Zero working days but salary being paid

Why the bank rejects this

WPS enforces that salary is paid for work done. If the employee worked zero days but receives a salary, the bank suspects payroll fraud, an unpaid leave issue, or a template glitch. If they worked full days but receive nothing, the Ministry of Labour flags possible non-payment. Banks commonly reject rows with this conflict unless the Notes field explains it (paid leave, end-of-service advance, etc.).

How to fix it

1. Decide which side is correct: did the employee actually work this month? If no, they should usually be excluded from the file under the unpaid-leave exemption.
2. If the employee was on paid leave (annual, sick, maternity), keep the Working Days at the actual worked days (not zero) and add "paid leave" in field 16 (Notes).
3. If this row is a bonus or end-of-service payment, it belongs in a separate SIF file with the appropriate file type not the regular salary file.
4. If Working Days is filled but Net Salary is 0, check whether deductions cancelled the salary entirely if so, document it in Notes.
5. For new hires joining mid-month, set Working Days to the actual days worked (prorated), not the full calendar month.
6. Re-validate in Ujoor; X04 and V37 should both clear when the row is coherent and documented.

How Ujoor catches this

Ujoor raises rule V37 when working days is 0 and cross-field rule X04 when that 0 is combined with a non-zero Net Salary so you see both the cause and its consequence in one place. The inline editor lets you either add a Notes explanation or exclude the row entirely, instantly.