Dear all,
I had joined in a company as HR Trainee obliged to work for three years by signing an legal agreement(Bond) along with surety who is a government servant, after working for 16 months due to personal problems and for better opportunities i left the company, now the company is asking to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- stating that bond Violation. They stopped my F&F, PF and relieving.
Key points in the agreement:
1.1st year of service as Trainee, 2nd year probation, 3rd year confirmation.
2. Relationship between company and employer is that of "teacher and student” and not master and servant.
3. Stating that “Company incurred lot of money for training” which is not true and there is no training given as such.
Now company executives are threatening me that they will file case in court if i didn’t pay the money.
I request you all to help me out from this problem by giving your valuable suggestions.
Thanks and regard
Babu
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
4I had joined in a company as HR Trainee obliged to work for three years by signing an legal agreement(Bond) along with surety who is a government servant, after working for 16 months due to personal problems and for better opportunities i left the company, now the company is asking to pay an amount of Rs.75,000/- stating that bond Violation. They stopped my F&F, PF and relieving.
Key points in the agreement:
1.1st year of service as Trainee, 2nd year probation, 3rd year confirmation.
2. Relationship between company and employer is that of "teacher and student” and not master and servant.
3. Stating that “Company incurred lot of money for training” which is not true and there is no training given as such.
Now company executives are threatening me that they will file case in court if i didn’t pay the money.
I request you all to help me out from this problem by giving your valuable suggestions.
Thanks and regard
Babu
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Lokesh,
If you have signed a bond at the time of joining, then you have no other way; you have to follow it. If you are not following it, it's a breach of contract, and the company has the right to take actions against you. Generally, a company also signs a bond amount, i.e., if you do not want to continue the service under any circumstances, you have to pay back the amount. Check your bond paper for such a clause. If the new opportunity is good, pay back the amount to your current organization and carry on.
For any clarification, feel free to write or discuss.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you have signed a bond at the time of joining, then you have no other way; you have to follow it. If you are not following it, it's a breach of contract, and the company has the right to take actions against you. Generally, a company also signs a bond amount, i.e., if you do not want to continue the service under any circumstances, you have to pay back the amount. Check your bond paper for such a clause. If the new opportunity is good, pay back the amount to your current organization and carry on.
For any clarification, feel free to write or discuss.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir,
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. The bond has been executed at the time of joining itself. In the name of giving on-the-job training, I was asked to execute a bond for 3 years, which is not true, as I was handed over core job responsibilities right from the beginning. In such a situation, how can I pay such a huge amount, which is twice the amount I received in the form of a monthly salary?
Please suggest.
Thanks & Regards,
Babu.M
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. The bond has been executed at the time of joining itself. In the name of giving on-the-job training, I was asked to execute a bond for 3 years, which is not true, as I was handed over core job responsibilities right from the beginning. In such a situation, how can I pay such a huge amount, which is twice the amount I received in the form of a monthly salary?
Please suggest.
Thanks & Regards,
Babu.M
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mr. Babu,
If you have a copy of the bond, please read through the agreement literature thoroughly first. If you can prove yourself that they have not trained you and given core job responsibilities, then you can fight with them legally. Consult a good legal advisor in this regard and follow his guidelines. In any case, if your bond is for one year and they have asked for three years, you can win the case. However, it will take time and have a negative impact on your career. It is better to consult the higher officials in your office and request them to relieve you by explaining your case. If they agree, it is even better.
With best regards,
Suneel
From India, Vijayawada
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you have a copy of the bond, please read through the agreement literature thoroughly first. If you can prove yourself that they have not trained you and given core job responsibilities, then you can fight with them legally. Consult a good legal advisor in this regard and follow his guidelines. In any case, if your bond is for one year and they have asked for three years, you can win the case. However, it will take time and have a negative impact on your career. It is better to consult the higher officials in your office and request them to relieve you by explaining your case. If they agree, it is even better.
With best regards,
Suneel
From India, Vijayawada
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Lokesh,
Before making any suggestions, I would like to inquire about a few things:
- Firstly, have you formally resigned from your organization?
- Has your employer accepted your resignation?
- Have you completed your notice period as required by your organization?
- Your HR Department handles all entries and exits, so have you discussed your reasons for leaving with them?
Additionally, as suggested by our experienced colleagues, please review your contract once more. I understand that paying a significant amount may pose challenges, but it is always better to communicate with the relevant parties rather than giving in to despair.
Please let me know if you need further assistance or clarification.
Best regards, [Your Name]
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Before making any suggestions, I would like to inquire about a few things:
- Firstly, have you formally resigned from your organization?
- Has your employer accepted your resignation?
- Have you completed your notice period as required by your organization?
- Your HR Department handles all entries and exits, so have you discussed your reasons for leaving with them?
Additionally, as suggested by our experienced colleagues, please review your contract once more. I understand that paying a significant amount may pose challenges, but it is always better to communicate with the relevant parties rather than giving in to despair.
Please let me know if you need further assistance or clarification.
Best regards, [Your Name]
From India, Visakhapatnam
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
After taking into consideration the whole discussion above, I would like to add by asking you:
1) This question may seem silly, but yes, it is important: were you sober when signing the agreement?
2) Do you have access to the company policy?
3) Are there any specifications mentioned about the training in the agreement?
4) Have they specified the amount of compensation? Alternatively, could you please send me a copy of your agreement and any related documents like the appointment letter, stipend-paid slips, etc., whatever documents you have and feel are important to
? Let's see what can be done with it.
It's kind of difficult to ask specific questions that could help you without the documents. So, if you feel it necessary, please send them to the given email ID. This seems like an issue related to apprenticeship, and legal help may be available if needed. In any case, it's important to review the agreement, but there's no need to worry too much about it.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1) This question may seem silly, but yes, it is important: were you sober when signing the agreement?
2) Do you have access to the company policy?
3) Are there any specifications mentioned about the training in the agreement?
4) Have they specified the amount of compensation? Alternatively, could you please send me a copy of your agreement and any related documents like the appointment letter, stipend-paid slips, etc., whatever documents you have and feel are important to
It's kind of difficult to ask specific questions that could help you without the documents. So, if you feel it necessary, please send them to the given email ID. This seems like an issue related to apprenticeship, and legal help may be available if needed. In any case, it's important to review the agreement, but there's no need to worry too much about it.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Lokesh Babu,
I am with Prasenjit Mitra.
When you signed the bond, you ought to follow it both in spirit and deed.
You mention that you left 'due to personal problems and for better opportunities'—which of the two is the true reason? When you knew that you had a bond, what made you think of even applying for a new job without giving any thought to the bond—the consequences thereof?
Frankly, I think you took things for granted—that the company wouldn't really bother. Or, that you could get away with it.
You seem to be stressing on 'no training given as such', by saying: 'was handed over core job responsibilities right from the beginning'. Could you please explain what you mean by "core job responsibilities"?
You also mention that you joined as a trainee, which means that there definitely must have been someone mentoring/training/guiding you even in your 'core job responsibilities'. Were you just assigned job responsibilities and targets right from day-1 without any support mechanism in place? I am sure not.
Being an HR person yourself, I do hope you know and realize that many companies (usually SMEs) would rather prefer to train/guide freshers while on the job rather than have structured/separate/formal training sessions—for multiple reasons, some of which are to do with economics. Hope you get the point.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am with Prasenjit Mitra.
When you signed the bond, you ought to follow it both in spirit and deed.
You mention that you left 'due to personal problems and for better opportunities'—which of the two is the true reason? When you knew that you had a bond, what made you think of even applying for a new job without giving any thought to the bond—the consequences thereof?
Frankly, I think you took things for granted—that the company wouldn't really bother. Or, that you could get away with it.
You seem to be stressing on 'no training given as such', by saying: 'was handed over core job responsibilities right from the beginning'. Could you please explain what you mean by "core job responsibilities"?
You also mention that you joined as a trainee, which means that there definitely must have been someone mentoring/training/guiding you even in your 'core job responsibilities'. Were you just assigned job responsibilities and targets right from day-1 without any support mechanism in place? I am sure not.
Being an HR person yourself, I do hope you know and realize that many companies (usually SMEs) would rather prefer to train/guide freshers while on the job rather than have structured/separate/formal training sessions—for multiple reasons, some of which are to do with economics. Hope you get the point.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
In India, a bond is illegal. It is only one-sided. As per law, the employer cannot enforce a bond. In various decisions, the various high courts and the Supreme Court have held that the bond system violates the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. No employer has the right to insist that the employee serves the company against the employee's wishes. The employee has the right to quit the employment at any time they want. It's up to the employee to decide when and until what day they want to work. The only requirement is that due notice should be given to the employer.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In India, a bond is illegal. It is only one-sided. As per law, the employer cannot enforce a bond. In various decisions, the various high courts and the Supreme Court have held that the bond system violates the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. No employer has the right to insist that the employee serves the company against the employee's wishes. The employee has the right to quit the employment at any time they want. It's up to the employee to decide when and until what day they want to work. The only requirement is that due notice should be given to the employer.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mehrunisa,
Kindly cite some court cases in support from either the High Court in India that will be helpful for this gentleman. I am with you that bonded labor or bondage is against fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
S K Nain Head HR 09824916886
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Kindly cite some court cases in support from either the High Court in India that will be helpful for this gentleman. I am with you that bonded labor or bondage is against fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
S K Nain Head HR 09824916886
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Lokesh Babu,
The bond you have signed is not enforceable by law because it is not legal and it goes against fundamental rights. Therefore, do not pay the money to the employer. If your employer files any case against you, face it legally with the help of an advocate who has courage and stamina.
Regarding the withdrawal of PF contributions, you can directly submit the withdrawal form to the PF office after obtaining your signature from the bank manager where your account is being operated.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The bond you have signed is not enforceable by law because it is not legal and it goes against fundamental rights. Therefore, do not pay the money to the employer. If your employer files any case against you, face it legally with the help of an advocate who has courage and stamina.
Regarding the withdrawal of PF contributions, you can directly submit the withdrawal form to the PF office after obtaining your signature from the bank manager where your account is being operated.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Article 19 of the constitution is subjected to the reasonable restrictions!! So the bond for a reasonable specific period is valid and agreed party is bound to comply.......
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Lokesh Babu,
I am with Prasenjit Mitra.
When you signed the bond, you ought to follow it both in spirit and deed.
You mention that you left 'due to personal problems and for better opportunities' — which of the two is the true reason? When you knew that you had a bond, what made you think of even applying for a new job without giving any thought to the bond — the consequences thereof?
Frankly, I think you took things for granted — that the company wouldn't really bother. Or, that you could get away with it.
You seem to be stressing on 'no training given as such,' by saying: 'was handed over core job responsibilities right from the beginning.' Could you please explain what you mean by "core job responsibilities"?
You also mention that you joined as a trainee, which means that there definitely must have been someone mentoring/training/guiding you even in your 'core job responsibilities'. Were you just assigned job responsibilities and targets right from day-1 without any support mechanism in place? I am sure not.
Being an HR person yourself, I do hope you know and realize that many companies (usually SMEs) would rather prefer to train/guide freshers while on the job rather than have structured/separate/formal training sessions — for multiple reasons, some of which are to do with economics. Hope you get the point.
Regards,
TS
I agree, as said above, you must have thought well before taking a decision to quit the job or to continue... But there are many companies that provide training in theory, core responsibilities would indicate good training...
... but it may also be interpreted that the employer wants to completely utilize the candidate without giving the status of an employee. These are also the tricks of many companies that fail to invest in HR and utilize students for such tasks. Keeping this apart, how can a company entrust core responsibilities to a person who is not even an employee of the company? Is this because you can escape from personal liabilities if something goes wrong and put such losses on a trainee? Or you can escape from saying that the trainee was not an employee of the company at all?
These kinds of cases are plentiful in India, and such exploitations (these are manipulation activities)... there are companies of that sort all over India.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am with Prasenjit Mitra.
When you signed the bond, you ought to follow it both in spirit and deed.
You mention that you left 'due to personal problems and for better opportunities' — which of the two is the true reason? When you knew that you had a bond, what made you think of even applying for a new job without giving any thought to the bond — the consequences thereof?
Frankly, I think you took things for granted — that the company wouldn't really bother. Or, that you could get away with it.
You seem to be stressing on 'no training given as such,' by saying: 'was handed over core job responsibilities right from the beginning.' Could you please explain what you mean by "core job responsibilities"?
You also mention that you joined as a trainee, which means that there definitely must have been someone mentoring/training/guiding you even in your 'core job responsibilities'. Were you just assigned job responsibilities and targets right from day-1 without any support mechanism in place? I am sure not.
Being an HR person yourself, I do hope you know and realize that many companies (usually SMEs) would rather prefer to train/guide freshers while on the job rather than have structured/separate/formal training sessions — for multiple reasons, some of which are to do with economics. Hope you get the point.
Regards,
TS
I agree, as said above, you must have thought well before taking a decision to quit the job or to continue... But there are many companies that provide training in theory, core responsibilities would indicate good training...
... but it may also be interpreted that the employer wants to completely utilize the candidate without giving the status of an employee. These are also the tricks of many companies that fail to invest in HR and utilize students for such tasks. Keeping this apart, how can a company entrust core responsibilities to a person who is not even an employee of the company? Is this because you can escape from personal liabilities if something goes wrong and put such losses on a trainee? Or you can escape from saying that the trainee was not an employee of the company at all?
These kinds of cases are plentiful in India, and such exploitations (these are manipulation activities)... there are companies of that sort all over India.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello BSSV,
I am totally with you in your statements.
But, at the same time, there are always TWO sides to a coin.
With respect to your remarks as below...
"But there are many companies who provide the training in theory, hardcore responsibilities would indicate good training... but also may be interpreted that the employer wants to completely utilize the candidate without giving the status of the employee. These are also the tricks of many companies who fail to invest in HR."
I do agree with what you mention... BUT LET'S NOT GENERALIZE.
If we go by the many postings in CiteHR of those who want to jump the Bond/Agreement and ask for advice on how to do it WITHOUT facing the consequences, can we assume that ALL FRESHERS ARE THE SAME? Definitely NOT, I guess. Just as there are companies who do take people for a ride (I have actually seen some companies take advantage of even experienced employees who didn't have a choice), there would be individuals who blindly sign such Bonds since IT SUITED THEM AT THAT POINT OF TIME. And when they learn the job, they try to find flaws and justifications for jumping the Bond/Agreement (just use the research facility to see how many postings we can find in CiteHR itself).
This is NOT TO JUSTIFY crook companies (which you indicated). What I think we need to stress and realize is that the relationship has to be fair to all parties. In a nutshell, it has to be a WIN-WIN relationship -- else things are bound to go awry, if not now, then later for sure.
If you can recall, the culture of Bonds wasn't there on such a wide scale until about 15-20 years ago in India. If one can analyze the causes/reasons on why it came into practice as a SOP, it could be a sort of an eye-opener.
Even though Lokesh Babu's thread relates to a situation in a very limited sense, what I was trying to focus on was the much larger picture -- that of degradation of Basic values and ethics in general, and among HR professionals in particular.
That we can find many technical employees resorting (or trying to resort to) such Bond/Agreement breaking practices is common knowledge. But it becomes very concerning when HR professionals attempt to go the same way without any qualms -- given that the very function of an HR person is to PRE-EMPT/PREVENT such practice wherever they work.
I recollect a Quote here: "A 'bad word' from the mouth of a commoner is 'blasphemy' from the mouth of a priest."
Hope you get the point.
Going back to what you mentioned about '...may be interpreted that the employer wants to completely utilize the candidate...', I don't think that Lokesh Babu would fall into this category -- if we go by what he mentioned about his career progression. He does seem to have learned in 16 months (when he got a better opportunity), what the company presumed would happen in 36 months (3 years Bond period) -- which points to the sort of support he got from his seniors/peers in this company, APART from his own efforts.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am totally with you in your statements.
But, at the same time, there are always TWO sides to a coin.
With respect to your remarks as below...
"But there are many companies who provide the training in theory, hardcore responsibilities would indicate good training... but also may be interpreted that the employer wants to completely utilize the candidate without giving the status of the employee. These are also the tricks of many companies who fail to invest in HR."
I do agree with what you mention... BUT LET'S NOT GENERALIZE.
If we go by the many postings in CiteHR of those who want to jump the Bond/Agreement and ask for advice on how to do it WITHOUT facing the consequences, can we assume that ALL FRESHERS ARE THE SAME? Definitely NOT, I guess. Just as there are companies who do take people for a ride (I have actually seen some companies take advantage of even experienced employees who didn't have a choice), there would be individuals who blindly sign such Bonds since IT SUITED THEM AT THAT POINT OF TIME. And when they learn the job, they try to find flaws and justifications for jumping the Bond/Agreement (just use the research facility to see how many postings we can find in CiteHR itself).
This is NOT TO JUSTIFY crook companies (which you indicated). What I think we need to stress and realize is that the relationship has to be fair to all parties. In a nutshell, it has to be a WIN-WIN relationship -- else things are bound to go awry, if not now, then later for sure.
If you can recall, the culture of Bonds wasn't there on such a wide scale until about 15-20 years ago in India. If one can analyze the causes/reasons on why it came into practice as a SOP, it could be a sort of an eye-opener.
Even though Lokesh Babu's thread relates to a situation in a very limited sense, what I was trying to focus on was the much larger picture -- that of degradation of Basic values and ethics in general, and among HR professionals in particular.
That we can find many technical employees resorting (or trying to resort to) such Bond/Agreement breaking practices is common knowledge. But it becomes very concerning when HR professionals attempt to go the same way without any qualms -- given that the very function of an HR person is to PRE-EMPT/PREVENT such practice wherever they work.
I recollect a Quote here: "A 'bad word' from the mouth of a commoner is 'blasphemy' from the mouth of a priest."
Hope you get the point.
Going back to what you mentioned about '...may be interpreted that the employer wants to completely utilize the candidate...', I don't think that Lokesh Babu would fall into this category -- if we go by what he mentioned about his career progression. He does seem to have learned in 16 months (when he got a better opportunity), what the company presumed would happen in 36 months (3 years Bond period) -- which points to the sort of support he got from his seniors/peers in this company, APART from his own efforts.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Babu,
I agree with TajSateesh; you must have taken your job for granted. Although, as individuals, we always seek better opportunities, rules and regulations are established for our own benefit. Imagine if you had completed three years as per your bond, you could have left the job with extensive experience and seniority.
While we can only see the situation from your perspective, it's possible that there is more to the story, and you might have been compelled to leave.
Furthermore, reflect on your own mistakes and learn from them.
Regards,
Anila George.
From Pakistan, Karachi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I agree with TajSateesh; you must have taken your job for granted. Although, as individuals, we always seek better opportunities, rules and regulations are established for our own benefit. Imagine if you had completed three years as per your bond, you could have left the job with extensive experience and seniority.
While we can only see the situation from your perspective, it's possible that there is more to the story, and you might have been compelled to leave.
Furthermore, reflect on your own mistakes and learn from them.
Regards,
Anila George.
From Pakistan, Karachi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am afraid, my reply to the thread and the query asked by the individual would become Generalized and may be applicable to all. I am glad to know that......
And crooked is the strong word against any company which I never use. I request you to take the usual meaning of my sentences.......
Thirdly, I am not bothered about any company or any other person, because each issue has its own values and differences.....
You might have missed my previous replies, where I have clearly mentioned that unless I would be able to see the agreement/bond, a clear opinion based on facts can never be given.......
I feel this matter is more of a legal point of view than an HR point of view, because, if it is in an HR point of view, as you and everyone already pointed out, this person has no other choice either to rejoin his company or to pay the compensation....
And, even if you observe my replies, I have just added the missing points but have not commented because I am not opposing anyone's reply here...
Anyways, I could understand the strong emotion behind your words stated above, and I heartily respect them. Also, thank you for the message.
Have a nice day.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
And crooked is the strong word against any company which I never use. I request you to take the usual meaning of my sentences.......
Thirdly, I am not bothered about any company or any other person, because each issue has its own values and differences.....
You might have missed my previous replies, where I have clearly mentioned that unless I would be able to see the agreement/bond, a clear opinion based on facts can never be given.......
I feel this matter is more of a legal point of view than an HR point of view, because, if it is in an HR point of view, as you and everyone already pointed out, this person has no other choice either to rejoin his company or to pay the compensation....
And, even if you observe my replies, I have just added the missing points but have not commented because I am not opposing anyone's reply here...
Anyways, I could understand the strong emotion behind your words stated above, and I heartily respect them. Also, thank you for the message.
Have a nice day.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I am not at all surprised that so many HR professionals in this list are defending the imposition of a bond on so-called trainees. It is these HR people who use such measures as a substitute for good HR practices that will retain employees. Not only do they impose a bond with a financial penalty, but many companies also retain the original certificates of the trainee as a measure of enforcement!
Unfortunately, I am unable to cite actual Court decisions, not being an HR or Legal person. But courts have time and again upheld the fact that merely signing a contract does not make it enforceable if the contract itself is illegal. The courts have also opined that such bonds can only be imposed if the company can clearly establish that it has specifically incurred expenditure in "training" the individual.
For example, if a company sends a trainee abroad for training with a collaborator, it is clearly incurring expenditure for imparting skill to the trainee, and the trainee is not adding any value to the company during this period. In such a case, the company can ask for a bond equivalent to the expenditure they have incurred if the person does not serve for a reasonable time after the training. Of course, the definition of "reasonable time" also comes into question here. Also, in this particular case, how has the company determined three years as the bond period and how have they arrived at Rs. 75,000 as the appropriate compensation? Would the same amount be applicable even if the person left the service of the company, say, after serving two years and 10 months?
My own experience with almost all Indian companies is that the trainee gets completely minimal "training", and there is virtually no expenditure identifiable by the company as specific to the training. Of course, they pay a stipend, but against this, almost every trainee starts doing value-adding work in return almost from the first few weeks.
This whole business is nothing but bonded labor - taking advantage of the young person who is desperate for a job after incurring huge expenditure on education. No developed country tolerates this kind of illegal imprisonment.
The trainee has no rights during the so-called bond period. Who will guarantee that he will be treated fairly and rewarded commensurate with his hard work, when he does not have any option to protest? How is this different from landlords "buying" bonded labor with no right to leave their jobs until a contract period is over? How is this different from the awful practice of slavery in America before the Civil War?
Think about this issue with a humanitarian perspective. HR professionals should fight with their management against this abhorrent and archaic practice!
Raghav Rao
Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Unfortunately, I am unable to cite actual Court decisions, not being an HR or Legal person. But courts have time and again upheld the fact that merely signing a contract does not make it enforceable if the contract itself is illegal. The courts have also opined that such bonds can only be imposed if the company can clearly establish that it has specifically incurred expenditure in "training" the individual.
For example, if a company sends a trainee abroad for training with a collaborator, it is clearly incurring expenditure for imparting skill to the trainee, and the trainee is not adding any value to the company during this period. In such a case, the company can ask for a bond equivalent to the expenditure they have incurred if the person does not serve for a reasonable time after the training. Of course, the definition of "reasonable time" also comes into question here. Also, in this particular case, how has the company determined three years as the bond period and how have they arrived at Rs. 75,000 as the appropriate compensation? Would the same amount be applicable even if the person left the service of the company, say, after serving two years and 10 months?
My own experience with almost all Indian companies is that the trainee gets completely minimal "training", and there is virtually no expenditure identifiable by the company as specific to the training. Of course, they pay a stipend, but against this, almost every trainee starts doing value-adding work in return almost from the first few weeks.
This whole business is nothing but bonded labor - taking advantage of the young person who is desperate for a job after incurring huge expenditure on education. No developed country tolerates this kind of illegal imprisonment.
The trainee has no rights during the so-called bond period. Who will guarantee that he will be treated fairly and rewarded commensurate with his hard work, when he does not have any option to protest? How is this different from landlords "buying" bonded labor with no right to leave their jobs until a contract period is over? How is this different from the awful practice of slavery in America before the Civil War?
Think about this issue with a humanitarian perspective. HR professionals should fight with their management against this abhorrent and archaic practice!
Raghav Rao
Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Yes, Mr. Raghav,
It is not possible to state anything unless we peruse the document. Void ab initio cannot be applied until we go through the document able to prove it.
Many companies do withhold certificates, but only for a specific period of time.
Regarding a bond with a specific "reasonable period," it is legal because it has to provide justice to the investor as well, in this case, the company's investment in the trainee. This also depends on the kind of training the companies provide, so it will not call for the absolute application of the rule.
Regarding the expenditure on training, we cannot assure this benefit until we know what kind of agreement he has signed and what other clauses in the agreement may support this.
This is a never-ending discussion. We may enjoy arguing, but the person who has put forth the query has neither attached any document nor sent it by mail, or even made any effort to provide the necessary information. So, there's no point in keeping on writing sentences excluding the party. :-)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is not possible to state anything unless we peruse the document. Void ab initio cannot be applied until we go through the document able to prove it.
Many companies do withhold certificates, but only for a specific period of time.
Regarding a bond with a specific "reasonable period," it is legal because it has to provide justice to the investor as well, in this case, the company's investment in the trainee. This also depends on the kind of training the companies provide, so it will not call for the absolute application of the rule.
Regarding the expenditure on training, we cannot assure this benefit until we know what kind of agreement he has signed and what other clauses in the agreement may support this.
This is a never-ending discussion. We may enjoy arguing, but the person who has put forth the query has neither attached any document nor sent it by mail, or even made any effort to provide the necessary information. So, there's no point in keeping on writing sentences excluding the party. :-)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Much appreciated,
'No point' also has points:
1. It is basically a conflict between the employer's perspective vis-a-vis the employee's perspective and attitude. It is about the maturity of mutual understanding. The race remains a continuous race, never won by anyone. Morale lost once is lost forever. A penalty of Rs. 75,000.00 imposed does not really boost the employer's earnings. It is a clash of feelings of gratefulness. Employers never create jobs to remain vacant. They never employ to retrench; they have the right to expect employees to remain long-term; otherwise, it is never a win-win.
2. The pain is on both sides.
3. Compromising, accepting reality are the answers; unless both parties have no other business than to continue such never-ending legal proceedings.
Best regards,
db
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
'No point' also has points:
1. It is basically a conflict between the employer's perspective vis-a-vis the employee's perspective and attitude. It is about the maturity of mutual understanding. The race remains a continuous race, never won by anyone. Morale lost once is lost forever. A penalty of Rs. 75,000.00 imposed does not really boost the employer's earnings. It is a clash of feelings of gratefulness. Employers never create jobs to remain vacant. They never employ to retrench; they have the right to expect employees to remain long-term; otherwise, it is never a win-win.
2. The pain is on both sides.
3. Compromising, accepting reality are the answers; unless both parties have no other business than to continue such never-ending legal proceedings.
Best regards,
db
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mehrunisa,
Please do not misguide anybody by saying that in India the bond is illegal because it is very much legal, and believe me, I have had many enforced against many. The only technicality in this is that the employer will have to prove that he has actually spent the amount claimed in the bond on the training of the particular employee. Article 19 gives the liberty to leave the job at will but does not curtail the rightful right of an employer to recover the money spent on the training of an employee.
I also agree that most employers do not impart proper training but get the bond signed. Those bonds are illegal but for the fact that they have not imparted the training and are claiming the wrong money, not because the bonds are illegal per se. Do not get confused between Article 19 and the legality of the bond. In the instant case, the bond may be illegal because the questioner mentioned in his query that he has not been given any training.
The legality of the bond can only be determined by seeing the bond. Please send a copy of the bond, and after seeing that, I will be in a position to opine on this.
Dear all,
In India, a bond is illegal. It is only one-sided. As per law, the employer cannot enforce a bond. In various decisions, various high courts and supreme courts have held that the bond system is a violation of the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. No employer has a right to insist that the employee serve the company against the wish of the employee. The employee has the right to quit employment at any time when he wants. It's up to him to decide when and until what day he wants to work. The only thing is that due notice should be given to the employer.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please do not misguide anybody by saying that in India the bond is illegal because it is very much legal, and believe me, I have had many enforced against many. The only technicality in this is that the employer will have to prove that he has actually spent the amount claimed in the bond on the training of the particular employee. Article 19 gives the liberty to leave the job at will but does not curtail the rightful right of an employer to recover the money spent on the training of an employee.
I also agree that most employers do not impart proper training but get the bond signed. Those bonds are illegal but for the fact that they have not imparted the training and are claiming the wrong money, not because the bonds are illegal per se. Do not get confused between Article 19 and the legality of the bond. In the instant case, the bond may be illegal because the questioner mentioned in his query that he has not been given any training.
The legality of the bond can only be determined by seeing the bond. Please send a copy of the bond, and after seeing that, I will be in a position to opine on this.
Dear all,
In India, a bond is illegal. It is only one-sided. As per law, the employer cannot enforce a bond. In various decisions, various high courts and supreme courts have held that the bond system is a violation of the fundamental rights under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. No employer has a right to insist that the employee serve the company against the wish of the employee. The employee has the right to quit employment at any time when he wants. It's up to him to decide when and until what day he wants to work. The only thing is that due notice should be given to the employer.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I totally agree to it. Article 19 can not curtail the statutory right of the Employer if he has actually spend the money on training of an employee.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hi Lokesh Babu,
Many views have already been shared in these discussions, and they touch upon the legal or moral aspects of the matter. However, any decision should be based more on practical considerations rather than legal or moral thoughts.
As you mentioned, 75,000 INR is twice the salary they were paying, and you are moving for a "better opportunity," so I assume you will be earning more in the new job. Consider your preferences: would you prefer to remain in this job for another 20 months with the same salary (with periodic increments) or receive a higher salary (again with periodic increments)? Perhaps paying 75,000 will be more practical.
Furthermore, inquire with your new employer if they are hiring you as a trainee. If so, they may not require an experience certificate or a relieving letter from your previous employer. In that case, you may opt not to pay the amount.
If the new employer is hiring you as an experienced individual, you could negotiate with them to contribute to this 'Fund' so that you can join them with an experience certificate. Sometimes, if they truly value you and the amount is not substantial, they may cover the cost.
Keep in mind that the company could pursue legal action and provide a lawyer to handle the situation using legal terms. They may be able to afford it to set an example, especially if they already have a lawyer for other services.
Do you truly wish to invest time and effort in that direction? Would you rather pay a lawyer than settle with the old employer?
If, after careful consideration, you still believe it is wise not to pay, then also contemplate staying in the job for another 20 months. During such periods, employee morale tends to be low, and productivity may decrease. However, focus on pursuing your goals within the company. Acquire additional qualifications, seek training within the company, or dedicate time to your family. You may find these 20 months to be more rewarding than pursuing other goals in a new company.
Regards,
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Many views have already been shared in these discussions, and they touch upon the legal or moral aspects of the matter. However, any decision should be based more on practical considerations rather than legal or moral thoughts.
As you mentioned, 75,000 INR is twice the salary they were paying, and you are moving for a "better opportunity," so I assume you will be earning more in the new job. Consider your preferences: would you prefer to remain in this job for another 20 months with the same salary (with periodic increments) or receive a higher salary (again with periodic increments)? Perhaps paying 75,000 will be more practical.
Furthermore, inquire with your new employer if they are hiring you as a trainee. If so, they may not require an experience certificate or a relieving letter from your previous employer. In that case, you may opt not to pay the amount.
If the new employer is hiring you as an experienced individual, you could negotiate with them to contribute to this 'Fund' so that you can join them with an experience certificate. Sometimes, if they truly value you and the amount is not substantial, they may cover the cost.
Keep in mind that the company could pursue legal action and provide a lawyer to handle the situation using legal terms. They may be able to afford it to set an example, especially if they already have a lawyer for other services.
Do you truly wish to invest time and effort in that direction? Would you rather pay a lawyer than settle with the old employer?
If, after careful consideration, you still believe it is wise not to pay, then also contemplate staying in the job for another 20 months. During such periods, employee morale tends to be low, and productivity may decrease. However, focus on pursuing your goals within the company. Acquire additional qualifications, seek training within the company, or dedicate time to your family. You may find these 20 months to be more rewarding than pursuing other goals in a new company.
Regards,
Amod.
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Excellent and a very different way to look at the issue, Amod. Let's see what choice Lokesh Babu will prefer or adopt - which we would know only if he responds to the various views expressed so far, on which I would keep my options open.
