This approach is best illustrated in cases of employees prone to absenteeism, a leading source of misconduct the world over.
Published December 20, 2025
DAWN
The writer is a consultant in human resources at the Aga Khan University Hospital.
THE Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, is the most critical and frequently referred to labour enactment in Pakistan. It contains provisions relating to the classification of workmen, mandatory issuing of appointment letters, payment of profit bonus, retrenchment, termination of employment and a standing order relating to punishments.
Standing Order (SO) 15, relating to punishments, is one of the most used provisions of labour laws, which classifies the offences committed by employees into two categories. The first is in the case of an employee guilty of offences that aren’t serious — the employee is liable to be fined a nominal amount. The other is in the case of an employee guilty of an act of commission or omission, which has serious implications for the organisation — that employee is liable to be dismissed from service.
There is a comprehensive list of ‘misconducts’ in the SO, for which an employee may either be (i) fined; or (ii) his increment or promotion withheld for up to one year; or (iii) relegated to a lower post; or (iv) dismissed from service.
The key misconducts include “willful insubordination or disobedience to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior; theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business or property; willful damage to or loss of employer’s goods or property; habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 days; riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours or any act subversive of discipline; and habitual negligence and neglect of work.”
Employers must adopt a reformative approach.
Where possible the employers should focus on the rehabilitation of offenders to reintegrate them as responsible employees. This reformative approach emphasises changing an individual’s behaviour by addressing the root causes of their disruptive activity through counselling, psychological treatment and the introduction of incentives. It contrasts with retribution and deterrence.
This approach is best illustrated in cases of employees prone to absenteeism, a leading source of misconduct the world over. Excessive absenteeism is rampant in in both the private and public sectors. The most common reason given is sickness. Illness can be feigned and neither the company doctor or some other medic can be sure whether the absence is related to sickness.
Absenteeism leads to escalation in the cost of running a business. There are hidden costs such as overtime to cover for sick employees, temporary help to replace absentees, supervisory time spent to find a person to cover, and lowered productivity on the part of those who have to work harder for someone who is chronically absent. As people do get sick, it is unrealistic to set a goal of zero absenteeism. The right objective is to have programmes that penalise those who abuse their sick leave privilege. It is also desirable to reward employees who have good attendance records.
Generally, employers have a zero-tolerance policy for fraud and dishonesty by employees. While there is nothing wrong in having such a policy, one must know the reasons behind such actions. Employees commit fraud due to pressure, opportunity and the belief that their behaviour is justified even if not appropriate. They are often driven by personal financial issues, a sense of being undervalued, and weak internal controls. Other contributory factors include addiction, a belief that they deserve more compensation, and sometimes an inability to distinguish between right and wrong actions.
Actions subversive of discipline by employees are also common. These stem from organisational shortcomings, psychological factors and personal issues. They involve lack of clarity, fairness and support at the workplace rather than malicious intent. Poor management, such as autocratic attitudes, favouritism, or a manager’s own failure to follow rules, can damage morale and encourage insubordination.
Employees indulge in disorderly behaviour due to feelings of unfairness, lack of support and poor management practices. This misconduct is frequently a symptom of deeper workplace issues. Managers often complain that a certain employee is consistently underperforming and recommend strict action. Unless precise allegations of habitual negligence against the employee are proved in an internal inquiry, action on the basis of vague statements by the supervisor will backfire.
Interestingly, cases of misconduct are far higher among men than women working in a similar capacity.
While one is not advising employers to refrain from taking action against employees guilty of serious misconduct, they should tighten financial controls and train managers in how to supervise employees with fairness. Companies managed professionally hardly encounter any cases of indiscipline.
The writer is a consultant in human resources at the Aga Khan University Hospital.
Published in Dawn, December 20th, 2025
THE Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, is the most critical and frequently referred to labour enactment in Pakistan. It contains provisions relating to the classification of workmen, mandatory issuing of appointment letters, payment of profit bonus, retrenchment, termination of employment and a standing order relating to punishments.
Standing Order (SO) 15, relating to punishments, is one of the most used provisions of labour laws, which classifies the offences committed by employees into two categories. The first is in the case of an employee guilty of offences that aren’t serious — the employee is liable to be fined a nominal amount. The other is in the case of an employee guilty of an act of commission or omission, which has serious implications for the organisation — that employee is liable to be dismissed from service.
There is a comprehensive list of ‘misconducts’ in the SO, for which an employee may either be (i) fined; or (ii) his increment or promotion withheld for up to one year; or (iii) relegated to a lower post; or (iv) dismissed from service.
The key misconducts include “willful insubordination or disobedience to any lawful and reasonable order of a superior; theft, fraud, or dishonesty in connection with the employer’s business or property; willful damage to or loss of employer’s goods or property; habitual absence without leave or absence without leave for more than 10 days; riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours or any act subversive of discipline; and habitual negligence and neglect of work.”
Employers must adopt a reformative approach.
Where possible the employers should focus on the rehabilitation of offenders to reintegrate them as responsible employees. This reformative approach emphasises changing an individual’s behaviour by addressing the root causes of their disruptive activity through counselling, psychological treatment and the introduction of incentives. It contrasts with retribution and deterrence.
This approach is best illustrated in cases of employees prone to absenteeism, a leading source of misconduct the world over. Excessive absenteeism is rampant in in both the private and public sectors. The most common reason given is sickness. Illness can be feigned and neither the company doctor or some other medic can be sure whether the absence is related to sickness.
Absenteeism leads to escalation in the cost of running a business. There are hidden costs such as overtime to cover for sick employees, temporary help to replace absentees, supervisory time spent to find a person to cover, and lowered productivity on the part of those who have to work harder for someone who is chronically absent. As people do get sick, it is unrealistic to set a goal of zero absenteeism. The right objective is to have programmes that penalise those who abuse their sick leave privilege. It is also desirable to reward employees who have good attendance records.
Generally, employers have a zero-tolerance policy for fraud and dishonesty by employees. While there is nothing wrong in having such a policy, one must know the reasons behind such actions. Employees commit fraud due to pressure, opportunity and the belief that their behaviour is justified even if not appropriate. They are often driven by personal financial issues, a sense of being undervalued, and weak internal controls. Other contributory factors include addiction, a belief that they deserve more compensation, and sometimes an inability to distinguish between right and wrong actions.
Actions subversive of discipline by employees are also common. These stem from organisational shortcomings, psychological factors and personal issues. They involve lack of clarity, fairness and support at the workplace rather than malicious intent. Poor management, such as autocratic attitudes, favouritism, or a manager’s own failure to follow rules, can damage morale and encourage insubordination.
Employees indulge in disorderly behaviour due to feelings of unfairness, lack of support and poor management practices. This misconduct is frequently a symptom of deeper workplace issues. Managers often complain that a certain employee is consistently underperforming and recommend strict action. Unless precise allegations of habitual negligence against the employee are proved in an internal inquiry, action on the basis of vague statements by the supervisor will backfire.
Interestingly, cases of misconduct are far higher among men than women working in a similar capacity.
While one is not advising employers to refrain from taking action against employees guilty of serious misconduct, they should tighten financial controls and train managers in how to supervise employees with fairness. Companies managed professionally hardly encounter any cases of indiscipline.
The writer is a consultant in human resources at the Aga Khan University Hospital.
Published in Dawn, December 20th, 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment