[Samurai]

As I understand, employee works for a pay, and employer pays for it. If employee doesn't work, employer doesn't have to pay. What is this concept of employee paying the employer? What did they do for you? Did they lose any income because of your one month absence?

Since you have received relieving letter from your manager, it is clear that you have not caused any inconvenience or income loss for the company.

A company can't demand money from you for no apparent reason. They didn't provide any service for you to have earned that money. HR makes policy and applies it to current employees. But they don't make laws. They can't demand reverse pay from ex-employees, even if it is mentioned in the contract. Illegal clauses in contracts can't be enforced. Please consult a lawyer specialized in labour law.

However....

HR relies on the fact that most people pay up than take on a gaint MNC legally in the court. It may be cheaper for you to pay up than fight them in the court. The MNC will have bunch of lawyers on retainer, so it won't cost them to much to go to court. If this goes to court, the company will lose after a few years. But you will lose a lot of money on lawyers, court fee, time, and your peace of mind. HR can also wreck your reference, as a guy who sued the employer regarding contract. This is a very old game, my father once sued his employer (nationalized bank) 30 years ago, same tricks were played.

[am1m]

I am very curious about why a company would go to this extent enforce a notice period.

My company is absolutely fanatical (I wanted to use another word here, but am sure that would get me banned ) about this illogical notice period nonsense. No one has negotiated an early exit and I fail to understand why. Most cases, the employee's work is long done, all the so-called 'knowledge transfer' is anyway done on the last day. So why have an employee on his way out just hang around the office, browsing the Net and possibly bringing down morale since he's leaving anyway?

[srishiva]

Other than the contract, I am not sure what the company gains by getting money. There was no loss due to work or anything. HR definitely lacks human feel.

One can talk to HR and higher manager and see how it can be sorted out. If they dont budge paying off is the right thing. Personally I would have finished this in a couple of days whoever had to compromise. There is no point in dragging this issue.

I had left without completing my notice period 2 decades ago since I wanted to move to US at the earliest. After 6 years, I needed the relieving letter for some immigration related documentation. I paid up the remaining amount and got my relieving letter

[hothatchaway]

@Driverace - there are two issues here - one is the employee serving the notice period as mandated by the employment contract, which in most companies the immediate manager can either enforce or waive. Your manager has chosen to do the latter albeit partially.

Second is the compensation in lieu of the number of days notice that either the exiting employee has not served OR the company is denying the employee by relieving him early, even though he may have been willing to serve out. This is a financial decision and is, by default enforced (usually when the employee wants to leave early) with EXCEPTIONS at the discretion of either the head of HR/Business head/Finance Head. Many line managers are simply ignorant of this component. As soon as they learn that an employee is leaving, all they care about is the replacement. The employee, who is his responsibility, becomes an 'HR issue'

You should have understood the T&C of separation at least after putting in your papers. You could have then learnt how this exception process works, if at all, in your ex company. You are no longer on the rolls of the company and your ability to influence any of these processes is minimal, if at all there.

Your only recourse is if you have reason to believe that your manager/HR rep didnt clarify this point even though you had sought clarification. This of course needs to be in writing. Of course its possible that you may enjoy a good rapport with a senior manager who you may approach unofficially. Since this is going to be a financial exceptions, bending the rules may invite audit scrutiny.

At the end, you were rendering service to a company which was governed by a set of T&C contained in the offer letter, albeit drafted by the company. Ignorance of these is not an excuse.

[roy_libran]

Originally Posted by Samurai

........What is this concept of employee paying the employer? What did they do for you? Did they lose any income because of your one month absence?

Since you have received relieving letter from your manager, it is clear that you have not caused any inconvenience or income loss for the company.

A company can't demand money from you for no apparent reason.

........
If this goes to court, the company will lose after a few years. But you will lose a lot of money on lawyers, court fee, time, and your peace of mind. HR can also wreck your reference, as a guy who sued the employer regarding contract. This is a very old game, my father once sued his employer (nationalized bank) 30 years ago, same tricks were played.

Agree with Samurai's points.

I have, over a decade back, won in a court battle (*) against an ex-employer in the IT sector. This post has some important bits that you can draft in as part of a legal notice to your ex-employer, because creating written evidence is crucial. You need to mention chronology of events - everything, and challenge the retrospective application of this policy on you after you have left the company.

