THE OPPORTUNITY STRIKES DEPENDING ON HOW YOU PURSUE IT. IN THIS CASE, AN INDIAN ORIGIN MAN WORKING IN SINGAPORE HAD BEEN AWARDED WHOPPING 2.9 MILLION US DOLLARS BY HIS EX-EMPLOYER DUE TO THE BAD REFERENCE COST HIM AN EMPLOYMENT HE WAS SUPPOSE TO GET IN ANOTHER COMPANY. THIS CASE COULD BECOME AN EYE OPENER FOR MANY COMPANIES WHO KEEPS INDULGING INTO SUCH MALPRACTICES…
Unfortunately, in India, we do not have the strong laws to save the people from the trouble due to which the companies take advantage and in many cases harasses their employees unnecessary. This is one of the typical case wherein the company tried to do something similar with its employee which backfired very badly on them.
According to the reports, an employee of a Singapore based company had been paid a whopping 2.9 million US Dollars by AXA Life Company for losing the job which he had applied in an another firm. The reports claim that an Indian origin man has received a whopping 4 million Singaporean dollars (equivalent to the 2.9 million US Dollars) towards the damages from his ex-employer AXA Insurance after an extremely critical reference letter issued by them, cost him the chance to get a new job.
The IANS reports further claims that Ramesh Krishnan had filed a petition in the court accusing his ex-employer AXA Life Insurance Company Singapore for defaming him through their reference letter provided to him on his work performance in the year 2012.
According to the Strait Times Reports, Ramesh had sought for 63 million Singapore dollars while his ex-employer AXA Life Insurance had appealed before the court that he should be awarded only 1 million Singaporean Dollars. The Justice George Wel on Monday noted in his judgment that stands of both the parties had been “Polar Opposite” when it comes to the compensation towards the damages.
According to the reports, Krishnan had lost the defamation suit initially in the year 2015. But, later in the court of appeal, he managed to prove his stand that his ex-employee AXA had breached its duty of care to him, says the report. The court had also noted AXA’s breach of duty led Prudential Assurance Company Singapore not to hire Ramesh.
According to the complaint of Ramesh, When the firm in which he had applied for a job asked AXA for the reference, and the AXA wrote back saying: “He showed a very poor 13th month persistency rate” which means that many of his clients did not stick with their policies which in turn created a concern over his performance. “we are very concerned as to whether the clients have been provided with proper advice”.
According to the findings of the Court of Appeal, the AXA company had given a mistaken impression of the Ramesh stating that he was not competent but the same did not match with the evidence that he was one of “AXA’s best financial services directors” and it had earlier persuaded him not to resign.
“People must know that justice is served. Somebody must go out there and make a point,” said Ramesh, after the ruling.