Legal binding on abroad training - no mention of a minimum period of training days

Each time you will be sent abroad for training, you will be automatically under a service bond for a period of three years from the date of completion of such training meaning thereby that you will continue to serve the company for the specified period of 3 years thereafter. The value of such a bond for claim purposes shall be equal to 12 months' salary for the 36-month bond period or proportionate.

The amount for the balance period of the bond is subject to a minimum of six month's salary. In addition, you will also pay the entire cost incurred by the company on your foreign training. However, this shall be enforced by the company in the event of a violation of the terms of this contract on your account and shall be a legal entitlement of the company without any contestation. Despite the payment of the claim amount, Claus No. 14, 16 in particular and all other terms of this contract shall apply in addition.

Is the above clause mentioned in the appointment letter legally binding for a travel of 4 working days? There was no mention of a minimum period of training days. There was no documents or training schedule shared or not signed from my end.

Please clarify

There is prima facie no infirmity from the legal perspective as per the Indian Contract Act 1872. Knowing the clause pretty well you signed the agreement and it is binding on you. The agreement is inequitable and can be challenged so as the clause provides for a minimum of six months salary even if the employee has swerved say two years and ten months. It is also bad that the cost of training is counted separately from the three-year service liability. But these are matters on the merit of the case and could go either way.

Hi,

Based on the information provided, it seems that the clause you mentioned is quite broad and could potentially cover any duration of training abroad. However, there are some points you may want to consider:

Clarity and Specificity: The clause is somewhat vague in terms of the duration of the training. It states "each time you will be sent abroad for training", but does not specify what constitutes training. This lack of specificity may be a point of contention.

No Mention of Minimum Training Duration: Since there is no mention of a minimum period of training, it may be argued that a 4-day trip does not fall under the scope of this clause.

No Signed Documents or Training Schedule: If you haven't signed any documents or received a training schedule, it could potentially weaken the company's position in enforcing the clause.

Legal Advice: It's crucial to consult with a legal professional who is familiar with local labor laws and employment contracts. They can provide you with specific advice based on your situation and jurisdiction.

Communication with the Company: You may want to discuss this with your employer and seek clarification on their interpretation of the clause. They may be willing to provide more details or reconsider the application of the clause for a short trip.

It is the interpretation and enforce-ability of employment contracts can vary significantly depending on jurisdiction and specific circumstances. Always consult with a qualified legal professional for advice tailored to your situation.

Thanks

The clause, as stated, is vague and uncertain. Hence it would almost be impossible to be enforced through a civil action. The scenario could be different if the employment contract provides for arbitration.

Missed to mention appointment letter was shared after one month from the date of joining. Offer letter shared prior joint does not have this clause.

Will this still have legal binding?