But First -

I would suggest that you have a word with the India Centre Head, face to face if possible. Be courteous, polite, objective, lay down your points, reference your earlier willingness for a sabbatical etc., and request compassion on humanitarian grounds. DO NOT be aggressive or threatening with a senior person; it's just not required, even if he's not reasonable. 99% chances this should work in your favour; else, after an unsuccessful meeting send in a legal notice and ask for reasons behind the unfair, retrospective application of policy. Also, if you can, offer in the legal notice to go back and work another month at your earlier pay, to make up for the supposed shortfall.
Whether you file an actual case or not, is a later decision.

* - My case was much worse. I exited a no-light-at-the-end-of-the-tunnel, unilateral contract and the company pulled many strings to spoil references, and get me kicked out of my new job. They even locked me up in a meeting room in an isolated wing of the building till late evening and asked me to sign some papers, which I refused to. I was a fresher back then. The ex-employer failed on all counts, including the court case. It cost me a lot of headaches, multiple police station visits, court visits and a total spend of circa 25k back then, but I won! Because of the strings that the ex-employer had pulled in my case, the HR and senior management in the new employer had asked me to tender a resignation, but I managed an audience with the then India Centre head, laid down my points and asked for a fair treatment, which worked in my favour. Don't buckle!

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by driverace

TLDR/ I quit my desk job, since I want to pursue adventure sport of paragliding as a living.
I resigned, Manager accepted & he proposed a relieving date - all on email. The company wants me to pay notice period shortfall.
I absolutely do NOT want to pay the notice period shortfall.

It simply blows my mind, that a company like such is actually hell-bent on making money off notice period shortfalls, even where the parting is mutual & hasn't even caused any business harm/loss or lack of transfer of work.

Well, I have been in a soup because of this, but my case was worse. The only saving grace, if you have, is relieving letter if you received one. It proves that it was mutually decided to relieve you from your duties in two months rather than three. But if you haven't received relieving letter, then you need to serve what's in written in appointment letter. I was given legal notice for the payment amounting to loss of amount equivalent to my notice period. Eventually settled it out with HR.

What I learnt : in case of a legal battle, you have to fight with your hard earned money. Your employer has to battle it out from profits and large funds with large backing. Better to let them know in writing that you are ready to serve one month. This way, you will get one month's pay plus out of any trouble. I offered this but was given the only option out : pay the amount via cheque. In my case, many things didn't' the "bond" they were to execute.

It was only a few months ago that I realized that my immediate manager was not on good terms with management and that the immediate manager left in one month's time after I did.

Best way : Immediately offer to serve one month as your notice period.

[luvDriving]

I can empathize with you. I faced this illogical policy enforcement when I resigned from the global development center of a big bank here in Pune.

My manager was ready to relieve me early but the HR was adamant that I serve the notice period of 2 months.

I had completed all work and since I had resigned, I was not allotted any new work. In the first month, the IT department cut off the internet access for me. Not just access to repositories and all - total internet access cut off.

In the second month, they took away my machine (rather gave it to another person). Yet I had to come to office everyday for a month, loitering around, have lunch, loiter some more, visit the library and go home.

With a week left for my notice period to end, I received an email from HR that they have decided to relieve me early and waive off remaining notice period. I was relieved the very next day. I have no idea what was gained by having me loiter around or by letting me off one week early.

So I agree with the above suggestions. Communicate with the real people in charge and try finding out your options other than paying up. I would rather pay and sleep with a bitter taste which will eventually wear off than get up with a headache everyday until the case gets resolved.

[GTO]

Congrats on following your heart! Wish you all the best in the world of adventure sports .

Other BHPians have already covered the legalities. All that I can say is "don't burn your bridges". Never know what works out in life and what doesn't, and if you need to cross paths with them again in the future. I hope both of you can have a discussion and solve this amicably. Meet / talk with an open mind and close it.

Don't bring in lawyers. It's too small a matter for that. Once you bring in a lawyer, your 6-year bond with the company is over.

[sridhu]

Ace

I have about 30 years experience in IT and so this might only be tangentially related advise. But I think you should let it go and walk away .

Not because you are wrong. But it is simply not worth it

Write it off to experience and when take up the next job, read the contract thoroughly

All the best

[wolg]

Hi,

My two cents - As GTO mentioned - never burn the bridges.

Best is to either try to manage a polite discussion and if it does not work out, pay and move on.
Corporate and senior ego are very fragile and you never know , when you cross paths again and this minor thing will not be worth it in the overall scheme of things. You might be right , but 6 years of experience and reference checks is too much to give up over this.

