I fully agree with Anil, this is a wrong HR practice and not as per law of land. Tariq Pervaiz HR HEAD YKK PAKISTAN
From India, New Delhi
1From India, New Delhi
Dear professional colleague,
The policy of deducting Rs 2000/- towards security deposit every month and returning the same after completion of one year as a retention measure can be debatable. Let us not question the wisdom of the policy makers as the same appears to have been successfully practiced for past three years. The real question is whether the company has the system of communicating the same well before accepting the offer or not. In the instant case, company had informed this policy and the candidate had accepted the same at the time of accepting /joining. Therefore his turnaround is unacceptable and company's action of termination is justified.
The question of legality like whether the Payment of Wages Act is applicable or whether it is unauthorised dedication will differ from individual to individual and can be examined but to jump to conclusion will not be appropriate.
Similarly, the view that the HR should raise voice against the policy by putting his foot down is impractical and unwise particularly when the same has worked well except for the instant employee.
Regards.
V.L.Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
The policy of deducting Rs 2000/- towards security deposit every month and returning the same after completion of one year as a retention measure can be debatable. Let us not question the wisdom of the policy makers as the same appears to have been successfully practiced for past three years. The real question is whether the company has the system of communicating the same well before accepting the offer or not. In the instant case, company had informed this policy and the candidate had accepted the same at the time of accepting /joining. Therefore his turnaround is unacceptable and company's action of termination is justified.
The question of legality like whether the Payment of Wages Act is applicable or whether it is unauthorised dedication will differ from individual to individual and can be examined but to jump to conclusion will not be appropriate.
Similarly, the view that the HR should raise voice against the policy by putting his foot down is impractical and unwise particularly when the same has worked well except for the instant employee.
Regards.
V.L.Nagarkar
HR-Consultant
From India, Mumbai
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.
China Rules On Terminating An Employee.docx
Mah Shop & Est (RECS) Rules 2018.pdf