Harish
03 November 2017 at 08:37
Hi All,
I have been working with software company for past 3 years ,currently i have resigned and serving notice period which will end in few weeks.
I have come to known that company have 6 months policy to clear the fnf post last working day which is huge time period compared to other company's .
Also the company have history of not paying the fnf towards ex employees within the deadline even though they have taken regular follow up.
So my question to experts is : Can i demand for fnf settlement written letter from employer stating the pending due that company owns me ?
If company refuse to give such letter then what are my options?
Nandini R. Bhatkar
02 November 2017 at 17:35
Sir i have filed an application to frame preliminary issue that whether the applicant is labour or not. Said aaplication is allowed by the court and now the matter is fixed for hearing on preliminary issue and i have file an affidavit i.e. examination in chief. Please guide what would be the contents of said affidavit. I have already filed my written statement. Please guide.
seshadri vikrala
02 November 2017 at 11:46
HONOURABLE SIR SENDING THIS MATTER WITH A GREAT EXPECTATIONS THAT YOU HAVE TIME TO READ IN SEQUENCE BUT NOT TO DISCARD PLEASE.
IN RAILWAY BOARD RPF THERE ARE TWO TYPES OF ENTRY INTO GROUP A CADRE SERVICE SELECTION PROCESS...
DIRECT UPSC SELECTION PROCESS AS ASSISTANT SECURITY COMMISSIONER,RPF, THEY GET THEIR NEXT HIGHER RANK PROMOTION ON COMPLETION OF THREE YEARS CONTINUOUS SERVICE AS ASC. REMAINING,EAR MARKED QUOTA, FIRST PHASE, THEY SELECT INSPECTORS TO ASC POST, KEEP QUITE ON DPCs, MAKE THEM AS AD HOC ASCs to work for several years. ACTUALLY
40/50% SELECTION PROCESS IS TO BE DONE THROUGH DPC/UPSC, WHICH IS DONE NOT BEING CARRIED OUT BY RAILWAY BOARD RPF AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE LAW,THE RULES, JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, BUT THEY CONDUCT DPCs AT EASE AS PER THEIR CHOICE. IN RPF DIRECTORATE,DG,RPF IS FROM IPS CADRE SERVICE RANK OFFICERS ON DEPUTATION AND COULD NOT SUCCEEDED IN SET RIGHTING THE INSIDE VICIOUS CYCLE IN CONDUCTING DPCs IN TIME SCHEDULE BY TRYING TO GET FACTUAL INFORMATION ON RECORD... NOT A SOLUTION WAS SOLVED SO FAR AT HIS OPENNESS DIRECTIONS AND ORDERS SO FAR.. ALL CASES DECIDED BY COURT ORDERS ALSO NOT HONOURED EXCEPT ONE CASE WHEREIN, THEY IMPLEMENTED HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE WP FILED BY ONE BHUPATHI ALIAS B. MOHAN, THE SLP FILED BY THEM DISMISSED.. HEREIN THE CRUX OF THE LAW RULES AND SPECIFIC JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS COMES THROUGH.. THEY GAVE DEEMED PROFORMA, PRESUMPTIVE PROMOTION TO ALL RETIRED SA GRADE DSCs to DIG SCALE OFFICERS, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE NOT PETITIONER S IN THE WP, LEAST ,THEY DID NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR DEEMED PROMOTION ORDERS AT PAR WITH JUNIORS BEFORE SUPERANNUATION, THEREBY, ALL THE RETIRED SA GRADE OFFICERS IN RPF WERE GIVEN PENSION FIXATION BENEFITS AT PAR WITH JUNIORS...HERE , THE SAME IS OUTRIGHTLY REJECTED BY RAILWAY BOARD RPF...
DEPARTMENT PROMULGATED RULES BUT ALMOST KEPT ASIDE IN THIS MATTER.
THEY GIVE PROMOTION TO INSPECTORS/GROUP A CADRE SERVICE RANK AS ASCs/GROUP A CADRE POST...JUNIOR ADMIN SCALE...NO GROUP B CADRE POST S IN RPF SINCE 1983...
