Dear Sir/Madam,
Recently, I came across an offer that required the candidate to join within 30 days. According to the offer letter, the notice period in my current company is 90 days. I am willing to pay the salary in lieu of the notice period shortfall. However, my supervisor is reluctant to release me and insists I serve the full 90-day notice, threatening to label me as absconding otherwise. I have read various posts on this website regarding a similar issue, and the consensus among experts seems to lean towards employees not having a strong position in such cases.
Offer Letter Specifications
My offer letter specifies, "After the expiry of your probation period, should you decide to leave our employment for reasons other than retirement, you must provide us with three months' written notice. In case the company decides to terminate your employment, they will also give you three months' written notice. The company also reserves the right to make a payment in lieu of notice concerning the Total Fixed Pay."
Upon reviewing my company's policies thoroughly, I noted a clause on voluntary unemployment. It states that if an employee fails to report to the office continuously for seven days, the company may accept payment for the remaining days as a full and final settlement. Doesn't this contradict their stance on issuing an absconding warning if I fail to report to the office after serving 30 days' notice?
My Questions
1) In India, for a contract to remain valid and not become null and void, it must be enforceable by both parties equally. Therefore, if a company can make a payment in lieu of notice, shouldn't employees have the same right? Can we legally challenge a company on this basis?
2) Despite sending several letters to the management requesting, as a good HR practice, the option to buy back two months' notice, I have not received any response. Is it conceivable that even after a full and final settlement (where money is accepted for days not served or assets held by the individual), the company may choose not to issue a relieving letter?
Your guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you and regards,
Recently, I came across an offer that required the candidate to join within 30 days. According to the offer letter, the notice period in my current company is 90 days. I am willing to pay the salary in lieu of the notice period shortfall. However, my supervisor is reluctant to release me and insists I serve the full 90-day notice, threatening to label me as absconding otherwise. I have read various posts on this website regarding a similar issue, and the consensus among experts seems to lean towards employees not having a strong position in such cases.
Offer Letter Specifications
My offer letter specifies, "After the expiry of your probation period, should you decide to leave our employment for reasons other than retirement, you must provide us with three months' written notice. In case the company decides to terminate your employment, they will also give you three months' written notice. The company also reserves the right to make a payment in lieu of notice concerning the Total Fixed Pay."
Upon reviewing my company's policies thoroughly, I noted a clause on voluntary unemployment. It states that if an employee fails to report to the office continuously for seven days, the company may accept payment for the remaining days as a full and final settlement. Doesn't this contradict their stance on issuing an absconding warning if I fail to report to the office after serving 30 days' notice?
My Questions
1) In India, for a contract to remain valid and not become null and void, it must be enforceable by both parties equally. Therefore, if a company can make a payment in lieu of notice, shouldn't employees have the same right? Can we legally challenge a company on this basis?
2) Despite sending several letters to the management requesting, as a good HR practice, the option to buy back two months' notice, I have not received any response. Is it conceivable that even after a full and final settlement (where money is accepted for days not served or assets held by the individual), the company may choose not to issue a relieving letter?
Your guidance on this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you and regards,