Сотрудник отказался от медицинской отгулы и потребовал удаленной работы после операции

The employee said they have been advised to undergo surgery for a meniscus injury and are expected to face significant difficulty walking during recovery. Since their role can be performed entirely from home, they approached HR for temporary WFH. However, HR reportedly rejected the request, saying there was “no provision” for WFH. The employee said other workers in the organisation have previously been allowed to work remotely through manager-approved Azure Virtual Desktop (AVD) access. They also offered to bear the cost of the AVD licence themselves. Also Read: Police arrest five people printing fake Rs 500 notes out of a private bungalow in Maharashtra Employee raises questions over WFH and notice period The employee said the request is limited to the post-operative recovery period and that they are willing to provide medical documentation confirming their inability to commute. Another concern is the possible impact of medical leave on the employee's notice period. According to the employee, the organisation may extend the release date by the number of medical leave days taken. This could delay the relieving date even though the employee remains capable of performing their duties from home. The employee therefore asked whether an employer has a legal obligation to consider temporary WFH as a reasonable accommodation, whether HR can reject the request by citing a lack of provision when remote access is technically available, and whether being in the notice period changes the employee's legal position. They also sought clarity on whether the employer can extend the notice period after medical leave, whether Indian labour or disability law applies to a temporary medical condition following surgery, and what legal or administrative avenues may be available if the request is rejected. Questions over reasonable accommodation under Indian law One person responding to the post referred to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act), saying it provides for “reasonable accommodation” and non-discrimination in employment. The commenter, however, claimed that an employee would need to have more than 40 per cent permanent disability before an employer would have a legal obligation to provide accommodation. The commenter also said that the issue of extending the notice period would depend on the employment contract. Another respondent disagreed with the approach of pursuing the issue as a legal dispute at the outset and urged the employee to prioritise recovery. The commenter warned against attempting to report to the office merely to demonstrate the extent of the physical limitation and suggested that medical leave might be the practical option if WFH was refused. Suggestions to obtain medical documentation Another commenter recommended keeping the matter straightforward and obtaining a doctor's certificate specifically stating that the employee is unfit to commute but fit to work from home. The commenter suggested submitting a written request for temporary WFH that clearly specifies the expected recovery period. The employee's claim that AVD access has previously been provided to other workers, along with the offer to cover the additional cost, was described as strengthening the practical case for remote work. However, the commenter also noted that an employer is not necessarily legally required to provide WFH simply because a particular role can technically be performed remotely. The employee was advised to check the employment contract and company policies governing medical leave and notice-period extensions. The commenter further suggested asking the employer in writing what alternative arrangement would apply if WFH was rejected and whether medical leave would result in an extension of the notice period. Also Read: Drone killer noise: Chandigarh scientist develops new anti-drone tech that destroy aerial threats without firing a single bullet or laser beam Other reactions to the employee's post Some responses took a more sarcastic approach. One commenter suggested going to the office in an ambulance or on a stretcher and asking HR and the manager to meet the employee at the entrance. Another suggested using a wheelchair, while a separate commenter recommended obtaining a doctor's note and requesting an early release from the notice period on grounds of medical exigency. One response jokingly suggested asking the employee should buy an electric wheelchair and ask HR to reimburse its cost, with the commenter saying that HR should be challenged using its own stated approach. The employee said they were not seeking confrontation with the organisation and wanted to continue working throughout recovery. Their stated aim was to understand whether they have a legal basis to request temporary WFH and avoid an unnecessary delay to their release date.