By: Dr. Rilipong Thonger, Adekhing I. Sangtam, Naset Chollen, Liose Sangtam, Adv. (Dr) Veersingh Rathod and Adv. Nishant Jaiswal
In light of the escalating instances of infringements upon the rights of employees within Nagaland’s burgeoning private sector, our attention has been drawn to 234 cases wherein the rights of employees engaged in various occupations such as Hotel staff, Shop staff, Workshop staff, School teachers, Media employees, College teachers, Construction labourers, Daily wage earners and NGO workers/employees have been compromised. In the sphere of employment, the relationship between an employer and an employee is governed by a complex interplay of statutory provisions, corporate policies, and ethical precepts. Central to this discourse is the contentious issue surrounding the deduction of an employee’s remuneration for instances of tardiness that is Late coming (Late arrival at workplace) as we found this as one of the common “allegations” against employees in Nagaland. Hence, our discovery made us launch a focal inquiry pertaining to the legal prerogative of an employer to effectuate deductions from an employee’s salary owing to late arrival, and if so, the requisite conditions and limitations governing such actions.
It is firmly established in jurisprudence that an employer possesses the legal prerogative to promulgate and enforce rules pertaining to punctuality and attendance within the workplace. Nonetheless, the exercise of this authority must adhere scrupulously to established legal norms and principles of fairness. Consequently, an employer is empowered to deduct an employee’s salary for tardiness, provided that such deductions are commensurate with the duration of the lateness and are executed in strict conformity with applicable statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
Related Posts:
For instance, in the event that an employee is late by one hour in reporting to work, the employer is within their rights to deduct from the employee’s salary an amount commensurate with the duration of said tardiness. Any deduction surpassing the actual period of absence would run afoul of the principles of proportionality and equity. It is imperative to underscore that deductions must be limited to the precise duration of the employee’s absenteeism.
A frequently encountered misinterpretation observed in certain organizations involves the deduction of half-day salary in instances where an employee arrives one or more hours late. It is imperative to note that such a policy lacks legal foundation and constitutes a clear infringement upon the principles of justice codified within the law. Employees subjected to these arbitrary deductions possess the right to pursue legal recourse to challenge these unjust practices.
It is incumbent upon companies/business entities to acknowledge that their policies must conform to legal statutes and constitutional principles, rather than being solely guided by subjective moral considerations/moral compass. Instances wherein organizations arbitrarily deduct a full day’s salary for minor tardiness, ranging from 5 to 30 minutes to one or more hours, demonstrate a disregard for legal standards. In such circumstances, employees are advised to pursue legal recourse to rectify the financial losses suffered as a result of unlawful deductions.
Employees who have been unfairly subjected to deductions have legal avenues available for seeking redress. They possess the right to lodge complaints with the Labour Department, an administrative body tasked with overseeing matters pertaining to employment and ensuring adherence to labour legislation. Furthermore, employees retain the option to initiate legal proceedings in civil courts (by initiating recovery suits) to pursue remedies for damages incurred as a consequence of unlawful practices perpetrated by their employers.
Moreover, mental harassment in the form of late wages, no wages, or even equal pay for equal work or illegal deductions in salary can be easily claimed. Redressal in such cases can be granted by the Labour Court if the victim approaches the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 or the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Importantly, all those workers/employees not governed by the Industrial Disputes Act, 1936 can very well move to the Civil Court jurisdiction. Also, in addition, various sections of Indian Penal code can also be used to address mental harassment perpetrated by employers against employees. For instance, Section 503 and Section 504 deal with criminal intimidation and intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace, respectively. We came across a case where employers (Partnership Firm) have regularly used abusive language against a certain employee which even led the concerned person to develop suicidal tendency (Suicidal tendency is actually very rare in Naga society).
An inherent challenge in penalizing late attendance lies in the failure to differentiate between remuneration (salary) and punitive measures (penalty/fine). Remuneration, constituting payment for services rendered by an employee, contrasts with fines, which serve as sanctions for infractions or breaches of regulations. Policies that equate tardiness with salary deductions blur the distinction between remuneration and penalties, thus detracting from the fundamental principle of compensating workers/employees for their labour.