THE ATTACHMENT OF LITIGATION IS THAT THE ADHOC SYSTEM CONTINUANCE GOES ON AND DEPARTMENTAL ASCs WITHOUT REGULARISATION RETIRE,THEN COMFORT MIND DEVELOPMENT IS THE CRUX OF THE DAY,YEAR, RPF CONDUCT DPC ,ALL PREVIOUS YEARS VACANCIES ARE FILLED WITH JUNIORS IN THE PLACE OF SENIOR S..
BY THE TIME... THIS STOP GAP FILLING UP OF PROMOTEES AS ADHOC ASCs CONTINUES BY RAILWAY BOARD RPF WITHOUT HOLDING TIME SCHEDULE DPCs, SAY 2-5YEARS , DIRECT ASCs SHALL GET THEIR NEXT HIGHER RANK PROMOTION SA GRADE, AS DSC, BY VIRTUE OF VACANCY,SAME DECLINED TO DEPARTMENT ASCs ONLY ON PLEA THAT THEY ARE ON ADHOC HENCE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR ACTUAL PROMOTION...
THIS CAPTIONED POSITION IN RAILWAY BOARD RPF IS GOING ON SINCE DECADES,
ALL EFFORTS MADE LOST IN THE WIND AND UNDER THE BUREAUCRACY'NAME SYSTEMATIC HANDLING IN RAILWAY BOARD
... COURT ORDERS PRONOUNCED AGAIN AND AGAIN ARE HAVING NO EFFECT ON RAILWAY BOARD,RPF DIRECTORATE.
ALL GONE WITH THE WIND...LAWS, RULES , JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS ARE FOR NAME SAKE...TO THEM.
WILL THIS PATHETIC CONDITIONS OF THE SERVING ADHOC ASCS AND RETIRED ASCS BE SOLVED OR NOT... WHETHER THE RAILWAY BOARD RPF IS ADOPTING IT'S OWN COURSE OF DUAL SETS OF RULES AND DETHROWING THE JUDICIARY ORDERS AND ALSO THE LAW RULES, CAN'T THIS BE TAKEN AS CONTEMPTUOUS ACT OF THE RAILWAY BOARD RPF, EXAMPLE, IN RECENT SONY VERGHESE CASE ..SLP 1663 OF 2013FILED BY UOI& RAILWAYS DISMISSED BY HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT IN APRIL 2017 WITH SPECIAL DIRECTIONS BY UPHOLDING THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS ORDERS, BUT SO FAR NO ACTION SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN POURED ON RECORD...
2) MY PROPOSAL SENT TO ALL...
I PRAY TO CONSIDER TO REVIEW THE ORDERS IN FAVOUR OF ADHOC SYSTEM CONTINUANCE FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITHOUT CONDUCTING DPCS, DUE TO WANTON DELAYED TACTICAL DEALINGS OF RAILWAY BOARD RPF...NOT ON EMPLOYEES FAULT...WHY THE EMPLOYEES PENSIONERS ARE MADE TO SUFFER...HOW TO END THIS TYPE OF FLYOVER JUMPING RULES ADOPTED BY RAILWAY BOARD RPF...
MY CONSIDERED SUGGESTIONS MADE...TO RESERVE ... QUOTA OF%IN NEXT HIGHER RANK PROMOTION FROM ASC RPF TO THAT OF DSC,RPF...
THIS ACTION OF SHALL SETRAIGHT AWAY SETUP AND STOP THEIR UNDERGROUND FAVOURITISM, THUS, EVERYTHING IN RPF ON THE ISSUE SHALL STAND SETTLED..
IF THE DPCs are held in later years and if the EMPLOYEE S PENSIONERS are forced to retire without any further promotions, but for the mistake of the ADMINISTRATION'S FAULT, errors,etc... their names should be considered for placement in the DPCs PANELS ACCORDING TO INTAKE QUOTA OF VACANCY OF PREVIOUS YEARS AND they must be given DEEMED PROMOTION at par with the JUNIOR before superannuation as per SENIORITY and pension benefits be given...
Only thing that you are all requested to kindly consider TO READ and publish in your esteemed papers and MAGAZINE s...
NB..I HAVE GIVEN LOTS OF CASES AS PER RECORD WHEREIN THE RAILWAY BOARD RPF PONDERED THEIR FAVOURITISM, EVEN THROUGH DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT AND APPLICATION OF RULES JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, ORDERS AS PER THEIR CHOICE SELECTION PROCESS....
Anonymous
02 November 2017 at 11:27
Dear All,
I have worked for Limited company for 4 years 5 months am I eligible to get Graduity or not.
Kindly help me in resolving above query.
Please do the needful.
Thank you
SAURABH GUPTA
01 November 2017 at 22:43
Dear sir
I havr query related to gratuity act. I have worked for 4 years and 8 months for a private organization where we have 5 days a week job and 4th Saturday is working. Please let me know weather i will be eligible to get gratuity.
suneetha Jain
01 November 2017 at 21:11
Sir, My Brother who was terminated by Public Sector Bank in May 2013 due to non disclosure of pending criminal case against him at the time of appointment (The case is closed in lok adalat in Jan 2013). So, we went to High Court. High Court relied on the Judgement of Supreme Court (Avtar Singh) and issued an order to set the termination order issued by Bank aside based on point (4) of Avtar Singh Case as case is Trivial and no conviction is there and asked the Bank to issue a fresh reasoned order by keeping in view of guidelines in Avtar Singh Case. The Avtar Singh Case Summary is as follows:
We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain andreconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
(1) Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
(2) While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.
(3) The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.
(4) In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted: -
(a) In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
(b) Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
(c) If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.
(7) In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
(8) If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
(9) In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
(10) For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestion falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.
But, Bank replied that as per Avtar Singh Case, Point (1) shows that non disclosure is a serious crime and hence, we are issuing that termination is valid.
Now, What should we do?? Even though High Court clearly set aside the termination order, Bank authorities did not set aside the termination order. Please advise us..
Parul
30 October 2017 at 19:19
Please confirm whether a organisation can fire a pregnant lady giving any reason and what steps a lady can take for this.
Jibin E G
30 October 2017 at 11:46
Hello sir/madam,
I am a central government employee and I took permission for higher studies for Bsc Fire and Industrial Safety through distance mode from Annamalai University having technical collaboration with NIFS. I had completed my course and submitted my certificate. At the time of LDCE (Limited departmental Competition Examination) for higher post, My course was examined in UGC distance mode. But, my course was not found in distance mode. So, I approach Annamalai University and they answer me that the course I completed was not distance, indeed it was a campus programme and it was regular mode.
So, I am completed shocked to here that my course was of a regular mode, But I got permission for distance mode degree. My employer did not give permission to appear for LDCE because at the time of permission, I had requested for distance studies and my degree is of regular mode and asked me to forget your degree. Actually I am working in Shift duty, so that I can attend classes even it is in regular mode. And in this three years I had never be absent from my duty.
All this happens was due to NIFS, pune. Because they give me wrong information that you can do this degree as distance and they give some relaxation in classes also and give me flexible timing to attended the classes. But actually it was a campus programme.
So i need an expert opinion on this matter, whether my employer can treat my certificate as regular mode and give me permission for promotion.
Or what if I approach court for justice.
Please advice me, as it is very important for me.
Thanking you all
Anonymous
29 October 2017 at 10:25
Bombay HC dispose of writ petition and set aside award passed by CGIT (filed by our Company against the CGIT award by which CGIT set aside transfer orders) on 19.01.2015 and order is published on 01.11.2015. We filed SLP in SC. On 17th October 2016 SLP was dispose of by SC on admission and issued order with no reason (SC found no merits in our case). Due to financial difficulties we could not file Review Petition in BomHC as per direction given by SC in KUNHAYAMMED VS. KERAL STATE. We accepted offer given by Company of monetory compensation in month of February 2017 (before CGIT Mumbai where our Reference is pending). But till date Company advocate taking dates and delayed compensation procedure. Now my question is What do we do to overcome from this situation?
© 2026 LAWyersclubindia.com. Let us grow stronger by mutual exchange of knowledge.
Retirement and Regisnation
If a person is working in an organisation u/s. 25 of the Company's Act for say 24years in permanent position and after 24years a company indirectly forced to leave the job saying the don have funds how much the Labour law can help the employee. Please suggest at your earliest.
Thanks,