As I understand, the employee has submitted her resignation and as per terms of her appointment she has given to the Company the required Notice and has agreed to serve out the said Notice Period.
The management, however, decides to accept her resignation with immediate effect and relieves also with immediate effect.
Under the circumstances the Company is obliged to pay her salary in lieu of the the shortfall in the Notice period.
Best Wishes,
Vasant Nair
From India, Mumbai
90The management, however, decides to accept her resignation with immediate effect and relieves also with immediate effect.
Under the circumstances the Company is obliged to pay her salary in lieu of the the shortfall in the Notice period.
Best Wishes,
Vasant Nair
From India, Mumbai
Normally notice of one or two months is insisted by the employer only to ensure that handing over of charge and smooth take over by new employee takes place.This notice period can be waived at the discretion of the management.Similarly employee has an option to either give notice or pay one/two month's pay in lie of notice as per terms of employment. If any employee give a notice of one month and it is accepted by the management, the term of employment comes to an end . Employee can claim wages only if it is a termination by the employer.Giving one month's notice is a requirement and acceptance of the resignation is management's prerogative. Of course one has to read the employment rules and more particularly the terms and conditions in the appointment letter to take a correct legal stand.
Gsrao
From India, Raurkela
Gsrao
From India, Raurkela
Hi,
Reply on the subject by Mr Shivshankaran is most appropriate and practically executable.
But the question is whether the employee has legal right to serve full notice period & get paid till the expiry or not?
Under Sec-30 of Delhi shops & Estd Act, 30 days minimum notice is required from both sides after completing 3 months in service.
The explanation of this section goes like that "If one party has served notice, the other party is not bound to bear the party serving notice till the expiry of notice."
In present case employee can be relieved as per the wish of employer on or before the expiry of notice and the employee can't insist on serving full notice period. (Dass Studios Vs RK Baweja, labour Court, Delhi, 1972 (1) ILR 856, Del HC)
However even in such a case it is always better to have a clear policy as per the law in terms of appointment or certified Model standing orders so as to avoid any dispute with the employee since every leaving employee is an ambassador of your company.
Regards
Vikas
From India, Mumbai
Reply on the subject by Mr Shivshankaran is most appropriate and practically executable.
But the question is whether the employee has legal right to serve full notice period & get paid till the expiry or not?
Under Sec-30 of Delhi shops & Estd Act, 30 days minimum notice is required from both sides after completing 3 months in service.
The explanation of this section goes like that "If one party has served notice, the other party is not bound to bear the party serving notice till the expiry of notice."
In present case employee can be relieved as per the wish of employer on or before the expiry of notice and the employee can't insist on serving full notice period. (Dass Studios Vs RK Baweja, labour Court, Delhi, 1972 (1) ILR 856, Del HC)
However even in such a case it is always better to have a clear policy as per the law in terms of appointment or certified Model standing orders so as to avoid any dispute with the employee since every leaving employee is an ambassador of your company.
Regards
Vikas
From India, Mumbai
This case is more then clear. Dont make games, pay her salary in the right hand and give her a fairwell. or let her to complet the notice period. nd u all r advised to ignore the advices of traditional ppl like tsawsnkaran, we should follow modern approches and we should be human friendly in order to utilize their resources in the v best interest of all orgs..
From United Arab Emirates, Dubai
From United Arab Emirates, Dubai
Farewell*..........................................................................................................................................
From United Arab Emirates, Dubai
From United Arab Emirates, Dubai
The employer cannot eat the cake and have it too when the terms of employment are reduced to writing. It cannot be that t he employer does not want to terminate the service of an employee to avoid notice pay and does not want to pay a month's wages to an employee willing to serve the notice period by accepting her resignation immediately. It cannot adopt "heads I win, tails you loose" policy. when there is written down policy. It will be opposed to principle of equity embeded in the contract and the courts may examine whether the action of the employer conforms to this principle. Therefore it is better to pay her a month's salry and as HR, it is always better to achieve a "win-win'' situation in employer-employee relationship.
B.Saikumar
HR & labour law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
B.Saikumar
HR & labour law Advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Plz don’t be philosophical. Quote hardcore facts and legal position. Rest is up to company to either follow it or discard it.