However, please desist from mixing up the alternatives at hand. Not that one would do it knowingly, but it's quite easy to slip into such a trap and not realize until it's very late. I have seen many such instances. There would also be some situations, including ones like the one under discussion here, that call for the legal option to be exercised and some where the moral option will need to be adopted - each with its own set of consequences or results. Like the quote goes: "In nature, there are no 'rights' or 'wrongs', only consequences."
The key, I guess, is to adopt the most appropriate solution under a given set of circumstances - and not pass the consequences of our actions or choices onto others.
Regards, TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
However, please desist from mixing up the alternatives at hand. Not that one would do it knowingly, but it's quite easy to slip into such a trap and not realize until it's very late. I have seen many such instances. There would also be some situations, including ones like the one under discussion here, that call for the legal option to be exercised and some where the moral option will need to be adopted - each with its own set of consequences or results. Like the quote goes: "In nature, there are no 'rights' or 'wrongs', only consequences."
The key, I guess, is to adopt the most appropriate solution under a given set of circumstances - and not pass the consequences of our actions or choices onto others.
Regards, TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Lokesh,
You have the laws of India in your support, but the moot question is whether you are willing to fight or not. As far as my knowledge and experience goes, as an individual, one will compromise, but given an opportunity, he will advise others to fight.
(1) Any bond executed between a prospective employer and an employee, heavily loaded in favor of the powerful prospective employer in this case, can be struck down by the courts if you are willing to challenge and spend time, money, and peace of mind.
(2) For a bond or contract where you are not allowed to modify or delete clauses not in your favor is again defective and can be challenged. If all employees have put their signature on a similarly worded bond, you have an additional point in your favor.
(3) The present practice of drafting a bond for "compensation of the amount spent on training" is a loophole devised by some companies. This can also be struck down if it is signed before you join the company as an employee. The companies are eligible for compensation for formal training (like sponsoring your training at a professional institute in India or abroad/sponsoring higher studies/fully paid leaves for training or professional courses, etc.) and not what you have learned ON THE JOB. You have protection by Indian laws if your company cannot show payment to a third party for your training.
Now, my advice, even though Indian laws are in your favor, most of us don't have a choice other than signing papers without even a single reading. Since a number of companies indulge in this malpractice, your fight will make these companies limp in offering a job to you.
Even though it is illegal and unethical, companies that don't have sound HR policies to retain talent use your vulnerability as a job seeker for this bond to retain talent. You have a long earning life, probably another 35 years. Your company may not survive that long. Go ahead, find another job, jump the bond without remorse. If payment of the bond amount is unavoidable, pay the bond amount. It is not training for which you are paying but learning from a bad experience.
Best of luck and wishes for grand future earnings which will make this payment look very tiny.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You have the laws of India in your support, but the moot question is whether you are willing to fight or not. As far as my knowledge and experience goes, as an individual, one will compromise, but given an opportunity, he will advise others to fight.
(1) Any bond executed between a prospective employer and an employee, heavily loaded in favor of the powerful prospective employer in this case, can be struck down by the courts if you are willing to challenge and spend time, money, and peace of mind.
(2) For a bond or contract where you are not allowed to modify or delete clauses not in your favor is again defective and can be challenged. If all employees have put their signature on a similarly worded bond, you have an additional point in your favor.
(3) The present practice of drafting a bond for "compensation of the amount spent on training" is a loophole devised by some companies. This can also be struck down if it is signed before you join the company as an employee. The companies are eligible for compensation for formal training (like sponsoring your training at a professional institute in India or abroad/sponsoring higher studies/fully paid leaves for training or professional courses, etc.) and not what you have learned ON THE JOB. You have protection by Indian laws if your company cannot show payment to a third party for your training.
Now, my advice, even though Indian laws are in your favor, most of us don't have a choice other than signing papers without even a single reading. Since a number of companies indulge in this malpractice, your fight will make these companies limp in offering a job to you.
Even though it is illegal and unethical, companies that don't have sound HR policies to retain talent use your vulnerability as a job seeker for this bond to retain talent. You have a long earning life, probably another 35 years. Your company may not survive that long. Go ahead, find another job, jump the bond without remorse. If payment of the bond amount is unavoidable, pay the bond amount. It is not training for which you are paying but learning from a bad experience.
Best of luck and wishes for grand future earnings which will make this payment look very tiny.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. Agreement in restraint of trade void. - Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.
Exception of this section is that
Exception-1 : Saving of agreement is not to carry on business of which good is sold – One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business.”
In Superintendence Company of india Vs Krishna (1980 AIR 1717) Supreme court held that a contract for restrain for trade is one by which a party restrains his future liability to carry on his trade, business or profession in such manner and with such person has he choose. A contract of such class is prima facie void.
In Pepsi Foods Limited and Others v Bharat Coca-Cola Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Others (1981-1985 DLT-) delhi high court has held that that freedom of changing employment for improving service conditions is a vital and important right of an employee, which cannot be restricted or curtailed by a Court injunction.
The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Ambience India Private Limited v Naveen Jain ( 2005 (3) KLT SN 61 ) observed that the law is well settled that all contracts in restraint of trade are void and hit by section 27 of the Contract Act. He also held that prima facie view that the agreement between the parties prohibiting the defendant for two years from taking employment with any present, past or prospective customer of the plaintiff is void and hit by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. The court also held that the employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant was determinable in nature and as such the defendant was entitled to determine the same and seek another employment. Everybody has a right to strive for progress in career. The restrictions imposed upon the defendant in the agreement, therefore, were void and unconscionable.
In Star India Private Limited v. Laxmiraj Seetharam Nayek and Another the Bombay The Court observed that if the plaintiff had right to terminate the contract on the ground of misconduct, it cannot be said that the Defendant had absolutely no right to resign from the employment on account of better prospects or other personal reasons. If he finds a better employment with better remuneration and other service conditions, he cannot be tied down under the terms of the service contract. The Court held that any agreement restraining an employee, post-termination, from seeking employment elsewhere.
In R. Babu and Another v. TTK LIG Ltd Chennai,( 2005 LLR 71 (Mad. HC)). has vacated the injunction order issued by the learned Judge whereby an employee after tendering his resignation has joined another Company notwithstanding that he has entered into agreement that after cessation of his employment with the Company, he would not seek any employment in any establishment elsewhere of similar nature for a period of five years. The Court held that an agreement whereby an employee agrees not to join another competitive concern for a specified period after cessation of his employment, will be violate of public policy as stipulated by Indian Contract Act hence it cannot be legally enforced in the Court
We should understand that Most of the Employment bond are one sided and it is drafted in such a way that it only favors the employers and not the employees. The poor employee are signing the bond only to get a job and to earn a livelihood and there are employers who take advantage of the same. It is to be noted that when the employer gives training to the employee trainee they also make them work for the same and they are only giving them very less amount as salary. So according to me and as per the above quoted judgment by the Supreme Court and various High Courts the bond system ( Employment Bond) is against the law and against the mankind.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. Agreement in restraint of trade void. - Every agreement by which any one is restrained from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business of any kind, is to that extent void.
Exception of this section is that
Exception-1 : Saving of agreement is not to carry on business of which good is sold – One who sells the goodwill of a business may agree with the buyer to refrain from carrying on a similar business, within specified local limits, so long as the buyer, or any person deriving title to the goodwill from him, carries on a like business therein, provided that such limits appear to the Court reasonable, regard being had to the nature of the business.”
In Superintendence Company of india Vs Krishna (1980 AIR 1717) Supreme court held that a contract for restrain for trade is one by which a party restrains his future liability to carry on his trade, business or profession in such manner and with such person has he choose. A contract of such class is prima facie void.
In Pepsi Foods Limited and Others v Bharat Coca-Cola Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and Others (1981-1985 DLT-) delhi high court has held that that freedom of changing employment for improving service conditions is a vital and important right of an employee, which cannot be restricted or curtailed by a Court injunction.
The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in Ambience India Private Limited v Naveen Jain ( 2005 (3) KLT SN 61 ) observed that the law is well settled that all contracts in restraint of trade are void and hit by section 27 of the Contract Act. He also held that prima facie view that the agreement between the parties prohibiting the defendant for two years from taking employment with any present, past or prospective customer of the plaintiff is void and hit by Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act. The court also held that the employment contract between the plaintiff and defendant was determinable in nature and as such the defendant was entitled to determine the same and seek another employment. Everybody has a right to strive for progress in career. The restrictions imposed upon the defendant in the agreement, therefore, were void and unconscionable.
