Nearly a year after the two influential US senators – Charles Earnest ?Chuck? Grassley and Richard Joseph ?Dick? Durbin – wrote letters to Indian IT majors seeking details of H1-B visas issued to these companies, on April 1 this year, they have again shot off another missive to nine listed IT firms with more probing questions on the use of H1-B visas. Though it has come as no surprise to industry observers, especially since it is election year in the US, only Mumbai-based Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) seems to have received the letter, while other top firms, including Infosys Technologies, Wipro Ltd and Satyam, have said they are yet to receive the same.
A TCS spokesperson said, ?We have received the letter and will address the senators? questions in an appropriate manner. TCS has and continues to comply with all laws and regulations pertaining to these visa programs.? V Balakrishnan, CFO, Infosys told FE, ?We have not received the letter yet. We have to study the letter before we can say anything.? ?They (the US senators) have asked for answers to certain questions. As and when we receive it (the letter), we will respond to it accordingly,? Pratik Kumar, executive VP (HR), Wipro said. ?If the data asked for is something that we think can be shared, then we will share it,? he added.
In the five-page letter, along with the questionnaire posted on Grassley?s website, the senators have said the questionnaire is meant to understand the companies? need for use of high-skilled visas by the companies and ?would help to inform further our views of the H-1B and L-1 visa programs?. ?We haven?t received the letter and so we are not in a position to comment on the same,? said SV Krishnan, head of HR, Satyam Computer Services.
Anish Zaveri, associate director, KPMG said, ?The compliance level with Indian IT firms is quite high. This is more of a political turn and the potential slowdown in the US. This is definitely going to create more pressure for Indian IT firms.? The National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) too refused to comment, as it felt the picture at this moment was very unclear.