Ilapen,

Though it's (perversely) fascinating to have the Prime Minister of the land take such an interest in one company's personnel decision, I would say that HM's stance on the matter is cystal clear, honest and straightforward.

My colleagues have publicly said this on TV and radio in Nepal, and I second this: 

"That HM did NOT break a single law of the land when -- with enormous sadness and patience but with no sense of joy -- it let go of those 18 non-patrakar staff members."

Like the 34 other patrakar and non-patrakar staff who left HM voluntarily earlier in July/Aug/Sept with the company-offered severance packages, and who have since found excellent jobs elsewhere, those 18 staff too were offered assistance to find jobs elsewhere.

They were offered more-than-the-legally-required (i.e. quite generous) severance packages; and they were told, with as much honesty and compassion possible, that the company, though immensely grateful for their services, could no longer afford to keep them on the payroll. They were even welcome to examine the books, and verify the truth for themselves.

I mean, what could anyone else have done under the circumstances?

It's perfectly fine for those staff to NOT like the company's decision. But the way for them to challenge that decision is to use a court of law.

[Personally and professionally, I fail to see why anyone who's capable in Nepal would want to hang around a company, especially after the company has told you that it no longer wanted your services . .  . but I digress!]

Still, in a democracy, this is how disputes are resolved: either through mutual understanding and/or through the judicial system. Disputes should NOT be settled by trading blows and punches and through vandalism, death threats and physical attacks by the unknown cadres of a known political party.

Let's see.

oohi

ashu