Notice Period Dilemma: Is a Signed Contract or Company Policy Binding in Court?

My query is simple. My original appointment letter states my notice period as 1 month. However, later the organization changed its company policy and amended the said appointment letter to read as 3 months' notice. However, the HR department just sent an email telling all employees that the new notice policy will be binding on all. They never modified any contracts to state the same and did not take our signatures.

Validity of Notice Period in Court

My question is, what would hold valid in a court of law? A signed appointment letter stating a one-month notice period or a company policy statement stating the change in notice period to three months?

Notice Clause for Unilateral Termination of Employment in India

In India, the notice clause for unilateral termination of employment in the contract of employment, other than discharge or retrenchment by the employer, is discretionary only. Even if it is there, as I understand, courts do not issue any decree compelling the employee to perform the specific act of serving the notice period but only grant the relief of liquidated damages to the employer equivalent to the salary of the notice period already stipulated.

Therefore, subsequent revision of the earlier notice period can be done by the employer, subject to the formal intimation of the change, which seems to have been done by the poster's employer.

Objective of the Notice of Termination Clause

Having said so about the legal position of the effect of breach of the notice clause, it would also be pertinent to discuss the prime objective behind the concept of the notice of termination clause in the contract of employment. Notice of unilateral termination is primarily to inform the other party about one's intention of exit in advance so as to enable them to find an apt alternative. That's why it is very difficult to define the duration of the notice period very precisely. So the positive conclusion one should arrive at is that even in the absence of mention of any specific period, it is necessary to give notice of exit.

Therefore, the objection of the poster with reference to the signed appointment letter cannot hold good.

Thank you for your kind response. But in that case the employer almost has a free run in amending the notice period clause at will. What if tomorrow they turn it into a six month notice period? They would not need employee's signature to do so, at all? A mere intimation on email would suffice?

Your original appointment letter states the notice period as one month. The terms and conditions are binding only when the offer has been agreed or accepted.

Here, the management is offering a change in terms - an enhancement of the notice period from one month to three months. However, this is not yet a contract until it is agreed upon by all parties involved.

If the notice of change is not challenged or objected to, it shall be conditionally treated as an acceptance.

Thanks. But in our case, there was no discussion or consultation before changing the notice period term. It was just a mail that said it would be binding on us all. Isn't that a little too convenient for the employer? That way, they can amend laws as and when they please. Moreover, the signed appointment letter is a valid contract between the employee and employer, and it holds good until a new letter is drafted stating the change in terms and conditions. Would my case hold good if I were to challenge them for holding my F&F for a month served and demanding a recovery for two 'apparently due' months of notice?