Regarding non payment of my annual retention bonus

Employer and it's attorney's in Line Management/HR/Personnel/Admin/Legal cells  must not behave as a street magician and try to produce things from thin air......................

Gossip, rumor, hearsay is neither practise nor rule nor policy nor Act nor enactment nor law nor fair practice nor natural justice....................

If the published version in your custody does not lead to any indication/pointer/deemed interpretation etc etc to such practise (that could be at the best  an afterthought), then you may have a good case..............

The said bonus is a Promised/pledged amount/payout......

THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT, 19361 (4 of 1936)

2:

[(vi) “wages” means all remuneration (whether by way of salary, : allowances,

or otherwise) expressed in terms of money or capable of being so

expressed which would, if the terms of employment, express or implied,

were fulfilled, be payable to a person employed in respect of his

employment or of work done in such employment, and includes—

(a) any remuneration payable under any award or settlement between the

parties or order of a Court;

(c) any additional remuneration payable under the terms of employment

(whether called a bonus or by any other name);

(d) any sum which by reason of the termination of employment of the

person employed is payable under any law, contract or instrument

which provides for the payment of such sum, whether with or without

deductions, but does not provide for the time within which the

payment is to be made;

https://labour.nic.in/sites/default/files/ThePaymentofWagesAct1936_0.pdf

You may also go thru rules framed by your state under the Act.

You may also check if you are covered by the Act (by the def. of Wages as in the Act).

This Act does not discriminate between 'Workman' and 'Non Workman'.

Don't remain entangled with HR and write under proper acknowledgment, in gentle and amiable manner but in well resoned manner,  to good offices of appointing authority,MD,CEO, Chairman/Chairperson, Board that has vetsed power in HR Head...

Let them reply whatever they want.

Kumar Sab...  Some organizations may have a specific policy on retention bonus & the employee who is on notice period not eligible for retention bonus, the similar procedure they follow in annual increment also but some of the companies they feel that the employee who is leaving the organization worked for the organization hence better he / she should go with a positive feel about the company.  Yesterday I have see one big pharma company in India invited their ex-employees for a Breakfast organized in a star hotel, Mumbai where the CFO / COO & CHRO are participating.  They want to chat with their ex-employees and listen to their success stories.

All these things are part of the ehtics hence Mr.Ankit need to check that type of documents if any in that particular organization.

Thanks

Kameswarao  

Dear Mr.kameswarao S,

You are right.

Ethically the establishment should not violate it's own committements and more so the published policy should be adhered.

I have seen employers paying to outgoing employees and build image for the establishment and employer and even paying on pro- rated basis even if employee has not served full period ( as in policy and as in this query).

The outgoing employee is not considered many times for such awards/rewards/bonus/increments.

The view point is that the payouts by establishment/employer are investment for future and it is not worth in case of outgoing employee.

Here the employee (Querist) is insisting again that the said policy does not indicate that outgoing employee (serving notice period in this case) shall not be eligible.

The reply to the querist (employee) by establishment's designated official is that it as per 'practice' the payment is declined.

The practice is probably not made part of published policy.

So practice in such case may be unconscionable, unreasonable, unfair, unenforceable.............

Probably the designated official in HR is under pressure of private/internal policy of employer/bosses for designated official but unpublished for employee (querist).

Probably it is part of tactics as some employees give up the claims after some time and do not approach; Works Committee, Grievance Redressal Committee,  Employee’s/trade unions, lawful authority say; Inspectorate-O/o Labor commissioner, a very able  local senior counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in labor/service matters, Labor Court/CGIT, Civil Courts……………..NCLT, HC with winding up petitions……………

Probably it is part of tactics as some employees do not pursue on irrefutable record and let their claims be time barred……….

The employee (querist) alone is closest to the facts and situation and has to act to defend his interest.

We can only post in the thread…..and update and appraise the querist and readers……………..and thus contribute our bit.

It is nice to interact with you, again.

Dear Mr.kameswarao S,

Thanks and Congratulations for posting a good example.

There is NO derth of good professionals, and establishments,, and employers.....

There are many employeees that join such establishments and retire from  same establishment..............and are even retained thereafter.....say in form of a Consultant.

A good employee and good employer and agood professional are always in demand...