In a hypothetical scenario, let us consider a situation wherein a company establishes a late attendance policy wherein tardiness exceeding the fourth instance results in the forfeiture/deduction of an entire day’s compensation. Such a stringent measure fails to adhere to principles of proportionality and fairness. Depriving an employee of their full day’s compensation for tardiness (when in-fact employees go on performing all of their tasks throughout the day at work) is excessively severe and lacks justifiable rationale hence deserved to be examined in the eyes of Law.
Moreover, it must be noted that employees who arrive late, within a range of 5 to 15, or at most 20/30 minutes to one hour, are nonetheless capable of fulfilling their contractual obligations and contributing to the organizational objectives with due diligence. Despite occasional instances of punctuality lapses, these employees consistently discharge their assigned duties. This raises the pertinent inquiry: What recompense do these diligent employees receive for their exertions on days when they are subject to punitive measures due to tardiness? The incongruity between the value of their labour and the severity of the penalties levied underscores the inherent inequity within such disciplinary frameworks- which can be easily challenged in court of law.
Nevertheless, despite facing the prospect of salary deductions for tardiness / late arrival at work, it was found in our survey that a considerable number of employees continue to uphold their work obligations diligently. This steadfast commitment to their duties underscores a profound sense of dedication and professionalism that extends beyond mere monetary concerns which in itself becomes a “mitigating factor” in disciplinary proceedings against them. It is important to make our readers aware that In all the Criminal Trials we do not just look at the “Mens-Rea” and “Actus Reus” but also look at the “mitigating factors”. Similarly, in issues related to disciplinary cases at workplace consideration of mitigating factors is a legal obligation for the concerned H.R. department as well as the Management.
However, while employees demonstrate dedication, it remains imperative for employers to acknowledge and value their contributions appropriately. This entails the implementation of fair and equitable policies that prioritize the principles of justice and respect for labour rights. By fostering a work environment that recognizes and rewards employee efforts, employers can cultivate loyalty, motivation, and productivity among their workforce, thereby fostering a harmonious and thriving workplace culture.
In districts such as Dimapur, Kohima, and Chumukedima, the proliferation of private enterprises is evident. Our comprehensive research spanning the past two years has unveiled a concerning reality regarding the observance of rights among private employees, encompassing establishments such as hotels, shops, restaurants, spas, schools, beauty parlors, and colleges. Concurrently, our findings have revealed a strong resolve among the contemporary educated workforce to enhance their understanding of their legal and constitutional rights and entitlements. They are ready to undertake necessary measures aimed at preserving and safeguarding the inherent freedoms and dignity assured by the Constitution of India.
Tardiness represents one among several workplace issues that merit careful examination. Throughout our research, we have identified numerous instances where employers have exploited such matters to the detriment of their employees. While egregious acts of misconduct such as divulging proprietary business information, engaging in sexual impropriety, watching/exhibiting/sharing pornographic material at workplace, consumption of Alcohol/Drugs/Narcotic substance at workplace, misappropriating funds, or committing criminal breaches of trust may warrant severe disciplinary actions in accordance with the law, the treatment of tardiness cases is distinct. In situations where an employee facing disciplinary action or termination due to tardiness continues to fulfill their work duties for the entirety of the workday before departing, it becomes evident that the severity of the consequences imposed is disproportionate to the infraction committed.
The issue of deducting an employee’s salary for tardiness necessitates a careful examination of legal principles, ethical considerations, and practical implications. While employers have the authority to enforce rules regarding punctuality, they must do so in a manner that is proportionate, fair, and consistent with legal requirements. Employees, on their part, have the right to challenge arbitrary deductions through legal avenues to safeguard their rights and interests in the workplace. Ultimately, fostering a work environment characterized by fairness, respect, and mutual understanding is essential for promoting productivity and employee well-being.
Moreover, the issue of deducting an employee’s salary for tardiness cannot be viewed in isolation; rather, it must be contextualized within the broader framework of employee rights and protections against exploitation within the private sector. Exploitation of private sector employees represents a grave concern, encompassing various forms of misconduct by employers aimed at deriving undue benefits at the expense of their workers’ rights and well-being. Legal frameworks worldwide seek to address and prevent such exploitation through a range of provisions and regulations tailored to safeguard employee rights, thereby ensuring fair treatment and just compensation for all workers within the private sector.
