Mere writing the designation of the employee as Manager and designation alone does not imply that employee shall not be covered as ‘Workman’ as in ID Act, ‘Employee’ as in Shops and Commercial Establishments Act…………………..
ITeS companies are covered by these enactments and standing orders may also be applicable.
If standing orders are applicable to your establishment (Certified/Model) and extended to your designation then you may go thru its provisions. Employer is personally liable for faithful observance of standing orders.
The Bombay Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, Delhi Shops and Commercial Establishments Act are so employee friendly.
The wages are well defined in this enactment and also in:
Payment of Wages Act: 3*[(vi) "wages" means all remuneration……………] ……………..{ but does not include}………….
One of the jobs of Inspector under this enactment is to ensure no pending dues/wages of the employee are withheld.
e.g: Delhi Shops and Commercial Establishments Act
37. POWERS AND DUTIES OF INSPECTOR.: (b) Duties of the Inspector: (i) that in dispensing with the services of an employee the provision of the Act and Rules have been complied with and no dues payable under the Act or Rules have been withheld;
Your lawyer may ask you a set of structured questions and can opine that you would be covered or not.
If you are not covered by such enactments you can approach civil court.
Your assumption is correct.
It is general law that whenever there is any ambiguity in terms of contract then benefit of doubt will given to party who don’t make the contract (Read Employee).
Any policy in the larger interest and beneficial to both employer and the employee has the sanction of law as otherwise it will be easily termed as arbitrary.
It is expected that the employer shall raise the issue that you are neither workman not employee as in the enactments, cross reference is not possible, the relationship is that of Master and Servant, Specific relief Act is applicable and contract of person service can not be enforced in court of law.
The contract of employment issued to you is drafted and created by employer and it is well versed with it.
It would have its strategy ready: to counter your contentions.
The jurisdiction courts is either last location of employee, location of redg/ corporate/HO of company or jurisdictional courts
As stated in appointment letter/contract of employment.
The company shall for sure scream for jurisdictional court at location stated in appointment letter/contract of employment.
You have posted that;
-----“You will eligibe for employee stock options as per suitable by company and as per terms of the company policy " .
This hints towards suitability to company and as per policies of the company.
Do you have copy of such policy?
All policies should be kept in knowledge domain of the employee.
Gossip and rumor can not be policy.
Employer should not act and behave like a street magician and produce things from thin air.
Employee should also be vigilant and obtain certified copies of all such docs and policies, rules and regulations that are relevant.
-------“ When I demanded for stock options signing authority on offer letter said he is not responsible as it is controlled by US entity (Parent Company) . “
Since he has signed on the bilateral agreement he should be included in the list of notices along with anyone else that is board and MD/CEO……………
------“ This is a clear breach of contract how I can claim my due stocks?”
Your assumption is right.
This should be read with suitability and policies mentioned above by you, and clear breach be pointed out and established.
You may show all docs and record to a competent and experienced labor consultant/service lawyer, well versed with these enactments and Specific relief Act, and give inputs in person.
The lawyer that has seen all of your docs and has analyzed your inputs can advice you the best.