In Star India Private Limited v. Laxmiraj Seetharam Nayek and Another the Bombay The Court observed that if the plaintiff had right to terminate the contract on the ground of misconduct, it cannot be said that the Defendant had absolutely no right to resign from the employment on account of better prospects or other personal reasons. If he finds a better employment with better remuneration and other service conditions, he cannot be tied down under the terms of the service contract. The Court held that any agreement restraining an employee, post-termination, from seeking employment elsewhere.
In R. Babu and Another v. TTK LIG Ltd Chennai,( 2005 LLR 71 (Mad. HC)). has vacated the injunction order issued by the learned Judge whereby an employee after tendering his resignation has joined another Company notwithstanding that he has entered into agreement that after cessation of his employment with the Company, he would not seek any employment in any establishment elsewhere of similar nature for a period of five years. The Court held that an agreement whereby an employee agrees not to join another competitive concern for a specified period after cessation of his employment, will be violate of public policy as stipulated by Indian Contract Act hence it cannot be legally enforced in the Court
We should understand that Most of the Employment bond are one sided and it is drafted in such a way that it only favors the employers and not the employees. The poor employee are signing the bond only to get a job and to earn a livelihood and there are employers who take advantage of the same. It is to be noted that when the employer gives training to the employee trainee they also make them work for the same and they are only giving them very less amount as salary. So according to me and as per the above quoted judgment by the Supreme Court and various High Courts the bond system ( Employment Bond) is against the law and against the mankind.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Even if you quote 100 cases pertaining to section 27 of contracts and Art 19, it is clearly established in India that, the bond which hinders the development of the individual, and the bonds which are void abinitio, the bonds of malafide intentions, acts impossible to do anymore, would only be made exceptions..... In this case, it is only for 3 years, and that too are bifercated, secondly the purpose is clearly established, both parties benefit from it, thridly, terms and conditions of the contract and any clauses in it does not prove the malafide intentions nor does it highlight the exploitation....... And, as discussed earlier, very true and agreed that No body can force any one to do anything, in such cases the other party who under go the losses can not keep quite in silence, he also has the right in personam to get what he was asked for and invested upon, so can always claim either for specific performance, surely for compensation and damages......
I kindly request you to read the case completely, and please know the difference between complete restraining/restrictions and reasonable restrictions, because the cases you have referred are irrelevant in this matter...... I would rather request you to check out for the case for "breach of employment contracts" in which the rights and libilities of the employer and employee.......... and also refer the cases under apprenticeship act......
In this case, if the areement is valid and the employer is bonafide mens mentis , then the candidate here can never escape the liability........
In simple words, no body can force you to do the act, but once you have agreed to do the act, which is legal, possible to be completed, then you are ;iable for what ever you are agreed for, and in case of your failure to do such acts agreed upon, you will have to pay the compensation and damages to the otherparty.....
Just think generally, if what ever the cases mentioned in there apply in every case, what should the employers do?? every on leave after the training..... who will substantiate the losses and what is the return on investment???
If still could not grasp the points said, I can explain the same taking each case being quoted and how they are not relevant in this particular matter, and how the issues completely differ.......
Both the parties are equally supported by law, what ever may the matter, afterall natural justice can never be ignored.....
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I kindly request you to read the case completely, and please know the difference between complete restraining/restrictions and reasonable restrictions, because the cases you have referred are irrelevant in this matter...... I would rather request you to check out for the case for "breach of employment contracts" in which the rights and libilities of the employer and employee.......... and also refer the cases under apprenticeship act......
In this case, if the areement is valid and the employer is bonafide mens mentis , then the candidate here can never escape the liability........
In simple words, no body can force you to do the act, but once you have agreed to do the act, which is legal, possible to be completed, then you are ;iable for what ever you are agreed for, and in case of your failure to do such acts agreed upon, you will have to pay the compensation and damages to the otherparty.....
Just think generally, if what ever the cases mentioned in there apply in every case, what should the employers do?? every on leave after the training..... who will substantiate the losses and what is the return on investment???
If still could not grasp the points said, I can explain the same taking each case being quoted and how they are not relevant in this particular matter, and how the issues completely differ.......
Both the parties are equally supported by law, what ever may the matter, afterall natural justice can never be ignored.....
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Babu,
The company may offer you to sign a service bond at the time of joining. However, the service bond to be valid and enforceable should fulfill the following conditions. If these conditions are not fulfilled, the bond may not be valid and enforceable.
1) The company should have spent at least Rs. 75,000/- towards your training and personal development, etc.
2) Or the company should have offered you an additional amount by way of retention of salary or by any other means over and above the agreed salary offered to you for signing the bond. If no additional benefits are offered, the bond is invalid.
3) In your absence, if the company is, in fact, suffering a loss of Rs. 75,000/- only then can they claim the said amount by way of liquidated damages. Before the said amount is claimed from you, they should be able to establish with documentary proof that they will suffer a loss of Rs. 75,000/- on account of your absence.
4) Under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, no party can claim a penalty from the opposite party. The imposition of a penalty is prohibited in India.
5) Under present laws, no employer can withhold Provident Fund or any other dues from employees. These are retained by statutory authorities and could be withdrawn in the absence of the employer. Under such circumstances, the only option available to your employer is to file a civil suit for the recovery of their bond amount if they can justify their demand before a court of law.
Just because you have signed a service bond does not mean that you are required to deposit any amount to your employer. If they recover any amount from your full and final settlement, they would be doing so at their own risk and cost and shall also be liable for prosecution under The Payment of Wages Act.
P.N. Pathak
SR HR Manager
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The company may offer you to sign a service bond at the time of joining. However, the service bond to be valid and enforceable should fulfill the following conditions. If these conditions are not fulfilled, the bond may not be valid and enforceable.
1) The company should have spent at least Rs. 75,000/- towards your training and personal development, etc.
2) Or the company should have offered you an additional amount by way of retention of salary or by any other means over and above the agreed salary offered to you for signing the bond. If no additional benefits are offered, the bond is invalid.
3) In your absence, if the company is, in fact, suffering a loss of Rs. 75,000/- only then can they claim the said amount by way of liquidated damages. Before the said amount is claimed from you, they should be able to establish with documentary proof that they will suffer a loss of Rs. 75,000/- on account of your absence.
4) Under the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, no party can claim a penalty from the opposite party. The imposition of a penalty is prohibited in India.
5) Under present laws, no employer can withhold Provident Fund or any other dues from employees. These are retained by statutory authorities and could be withdrawn in the absence of the employer. Under such circumstances, the only option available to your employer is to file a civil suit for the recovery of their bond amount if they can justify their demand before a court of law.
Just because you have signed a service bond does not mean that you are required to deposit any amount to your employer. If they recover any amount from your full and final settlement, they would be doing so at their own risk and cost and shall also be liable for prosecution under The Payment of Wages Act.
P.N. Pathak
SR HR Manager
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mehrunisa,
You are again mixing things. No bond says that you have serve the management for eternity. Every bond says that the employee has to serve till the money spent on the training of that individual employee is recovered and even though you want to leave the organization of the employer, you may do so but in that case you have to pay the amount the employer has spent on the training of such employee.
One simple question from you, Suppose you are the employer and you train a fresher or any employee to raise his skills in his work domain and just when he gets trained he leaves your employment by saying that now i know how to do such things and some other employer is paying me more hence i am going. Just step into the shoes of such an employer, dont you feel it is cheating against him. The employer spends a lot on employee training and he is well within his right to get benefit out of it to some extant. The bonds are totally legal documents. Believe me i have got them enforces in the court of Law. But the same were genuine ones.
Article 19 and section 27 are different Scenarios. they give you safety from being slave of a company not from cheating a company.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You are again mixing things. No bond says that you have serve the management for eternity. Every bond says that the employee has to serve till the money spent on the training of that individual employee is recovered and even though you want to leave the organization of the employer, you may do so but in that case you have to pay the amount the employer has spent on the training of such employee.