One common aspect of legal protections for employees is the establishment of minimum wage rates, which serve to guarantee a baseline level of compensation for labour and prevent exploitation through substandard pay. Employers who pay below the mandated minimum wage or circumvent statutory entitlements exploit their employees’ vulnerability for unjust gain. Moreover, laws often limit the number of hours an employee can work per week without receiving overtime pay, aiming to prevent exploitation when employers compel their workers to toil excessively without proper compensation, contravening labor regulations and disregarding employees’ well-being.
Wage theft, another form of exploitation, occurs when employers illegally withhold or fail to pay salary/wages owed to their employees, taking various forms such as non-payment for work performed unauthorized deductions, or misclassification of workers to evade providing rightful benefits or protections. Additionally, ensuring safe working conditions is a fundamental responsibility of employers governed by occupational health and safety regulations, with exploitation arising when employers flout these regulations, subjecting employees to hazardous environments jeopardizing their physical or mental health.
Discrimination and harassment, prohibited by law, represent forms of exploitation when employers engage in discriminatory practices such as pay disparities, wrongful termination, or fostering a hostile work environment through systemic harassment based on protected characteristics. Moreover, contractual violations constitute exploitation when employers breach the terms and conditions outlined in employment contracts (or add conditions without taking expressed/written consent from employee or by way of systematic coercion-for e.g. threat of termination), including reneging on promised benefits, unilaterally altering terms without employee consent, or retaliating against whistleblowers exposing illegal/unlawful activities or safety concerns at workplace.
In our research we found that, In Nagaland, as in other regions of India, private sector employees encounter similar challenges related to exploitation, including non-payment or delayed payment of wages, violation of minimum wage standards, overtime violations, lack of social security benefits, unsafe working conditions, discrimination, harassment, contractual breaches, and insufficient legal awareness among employees. To address these issues effectively, robust legal frameworks and enforcement mechanisms are essential. In Nagaland, employees can seek recourse by reporting grievances to the Nagaland Labour Department, which oversees labour law enforcement and dispute resolution. Furthermore, the active involvement of labour unions, civil society organizations, and public spirited individuals is crucial in advocating for employee rights and providing support to those facing exploitation within the private sector. By upholding and strengthening these legal protections, societies can strive towards fostering fair and equitable workplaces where employees are treated with dignity and respect.
It is high time residents of Nagaland, especially employees in the private sector, should make themselves aware of legal provisions which can safeguard their life and rights. Knowledge of Law is an empowerment so that none can fool an individual and take them for a ride. In a rapidly evolving world where legal intricacies can often determine the course of one’s life, understanding one’s rights and obligations under the law is paramount. By familiarizing themselves with legal provisions, residents of Nagaland can equip themselves with the tools necessary to navigate various situations and protect their interests. Whether it pertains to civil matters, matrimonial rights, employment rights, consumer protection or criminal justice, having a basic understanding of the law empowers individuals to assert their rights and seek redressal when necessary. Moreover, an informed citizenry serves as a bulwark against exploitation and injustice, fostering a society founded on principles of fairness and equality before the law. Therefore, it is incumbent upon residents of Nagaland to invest in legal literacy and education, thereby enhancing their ability to assert their rights and contribute to the overall welfare and development of the state. (Dr. Rilipong Thonger is the Bureau Chief, Longkhim-Chare region, Project Constitutional Justice, Legal Advisor USSC, International Human Rights Member, Adekhing I. Sangtam is the Vice President, United Sangtam Students Conference (USSC), Naset Chollen is a Senior Policy Researcher & Analyst, Project Constitutional Justice, Tuensang HQ, Liose Sangtam is the Bureau Chief, Kiphire District, Project Constitutional Justice, Adv. (Dr) Veersingh Rathod is a Senior Legal Advisor, New Delhi and Adv. Nishant Jaiswal is a Legal Advisor, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur)
