saffy I find it difficult to accept that Prakash is a better worker than manav -- that has not been shown at all in the soap. I'd be foolish to say that appointments should be made based on moral positions of workers but yes, if I were on an evaluation board, I would give high marks for straightforwardness and integrity, provided these qualities are accompanied by appropriate qualifications. (I have had experience working with both kind, and believe me it is very, very important to have integrity at the work place.)
In Manav's case if you remember he was good enough to run his own garage. It shut down because he could not repay the loan, which, in turn happened because of family obligations. For him to go from garage owner to class IV worker and archana -- was she not introduced as school pass or fail? -- to zoom up after some unnamed one-year course is very difficult to digest. This is unadulterated cinematic liberty. From purely experience perspective manav should have been of more value to the company than a person like Prakash who started the trouble in the first place, and whose good qualities, if any, have never been in evidence. Was there a departmental enquiry? It must have been a rush job because I remember M being fired soon after returning from hospital. And I distinctly remember M being paid off just for the days left in the month. The accepted practice in the case of confirmed employees is three months' notice or three months pay on either side. Of course these rules would not apply if Manav and Ajit were hired as daily wagers. Were they? Ajit was probably on probation, so I can understand his dismissal.
This is the way hiring goes in a normal company. If you are a rank new comer you get hired as a trainee. After training you are put on probation, after which you are confirmed. At this point you are given a contract which sets out the conditions of your exit -- usually three months' notice on either side or equivalent pay. Before India started on the liberalisation route, unions were very, very strong and would go on strikes at the drop of the hat. Dismissals were nearly impossible. I know the case of a woman who was suspended 20 years ago, she is still fighting the case in court and is on 50 per cent wages. To circumvent these problems, companies started signing individual contracts with employees specifying a restricted period of employment -- usually three years. At the end of the three years, companies can end the contract or renew it. However, while the contract is still on, the company has to follow rules like giving three months' notice etc. I do not know whether D's company is a socialist era company or post-liberalisation company. But either way he has to go by the minimum rules, which include paying provident fund etc. Any employer who does not pay provident fund can go to jail. I know of well known employers who have been jailed for the offence. BTW, the biggest grouse of Indian industry is that India's labour laws are antiquated, and allow no room for flexibility. If only they knew about the freedom at Darmesh & in laws co ltd!!!!
Bindi
Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi 2
Jodha Akbar