One simple question from you, Suppose you are the employer and you train a fresher or any employee to raise his skills in his work domain and just when he gets trained he leaves your employment by saying that now i know how to do such things and some other employer is paying me more hence i am going. Just step into the shoes of such an employer, dont you feel it is cheating against him. The employer spends a lot on employee training and he is well within his right to get benefit out of it to some extant. The bonds are totally legal documents. Believe me i have got them enforces in the court of Law. But the same were genuine ones.
Article 19 and section 27 are different Scenarios. they give you safety from being slave of a company not from cheating a company.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Everyone,
Where, in this mela, is Lokesh Babu? Looks like he's vanished into thin air—after realizing that he can't misuse the many well-intentioned provisions of the law—not even clarifying some points as requested by some members. However, a BIG WORD OF THANKS to him—got to learn a lot due to this thread initiated by him. Thanks, everyone, for such a highly enriching level of debate.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Where, in this mela, is Lokesh Babu? Looks like he's vanished into thin air—after realizing that he can't misuse the many well-intentioned provisions of the law—not even clarifying some points as requested by some members. However, a BIG WORD OF THANKS to him—got to learn a lot due to this thread initiated by him. Thanks, everyone, for such a highly enriching level of debate.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Mr. Babu,
First of all, a bond is not valid in India under fundamental rights. Secondly, at the time of resignation, you are under a probation period, meaning they have not made you a permanent employee. The relation between 'teacher and student' does not stand because the training period is over (after 16 months). If we consider this relation, the question arises: who is the teacher and who is the student when they have hired your services? Ask the company to provide you with training documents that you have signed indicating that you have received proper training. Never use the word 'prove' before the company; the company can prove it.
Best of luck
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
First of all, a bond is not valid in India under fundamental rights. Secondly, at the time of resignation, you are under a probation period, meaning they have not made you a permanent employee. The relation between 'teacher and student' does not stand because the training period is over (after 16 months). If we consider this relation, the question arises: who is the teacher and who is the student when they have hired your services? Ask the company to provide you with training documents that you have signed indicating that you have received proper training. Never use the word 'prove' before the company; the company can prove it.
Best of luck
From India, Ahmadabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
It is true that only one party cannot take advantage of the other party under the shelter of precedents because issues differ, and the rules in any such case apply only to such specific issues.
Actual damage to the employment of individuals and hindrance to opportunities occur when an employee is no longer connected with the company and has fulfilled their liabilities towards the other party as agreed under the contract and in accordance with the law. However, when the employee is still connected with the company and has liabilities towards the company as per the law, they are bound by the agreement.
For example, a student, Mr. Apple, who is about to complete his graduation next year, joins a company, Mrs. Orange, which offers an opportunity to work with the condition that he must not leave Mrs. Orange for 3 years. Is this invalid or against the law?
1) Similarly, Mr. Apple receives an apprenticeship for a year and a job assurance with the condition that he will not leave Mrs. Orange for 3 years. Is this illegal?
2) Mr. Mango, who is not a student, secures an employment opportunity with Mrs. Pumpkin with the condition that he will not leave Mrs. Pumpkin for 5 years, including a training period of one year and a probation period of 6 months before permanent employment.
3) Mr. Mango then receives another job offer from Mrs. Carrot with the condition that he will not leave the company for 10 years.
4) Mr. Chimp receives an employment offer with a condition that he will not leave the company for 15 years, including a 3-year training period and a 1-year probation period.
5) Mr. Chimp also receives another offer with the condition that after working for 5 years as per the agreement with Mrs. Monkey, he will not join another company in the same sector for 2 years.
6) Lastly, Mr. Chimp receives another offer with the condition that after leaving the company, he will not join any other company for 1 year.
If you can identify which of the above scenarios are legal and understand the difference between reasonable and unreasonable clauses, you can find a solution to the issue in question.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Actual damage to the employment of individuals and hindrance to opportunities occur when an employee is no longer connected with the company and has fulfilled their liabilities towards the other party as agreed under the contract and in accordance with the law. However, when the employee is still connected with the company and has liabilities towards the company as per the law, they are bound by the agreement.
For example, a student, Mr. Apple, who is about to complete his graduation next year, joins a company, Mrs. Orange, which offers an opportunity to work with the condition that he must not leave Mrs. Orange for 3 years. Is this invalid or against the law?
1) Similarly, Mr. Apple receives an apprenticeship for a year and a job assurance with the condition that he will not leave Mrs. Orange for 3 years. Is this illegal?
2) Mr. Mango, who is not a student, secures an employment opportunity with Mrs. Pumpkin with the condition that he will not leave Mrs. Pumpkin for 5 years, including a training period of one year and a probation period of 6 months before permanent employment.
3) Mr. Mango then receives another job offer from Mrs. Carrot with the condition that he will not leave the company for 10 years.
4) Mr. Chimp receives an employment offer with a condition that he will not leave the company for 15 years, including a 3-year training period and a 1-year probation period.
5) Mr. Chimp also receives another offer with the condition that after working for 5 years as per the agreement with Mrs. Monkey, he will not join another company in the same sector for 2 years.
6) Lastly, Mr. Chimp receives another offer with the condition that after leaving the company, he will not join any other company for 1 year.
If you can identify which of the above scenarios are legal and understand the difference between reasonable and unreasonable clauses, you can find a solution to the issue in question.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please, its a request not to mislead anyone, conditional employment agreement are absolutely legal in India, and what ever the cases you have quoted has no relevancy in this case............I am clear on this aspect as myself being an Advocate....
Go through the Section 27 and Art. 19 thoroughly, in those provisions it self you will get the explanation and its applicability......
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Go through the Section 27 and Art. 19 thoroughly, in those provisions it self you will get the explanation and its applicability......
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear all,
All my friends in this discussion should understand that I am not here to disprove someone or prove myself. I am posting my view, and others can post their views. All the judgments quoted above relate to the service bond only and support my view. Those who are opposing my view may please provide some proof or any judgment of the Supreme Court so that we all can learn about it. Who is misleading and who is not, let the members of Cite HR decide by reading all the posts.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
All my friends in this discussion should understand that I am not here to disprove someone or prove myself. I am posting my view, and others can post their views. All the judgments quoted above relate to the service bond only and support my view. Those who are opposing my view may please provide some proof or any judgment of the Supreme Court so that we all can learn about it. Who is misleading and who is not, let the members of Cite HR decide by reading all the posts.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
One fact that should also be considered is that Mr. Babu is not yet an employee of the company. Therefore, it is necessary to review the agreement or bond so that we can provide legal support if needed.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mehrunisa,
Being an advocate, I can tell you that reading only the cover note of the judgment can be misleading. One should always read the whole text. There may be some factual or legal differences in the judgments and the real situation at hand. We deal with such situations day in and day out, where some judgment seems to be good enough but later proves to be worthless in those given circumstances.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Being an advocate, I can tell you that reading only the cover note of the judgment can be misleading. One should always read the whole text. There may be some factual or legal differences in the judgments and the real situation at hand. We deal with such situations day in and day out, where some judgment seems to be good enough but later proves to be worthless in those given circumstances.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All, I completly Agreed with Basima.If the bond is in Two Way then only It will be Valid Otherwise It will be Not valid.
From India, Narsapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Narsapur
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I think a bond with an employer to serve him for a particular period after getting training at the expense of the employer is legally valid. However, an agreement forbidding the employee from joining any particular class of companies (such as competitors) is not legally valid as it is against Article 19 of the constitution.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Today, regarding a case between the Nurses Association and hospital management in the Supreme Court (case relating to nurses' strike in Kerala), the Indian Government has filed an affidavit stating that the direction has been issued to all state governments that the bond system should not be enforced in hospitals. If the bond system cannot be implemented in hospitals, why not in other establishments? I will provide an update as soon as I receive further information.
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kochi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks to all seniors who are actively involved in this discussion. Sorry for not responding to your queries. I promise to be available for all clarifications from here onward. I have attached the Bond agreement papers for your reference.
Thanks & Regards, Lokesh Babu.M
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thanks & Regards, Lokesh Babu.M
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You may refer to the document, and I state that the agreement stands, and you are under obligations. You mentioned that you worked there for 16 months and have now left the company. In that case, after the one-year training period, the company must have drafted the employment agreement and set forth new terms and conditions. You were associated with the company as a trainee; in the case of 16 months, what was your role?
