Dear Team,
I am sales manager in the pvt bank. Handling contractual sales team have right to approve leave.don’t have any financial right.now I receive termination letter from the bank due to absconding and not appear for the medical examination. I was on medical from the 17 nov 2014.I have all receiving for leave application and medical certificate. and i have receive one letter from my BH for the medical examination by the bank. I visited the bank on that day which is mention in letter and visit doctor clinic alongwith one branch staff . have a copy of dr. priscription. Request you to please guide me can I go in labour court or some were else.
Akhilesh
From India, Gurgaon
I am sales manager in the pvt bank. Handling contractual sales team have right to approve leave.don’t have any financial right.now I receive termination letter from the bank due to absconding and not appear for the medical examination. I was on medical from the 17 nov 2014.I have all receiving for leave application and medical certificate. and i have receive one letter from my BH for the medical examination by the bank. I visited the bank on that day which is mention in letter and visit doctor clinic alongwith one branch staff . have a copy of dr. priscription. Request you to please guide me can I go in labour court or some were else.
Akhilesh
From India, Gurgaon
Since you worked in establishment in gurgaon, you are governed by Punjab Shops and Estàblishment Act. Under section 22 thereof, if your termination is unreasonable then the Magistrate can set aside the removal order. Here you were terminated on the ground of absconding which is a misconduct. For proving absconding, inquiry should have been done by the employer, if it was a misconduct in the list of misconducts of the company. Since this does not appear to have been done challenge it before the forum under section 22 of the Act.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
221Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Under Shops and Establishment Act, generally advocate can represent employee unless they are barred under statute. Even under section 36(4) of the ID Act advocate can represent employee with the consent of opposite party and permission of court.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Dear all,
The complainant is mentioning his/her designation as Manager and hence, do not falls within the definition of worker who can go to the labour court / conciliation officer concerned. He/She has to prove him/her as "worker" only then the complaint can be entertained and conciliation process can be completed otherwise civil court is their and the decision will take long time.
P K Sharma
From India, Delhi
The complainant is mentioning his/her designation as Manager and hence, do not falls within the definition of worker who can go to the labour court / conciliation officer concerned. He/She has to prove him/her as "worker" only then the complaint can be entertained and conciliation process can be completed otherwise civil court is their and the decision will take long time.
P K Sharma
From India, Delhi
As pointed out by Sharma, you will not come under Shops and Commercial Establishments Act or Industrial Disputes Act because you have been handling a sales team, which means your nature of work has been supervisory in nature and would never fall under the protected class of workmen.
In a situation like this, rather than going for a battle, it is advisable to have an amicable settlement wherein the termination could be made as " relieved on request/ after resigning from service" and that will safeguard your career.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
In a situation like this, rather than going for a battle, it is advisable to have an amicable settlement wherein the termination could be made as " relieved on request/ after resigning from service" and that will safeguard your career.
Madhu.T.K
From India, Kannur
Mr. Sharma does not say that the queriest does not come under Punjab Shops and Establishment Act nor he can say so as the queriest falls under definition of employee and not under definition of employer. If the queriest can describe her nature of duties it can further be considered whether she can be considered as workman or not but at least she can seek remedy under the said provision of Shops and Establishment Act.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
First step for you is to serve a notice asking the reasons for such termination, one of the important right which you hold is the right to hear, since you imply that you weren't heard of the reasons. Once you serve a notice they are bound to reply. You shall need to mention clearly that you are being terminated, and other details, reasons (medical), and then ask them for either to take you back to compensate.
Most importantly, make sure your employment agreement does not give them the right to do so..... i mostly doubt, but sometimes they withhold the right to terminate without hearing or notice.......
you may either approach an advocate to serve a notice (you shall mention that if they fail to reply 15days you are bound to take legal action and approach the court) or you can send it by yourself through a registered post......
after serving the notice, you may contact us for further details........
From India, Bangalore
Most importantly, make sure your employment agreement does not give them the right to do so..... i mostly doubt, but sometimes they withhold the right to terminate without hearing or notice.......
you may either approach an advocate to serve a notice (you shall mention that if they fail to reply 15days you are bound to take legal action and approach the court) or you can send it by yourself through a registered post......
after serving the notice, you may contact us for further details........
From India, Bangalore
Since the queriest has already received termination letter which is prima facie illegal, asking for reasons thereafter from employer is not advisable because employer cannot be allowed to give reasons or improve reasons through counter affidavit or further reply see Apex court decision in Mohinder Singh Gill vs Chief election commissioner as followed in Renuka Kumari vs State of Jharkhand, decided on 19.11.2011 by Jharkhand HC.
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
Thanks
Sushil
From India, New Delhi
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.
Termination-emp loyment_563.pdf
Absence of Team Leader.doc