. (He used to take the gate pass of any workmen found loitering in the shop and would make them run from pillar to post to get the pass back). In no time, more workers joined, and more than 200 passes were flung at him. They all cornered him and demanded an apology for the abusive language. He had to be rescued from that tight situation by the security personnel, and that was the last time he went to the shop floor. Shortly thereafter, he was transferred from this unit, and a major embarrassment was averted.
The learning from the incident is that one could be a real tiger while dealing with an individual worker or a helpless executive. But one day, he will become too audacious and get into trouble. Then nobody can save him.
In the present situation, the workmen have a legal remedy. A workman having crossed 240 days of service cannot be just thrown away like that. Unless the procedure of disciplinary action is taken, the termination would be viewed as retrenchment, and he would get reinstatement with full back wages. The law is very clear on this. You can get in touch with a legal expert on labor matters for more details.
Regards,
KK Nair 😄
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, Prashant, for providing hope on the legal side.
Thanks, Aslam, people are exploring other options, but due to working long hours (10-14 hours a day), they struggle to find time to search for something better.
Regards,
Revathi
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks, Aslam, people are exploring other options, but due to working long hours (10-14 hours a day), they struggle to find time to search for something better.
Regards,
Revathi
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Section 66 - Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948: No employer shall dispense with the services of an employee who has been in his continuous employment –
(a) for not less than a year, without giving such person at least thirty days notice in writing, or wages in lieu of such notice;
(b) for less than a year but more than three months, without giving such person at least fourteen days notice in writing, or wages in lieu of such notice;
Provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employees are dispensed with for misconduct –
(a) absence from service without notice in writing or without sufficient reasons for seven days or more;
(b) going on or abetting a strike in contravention of any law for the time being in force; and
(c) causing damage to the property of his employer
Note: Termination of an employee without notice is bad in law and therefore workman entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service with back wages (N L Mehta Cinema Ent. Pvt Ltd v. Vijay G Shivgan & Ors 1988 I CLR 416 Bombay High Court)Section 52(f) - Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948: If any establishment there is any contravention of any section, rule or order for which no specific punishment is provided in this Act, the employer and manager shall, on conviction, each be punished for each offence with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees and which may extend to five thousand rupees
Section 2(50) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
Thanks & regard
Sayed Iqbal
Excel Consultancy Services
Email:support@excelconsultancyservices.co.in
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
(a) for not less than a year, without giving such person at least thirty days notice in writing, or wages in lieu of such notice;
(b) for less than a year but more than three months, without giving such person at least fourteen days notice in writing, or wages in lieu of such notice;
Provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employees are dispensed with for misconduct –
(a) absence from service without notice in writing or without sufficient reasons for seven days or more;
(b) going on or abetting a strike in contravention of any law for the time being in force; and
(c) causing damage to the property of his employer
Note: Termination of an employee without notice is bad in law and therefore workman entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service with back wages (N L Mehta Cinema Ent. Pvt Ltd v. Vijay G Shivgan & Ors 1988 I CLR 416 Bombay High Court)Section 52(f) - Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948: If any establishment there is any contravention of any section, rule or order for which no specific punishment is provided in this Act, the employer and manager shall, on conviction, each be punished for each offence with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees and which may extend to five thousand rupees
Section 2(50) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
Thanks & regard
Sayed Iqbal
Excel Consultancy Services
Email:support@excelconsultancyservices.co.in
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Revathi
Section 66 - Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948: No employer shall dispense with the services of an employee who has been in his continuous employment –
(a) for not less than a year, without giving such person at least thirty days notice in writing, or wages in lieu of such notice;
(b) for less than a year but more than three months, without giving such person at least fourteen days notice in writing, or wages in lieu of such notice;
Provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employees are dispensed with for misconduct –
(a) absence from service without notice in writing or without sufficient reasons for seven days or more;
(b) going on or abetting a strike in contravention of any law for the time being in force; and
(c) causing damage to the property of his employer
Note: Termination of an employee without notice is bad in law and therefore workman entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service with back wages (N L Mehta Cinema Ent. Pvt Ltd v. Vijay G Shivgan & Ors 1988 I CLR 416 Bombay High Court)
Section 52(f) - Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948: If any establishment there is any contravention of any section, rule or order for which no specific punishment is provided in this Act, the employer and manager shall, on conviction, each be punished for each offence with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees and which may extend to five thousand rupees
Section 2(50) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
Thanks & regard
Sayed Iqbal
Excel Consultancy Services
Email:support@excelconsultancyservices.co.in
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Section 66 - Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948: No employer shall dispense with the services of an employee who has been in his continuous employment –
(a) for not less than a year, without giving such person at least thirty days notice in writing, or wages in lieu of such notice;
(b) for less than a year but more than three months, without giving such person at least fourteen days notice in writing, or wages in lieu of such notice;
Provided that such notice shall not be necessary where the services of such employees are dispensed with for misconduct –
(a) absence from service without notice in writing or without sufficient reasons for seven days or more;
(b) going on or abetting a strike in contravention of any law for the time being in force; and
(c) causing damage to the property of his employer
Note: Termination of an employee without notice is bad in law and therefore workman entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service with back wages (N L Mehta Cinema Ent. Pvt Ltd v. Vijay G Shivgan & Ors 1988 I CLR 416 Bombay High Court)
Section 52(f) - Bombay Shops & Establishments Act, 1948: If any establishment there is any contravention of any section, rule or order for which no specific punishment is provided in this Act, the employer and manager shall, on conviction, each be punished for each offence with fine which shall not be less than one thousand rupees and which may extend to five thousand rupees
Section 2(50) - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947: Dismissal, etc., of an individual workman to be deemed to be an industrial dispute. Where any employer discharges, dismisses, retrenches or otherwise terminates the services of an individual workman, any dispute or difference between that workman and his employer connected with, or arising out of, such discharge, dismissal, retrenchment or termination shall be deemed to be an industrial dispute notwithstanding that no other workman nor any union of workmen is a party to the dispute.
Thanks & regard
Sayed Iqbal
Excel Consultancy Services
Email:support@excelconsultancyservices.co.in
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you, Shyed, for providing the details.
How can an employee demonstrate that no domestic enquiry for any misconduct has been conducted thus far?
Alternatively, how can employees prove that it is solely at the employer's discretion to terminate an employee whom the employer deems unsatisfactory in performance?
Regards,
Revathi
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
How can an employee demonstrate that no domestic enquiry for any misconduct has been conducted thus far?
Alternatively, how can employees prove that it is solely at the employer's discretion to terminate an employee whom the employer deems unsatisfactory in performance?
Regards,
Revathi
From India
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.
Legal Clarification on Non-Performer Termination, Project Based Appointment Letter, Setting UP .pdf