[naveenroy]

The standing rule in the company I work here is that I can quit the same day. They ask us to give a day's notice if that is possible. This is considering the rules that I have seen in companies in India - I have worked in 6 of them when I was there. I hated the "notice period" nonsense there. It is just so frustrating and in the start of my career - I could not afford to pay off my notice period either. I've had a younger version of me regret walking off and ending up paying off my notice period or I wouldn't have got my relieving letter.

Oh well. But to be honest - I dislike the option of quitting in a day here too. You are just left scrambling to cover your bases when someone in the team leaves - we've had to take over all the work, handle meetings, client calls etc. Horrible.

But like GTO said - don't burn your bridges. If I read correctly, you have around a month left - if you can, just let it run through. Chill out, time flies. Not worth the hassle of lawyers etc. And trust me - HRs are hmm...well you know what I want to say there.

[RJK]

Everyone has covered most of the points & I tend agree with the logic of going hammer & tongs w/ lawyers against the employer. Whether the policy makes sense or not, is too late to debate as this has to be considered before signing/entering into the agreement.

As someone mentioned, higher-ups in the organisation can put HR in it's place but if you are unable to convince the higher-ups, there appears to be slim hope. Btw, it works in my organisation-VP's usually can influence to over-ride policy but that also is very complex. Usually I have seen that HR is a mere token function.

Originally Posted by naveenroy

And trust me - HRs are hmm...well you know what I want to say there.

Some of us colleagues also joke about the entire function - good for only cutting birthday cakes & indulge in drivel & corporate mumbo jumbo

PS: Above statement is heavily influenced by Nishant Tanwar

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJpX2ZNzkcA

[Samurai]

The idea behind 3 month notice period is simple. To create maximum inconvenience to the employee who is leaving. They know that the person is leaving only after securing a job. And how many employers are willing to wait if a newly hired employee says he/she needs 3 months to join? Not many. I have seen that with my former colleagues. They are often told to join within a month, and these companies themselves have the 3 month notice period, strictly enforced.

At my workplace, we have 1 month notice period. It can be reduced if the employee is able to handover all the work in lesser time. If the handover is done in a week and the employee wants to leave right after that, they can do just that. There is no reason to harass/force them to stay.

I don't know why Indian HR came up with this unique and diabolic scheme that a resigning employee should hang around for 3 months irrespective of situation. When my brother-in-law quit a MNC few years ago, he was between projects, nothing to handover at all. Yet, they insisted he show-up for 3 months and collect his pay for doing nothing. Meanwhile, his new employer was raising hell and almost cancelled his job offer.

[condor]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I don't know why Indian HR came up with this unique and diabolic scheme that a resigning employee should hang around for 3 months irrespective of situation.

+1.

Also, the long notice period doesnt make sense at all. The employee is normally less interested in his work during the notice period. I have felt it best to release him early. And in the last 2 years that I was a manager, we also had a pressure situation to reduce employee strength. (This was due to internal initiative, and a pressure on the top about profits and EPS). I tried to reduce things as much as possible for the resigning employee. And anyway, why make the company pay the employee's full salary when he is not being fully productive. It may be a drop in the BU's costs, but still. Luckily, our HR did not question us, even though it's a top IT MNC. I have once provided early release after the initial sign-off (with due approval from my up-line manager).

[ninjatalli]

OP,
I'd suggest just get over it and pay up. In the end it's just a sum of money, unless you are tight on funds wrt to your current venture. Give the feedback to the higher ups but don't burn your bridges. If you are really confident about your firm's HR processes being robust, then only continue the path you already are on.

Originally Posted by Samurai

The idea behind 3 month notice period is simple. To create maximum inconvenience to the employee who is leaving. .

That and also to push/cajole/convince the employee to continue. I have seen multiple cases where very good resources are requested and pushed to stay on, with multiple sweeteners. The attempt is also made to consider the reasons of shift and if it's either of monetary, promotions or location, attempts are made to provide the same. I experienced the same when I left my previous firm.

Originally Posted by naveenroy

The standing rule in the company I work here is that I can quit the same day. They ask us to give a day's notice if that is possible. This is considering the rules that I have seen in companies in India -

I guess you are talking about the US market. That is normal there; I quit from an Indian software firm in the US, and was told I could leave within a day while the same firm in India would push for 2-3 months notice in India.