Employment Bond requiring the newly recruited, appointed, trained and confirmed employee after successful completion of the period of probation to serve the employer for a certain no of specified years failing which to pay a certain predetermined sum of money commensurate with the time and money spent on the training by the employer is, no doubt, valid under the Indian Contract Act,1872.
Here, to assess the value or cost of the training, it should be sort of personal grooming and enhancement of the employees rather than just a training that helps employees to perform better. Therefore, Courts would always look into the reasonability of the bond such as the nature of the job, the duration of the training, the amount of stipend or salary paid, the length of the compulsory service required, the preliquidated sum fixed in the bond in case of renunciation of the bond by the employee and the like. The bond will not be enforceable if it is either one sided, unconscionable or unreasonable.
For example, in Sicpa India Ltd v Manas Pratim Deb, where the employer sued the employee for leaving service within 2 years against the compulsory service period of 3 years and claimed the damages of Rs.2 lakh as agreed in the bond, the Delhi High Court awarded a compensation of Rs.22,532/= only by dividing the cost of training of Rs.67595/= by 3 since remaining period of service by the employee was one year only.
Therefore, the poster need not pay the sum of Rs.5 lakh as mentioned in the bond.
If his employer insists, he can negotiate with the employer for a lesser sum based on the actual cost of training incurred by the employer. If it fails he can go in for judicial remedy.