HLS Asia Reviews

3.4

55% would recommend to a friend

(55 total reviews)

45% positive business outlook

HLS Asia has an employee rating of 3.4 out of 5 stars, based on 55 company reviews on Glassdoor which indicates that most employees have a good working experience there. The HLS Asia employee rating is in line with the average (within 1 standard deviation) for employers within the Energy, mining, utilities industry (3.7 stars).

Reviews by job title

55 reviews
1.0
15 Jan 2026

Overall ratings

Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

Learning environment, tough recruitment process

Cons

Very bad management, poor working hours, no freedom of speech, HR is rude and non responsive

5.0
30 Dec 2025

salary

Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

good company and above market average salary

Cons

very difficult to attrach relevant candidates

1.0
8 July 2025
Recommend
CEO approval
Business outlook

Pros

No advantages to list currently.

Cons

High-risk work environment, Long and irregular hours, Physical and mental strain, Frequent travel and relocation, Limited financial growth opportunities, Benefits and allowances insufficient for field hardship, Lack of recognition for efforts and contributions, No respect for trainee-level roles in field environments, Undefined Job Role with Unrelated and Unrewarded Tasks The job role as a Trainee TCP Specialist is not clearly defined, resulting in frequent assignment of unrelated tasks. Trainees are often asked to perform inventory work, cleaning work that belongs to someone else’s responsibility or assist other departments with purely physical tasks that provide no learning or technical value. These assignments come without any form of compensation or recognition. Despite contributing time and effort beyond the scope of their role, trainees receive no acknowledgment, which leads to a sense of being undervalued. Employees are pressured to fill out two to three cards every day—even when there’s nothing significant to report. It often feels like we’re just doing it to meet a number, rather than genuinely improving safety. What’s more frustrating is that most of the issues we do report are never acted upon, which makes the whole exercise feel pointless and disconnected from actual field realities. The compensation offered for this role is comparable to that of an entry-level employee in a mass-recruiting IT company, despite the nature of work being far more demanding and high-risk. The workload is intense, working hours are irregular, and there's often little to no distinction between working hours and rest time while on-site. Fieldwork, especially at wellsites, involves exposure to several serious hazards—such as high-pressure lines, explosive handling (TCP guns), flammable materials, H₂S gas exposure, extreme heat, Falling objects from a significant height, slippery surfaces, heavy lifting, pinch hazard, and many more. The physical and mental strain of this role is significant, and unfortunately, it is not reflected in compensation. Despite completing all the required competencies, delivering the presentation, and clearing the interview conducted by senior personnel and a representative from management, no promotion was granted—not just to me, but to any of my eligible colleagues. There has been no official communication or explanation regarding this, which raises serious concerns about the fairness and transparency of the promotion process. This lack of recognition despite fulfilling every step in the process is both discouraging and demotivating. In April, a salary appraisal of ₹1000–₹1100 was given New recruits hired under the title of “Engineer” are often expected to work more like field laborers, taking on physically demanding and repetitive tasks under the justification that it is for learning purposes i still have to do the following: paintaing metal hardware, removing rust, buffing metal hardware with a grinder, pressure washing used/dirty hardware. In reality, operators often shift their part of work onto these junior staff. This culture of overwork and under-compensation does little to support real learning and is not aligned with industry practices elsewhere, where junior engineers are trained more efficiently without being exploited. Titles like “Trainee TCP Specialist” or “Junior Cased Hole Engineer” sound like proper engineering roles, but in reality, they don’t reflect the actual work being done. These positions don’t even exist in top companies like Halliburton. What ends up happening is that you're doing the work of a field operator—mostly manual, physically demanding tasks—but under the label of an engineering job. The company uses these titles to make it seem like you’re on a technical career path, but the responsibilities and the pay don’t match. You end up working like an operator for over a year, with very low compensation, while being told it’s part of your learning. In truth, this kind of work doesn’t add much value to your long-term career, and other companies manage to train engineers without making them go through this. While the CTC may appear attractive on paper—₹11–12 lakhs per annum—the actual in-hand salary is typically only around ₹4–4.5 lakhs, the compensation structure highly misleading.

Viewing 1 - 3 of 55 Reviews

Glassdoor has 80 HLS Asia reviews submitted anonymously by HLS Asia employees. Read employee reviews and ratings on Glassdoor to decide if HLS Asia is right for you.