From India, Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
Ms. Rupawati
It is a fact that the concerned employee's intention was to resign w.e.f. 21st July,2012 only. In such a case if an employer intends to relieve such employee earlier, then the employer can accept her resignation from early date only after the concerned employee agree to get relieved from her service from the said date by giving her consent in writing. In this case, since the employer on his own accepted her resignation before her intended date of resignation, she is right in claiming pay for unexpired period of Notice. (There are number of judgments on this issue). The employer may withdrawn or modify the acceptance of resignation letter suitably and relieve her from service as per her resignation letter or from the early date if she agrees in writing.
Regards
SC Verma
From India, Chandigarh
It is a fact that the concerned employee's intention was to resign w.e.f. 21st July,2012 only. In such a case if an employer intends to relieve such employee earlier, then the employer can accept her resignation from early date only after the concerned employee agree to get relieved from her service from the said date by giving her consent in writing. In this case, since the employer on his own accepted her resignation before her intended date of resignation, she is right in claiming pay for unexpired period of Notice. (There are number of judgments on this issue). The employer may withdrawn or modify the acceptance of resignation letter suitably and relieve her from service as per her resignation letter or from the early date if she agrees in writing.
Regards
SC Verma
From India, Chandigarh
Mr.Vikas
If you have read my post/s with all the sincereity it deserves, you could have gauged that I did not talk of any phylosophy but spoke of rock bottom realty and hard hypocracy practiced on employees and which the courts would not approve of when cahllenged before them by an aggrieved employee. Probably you missed my reference to the principle of equity which is necessary to provide a balance to the contract between two parties, more so when the parties are unequal like a mighty employer and a job needy weak employee.This clearly is legal.You must also be aware that HR is a more a phylosophy than a bunch of rigid principles to be applied arbitrarily against an employee and that a 'win-win' approach is the cornerstone of a sound HR phylosophy which help organisations avoid industrial disputes and ensure industrial harmony and thus, saves the precious time and money of the organisations. A sound HR phylosphy is the hard core fact and needless for me to repeat here that what I said is a hardcore fact.
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Law advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
If you have read my post/s with all the sincereity it deserves, you could have gauged that I did not talk of any phylosophy but spoke of rock bottom realty and hard hypocracy practiced on employees and which the courts would not approve of when cahllenged before them by an aggrieved employee. Probably you missed my reference to the principle of equity which is necessary to provide a balance to the contract between two parties, more so when the parties are unequal like a mighty employer and a job needy weak employee.This clearly is legal.You must also be aware that HR is a more a phylosophy than a bunch of rigid principles to be applied arbitrarily against an employee and that a 'win-win' approach is the cornerstone of a sound HR phylosophy which help organisations avoid industrial disputes and ensure industrial harmony and thus, saves the precious time and money of the organisations. A sound HR phylosphy is the hard core fact and needless for me to repeat here that what I said is a hardcore fact.
B.Saikumar
HR & Labour Law advisor
Mumbai
From India, Mumbai
While I agree that she should get full notice pay, I do not agree with your contention that there is no rule of law that says agreement must be fair or equal to both sides. It is up to each person to decide what they will sign and onc signed they need to honor it.
Exception courts take is concerned with any term that requires the employee to work in circumstances of forced labour (like unnecessarily onerous bond) or a non compete clause that will result in the employee not getting a job in his area of specialization.
In case of things like notice period, if the appointment letter or for that matter the hr policy or terms of employment provides for termination on terms different from resignation, and the same has been signed or implicitly accepted, then it will stand in any court of law.
But please note that in case or the original poster, the appointment letter had no such clause allowing the company to terminate or relieve without full notice period
From India, Mumbai
Exception courts take is concerned with any term that requires the employee to work in circumstances of forced labour (like unnecessarily onerous bond) or a non compete clause that will result in the employee not getting a job in his area of specialization.
In case of things like notice period, if the appointment letter or for that matter the hr policy or terms of employment provides for termination on terms different from resignation, and the same has been signed or implicitly accepted, then it will stand in any court of law.
But please note that in case or the original poster, the appointment letter had no such clause allowing the company to terminate or relieve without full notice period
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Employee Salary file - India 2016 AB.xls
Employee Appraisal Form new.doc