Q:I joined a reputed international banking organisation on March 1, 2005, as a senior executive. Unfortunately, I met with an accident on June 2, 2005 during my duty hours. I was crushed between two cars and suffered serious injuries. Eventually, my physical problems worsened and there were allegations about my performance and work attitude. I was forced to resign from the organisation on July 16, 2005. I got discharged from the hospital in March 2006 but was advised complete bed rest till August 2006. In August, I submitted my Provident Fund withdrawal request. The company in question is an equal opportunity employer but things were not the same in my case. I want my job restored but am not too keen on legal action. What options do I have?
Name withheld
A:There is an Act of Parliament called Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act 1995. Under the provisions of that Act, no establishment will dispense with or reduce in rank an employee who acquired a disability during his service. However, an establishment is defined as a statutory corporation or an authority, body or company owned or controlled by the government. Your ex- employer doesn’t appear to be an ‘establishment’ within the meaning of that Act. Hence, you may not be able to take benefit of the provisions of that Act. However, you may consider making a representation to the state co-ordination committee constituted under that Act which may use its good offices to try and get back your job. The bank you worked for appears to be in the private sector and hence the government would have little control over it. If your appeal to the good conscience of your employer fails, you will have to approach the court or labour Tribunal. Even there you may only succeed if you can establish that there is a clear policy in the company of granting equal opportunity to persons with disabilities and the same formed part of your service conditions and that the company is refusing to restore your job in breach of such policy.
Q:I was working with a public limited company for the last five years. My appointment letter provided for termination of this contract by either party by giving one month’s notice. On October 25, 2006, I tendered my resignation with effect from December 1, 2006. Thereafter, the HR department of the company issued a circular stating that the notice period for all employed had been increased from one month to three months with retrospective effect from October 1, 2006. However, the company is demanding two months’ pay and is withholding the final settlement (which includes one and a half months’ salary) and my release letter. Can a company change the terms of appointment unilaterally and with retrospective effect? Is the demand for notice pay justified? What is my remedy?
Prasupta Sen
A:The company couldn’t have unilaterally changed the notice period with retrospective effect particularly after you have served that notice. As such, the demand for notice pay isn’t justified. It does not appear that you can take recourse to the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. I would advise you to make a detailed representation to the company and sort out the matter amicably. Otherwise, you will have to approach the civil court by way of a suit, which is generally a long drawn process entailing substantial litigation expenses.
Send your letters to Inlaw at The Telegraph,
Jobs Desk, 6 Prafulla Sarkar Street,
Calcutta 700001;
or fax at 225 3142;
or send e-mails to jobs@abpmail.com.