You must have objected to clauses 08 and 14, and it's a tripartite agreement as it also involves the person who guarantees. Anyways, since you are certain about your employer not investing a substantial amount in you during the training period, you may defend the situation.
But I personally suggest that you join the company as an employee, ensuring that the terms of employment are bound by the period and are also in favor of the employee, unlike the present agreement where the trainee's choice is not considered. You can always argue that you could hardly learn and are unsatisfied with your training, with no hope for your career path to be defined, hindering your growth. Demand a higher salary so that they cannot afford you. Read carefully and understand before signing any document! I cannot guarantee absolute escape, but there are chances if you test your luck.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You must have objected to clauses 08 and 14, and it's a tripartite agreement as it also involves the person who guarantees. Anyways, since you are certain about your employer not investing a substantial amount in you during the training period, you may defend the situation.
But I personally suggest that you join the company as an employee, ensuring that the terms of employment are bound by the period and are also in favor of the employee, unlike the present agreement where the trainee's choice is not considered. You can always argue that you could hardly learn and are unsatisfied with your training, with no hope for your career path to be defined, hindering your growth. Demand a higher salary so that they cannot afford you. Read carefully and understand before signing any document! I cannot guarantee absolute escape, but there are chances if you test your luck.
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
ON the job training fall under Apprenticeship Act, and the agreement is not in accordance with such law........ so you may rely on BSSV’s reply....
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Mehrunisa Basima,
The case at hand is a policy decision at Government level. It has nothing to do with Bond in the private sector, which is signed to safeguard the interest of such employer who has bonafidly invested to raise the skill level of any employee. The strike was called over various other issues also. Please see the link below.
Kerala nurses’ strike over pay intensifies pay spreads in
It depends upon situations on case at hand and bond per se is not an illegal concept. Whatever judgments you referred earlier were on bonded labour system, which is all together different thing or were false bond cases. Genuine ones are still very much enforceable and legal.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The case at hand is a policy decision at Government level. It has nothing to do with Bond in the private sector, which is signed to safeguard the interest of such employer who has bonafidly invested to raise the skill level of any employee. The strike was called over various other issues also. Please see the link below.
Kerala nurses’ strike over pay intensifies pay spreads in
It depends upon situations on case at hand and bond per se is not an illegal concept. Whatever judgments you referred earlier were on bonded labour system, which is all together different thing or were false bond cases. Genuine ones are still very much enforceable and legal.
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
by the way, Lokesh, what is the name of that company and where is it?? (just out of curiosity I am asking, always better to know the pitfalls.......)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
That is why anyone needs to be very accurate and conscious while signing anything and to be well-versed with the agreement clauses and their effects.
The link below is one such funny and brilliant example of the interpretation of law and facts.
Click on the Link: http://en.paperblog.com/samsung-pays...-coins-294795/
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The link below is one such funny and brilliant example of the interpretation of law and facts.
Click on the Link: http://en.paperblog.com/samsung-pays...-coins-294795/
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
hahahahaha BSSV :-) No wonder they say — the law is an ass!!! — no pun intended pl. Rgds, TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Very good interpretation, BSSV. But I have my doubts about its authenticity, but still, this could be a possible way to comply. Ha Ha Ha Really good.. :)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Now "But i have my doubts it is real but still this could be a possible way to comply.", this is advocacy on HR Site !! HHe hhe, ha ha ha ha ha ......
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello BSSV & Kamal Kant Tyagi,
Knowing Koreans, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is indeed true -- seriously :-)
But in all this mela, where is Lokesh Babu? Not sure if he has already made up his mind on his course of action. I wish he gives an update from his end too.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Knowing Koreans, I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is indeed true -- seriously :-)
But in all this mela, where is Lokesh Babu? Not sure if he has already made up his mind on his course of action. I wish he gives an update from his end too.
Regards,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Damages for Breach of Service contract.
A contract for service is arising under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. As per sec. 73 of the said Act is provided as under:
“Sec. 73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract –
When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract - When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive th
From India, Panaji
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
A contract for service is arising under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. As per sec. 73 of the said Act is provided as under:
“Sec. 73. Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract –
When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it.
Such compensation is not to be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage sustained by reason of the breach.
Compensation for failure to discharge obligation resembling those created by contract - When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive th
From India, Panaji
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir/Madam,
In India, signing an agreement for 2 years for abroad training and to retain employees, management is insisting new employees to sign an agreement. I had the same experience in signing an agreement for abroad training for 5 years and to continue the service for 4 years. Even now, a very famous organization in Chennai is insisting employees to sign an agreement for every 4 years even after completing 20 years of service. This practice is ongoing.
I left the company after serving 3 years of the contract period, and the Management sent a letter regarding the non-completion of the agreement terms. Due to medical reasons, I sent a requisition letter to be relieved from service. Finally, they sent a legal notice to me, the concerned doctors, and a new employer. This matter was escalated to a Senior Advocate panel for legal correspondence. They collected a significant amount from me and negotiated with the employer's advocate. The employer's advocate was not willing to agree on anything, and Vakalat was filed from my side. Finally, our panel of advocates informed me that there is a Supreme Court order for payment of breach of contract to the employer, and the advocates were unable to assist further. I had no other options left. This led to severe mental agony, high costs, and repeated visits to the advocate's office were futile.
I paid the amount, including the employer advocate fees. All these proceedings were guided by a very Senior IR Manager who had retired from the same company. Ultimately, everything turned out to be a waste, and in this context, where do you stand on the statement that bonds are one-sided and illegal?
Another question arises:
Given the Supreme Court's judgment in similar cases, why are advocates accepting cases like mine and causing mental distress without resolving anything? Are they not aware of similar cases before taking on new cases? If they are well-informed about the SC judgment, advocates could advise clients to settle the amount directly.
I am also a regular visitor of Cite HR and have been affected by this issue.
Please share your views on the above subject so that implementing new ideas in the existing company is made easier.
Regards,
RB
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In India, signing an agreement for 2 years for abroad training and to retain employees, management is insisting new employees to sign an agreement. I had the same experience in signing an agreement for abroad training for 5 years and to continue the service for 4 years. Even now, a very famous organization in Chennai is insisting employees to sign an agreement for every 4 years even after completing 20 years of service. This practice is ongoing.
I left the company after serving 3 years of the contract period, and the Management sent a letter regarding the non-completion of the agreement terms. Due to medical reasons, I sent a requisition letter to be relieved from service. Finally, they sent a legal notice to me, the concerned doctors, and a new employer. This matter was escalated to a Senior Advocate panel for legal correspondence. They collected a significant amount from me and negotiated with the employer's advocate. The employer's advocate was not willing to agree on anything, and Vakalat was filed from my side. Finally, our panel of advocates informed me that there is a Supreme Court order for payment of breach of contract to the employer, and the advocates were unable to assist further. I had no other options left. This led to severe mental agony, high costs, and repeated visits to the advocate's office were futile.
I paid the amount, including the employer advocate fees. All these proceedings were guided by a very Senior IR Manager who had retired from the same company. Ultimately, everything turned out to be a waste, and in this context, where do you stand on the statement that bonds are one-sided and illegal?
Another question arises:
Given the Supreme Court's judgment in similar cases, why are advocates accepting cases like mine and causing mental distress without resolving anything? Are they not aware of similar cases before taking on new cases? If they are well-informed about the SC judgment, advocates could advise clients to settle the amount directly.
I am also a regular visitor of Cite HR and have been affected by this issue.
Please share your views on the above subject so that implementing new ideas in the existing company is made easier.
Regards,
RB
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir/Madam,
In India, signing an agreement for 2 years for abroad training and to retain the employees, management is insisting new employees to sign an agreement. I had a similar experience in signing an agreement for abroad training for 5 years and to continue the service for 4 years. Even now, a very famous organization in Chennai is insisting employees to sign an agreement for every 4 years even after completing 20 years of service. This is happening till now.
I left the company after serving 3 years of the contract period and the management has sent a letter towards due to the company for non-completion of agreement terms. Due to medical grounds, I have sent a requisition letter to management to be relieved from service. Finally, they sent a legal notice to me, the doctors concerned, and a new employer also. This matter was taken to the Senior Advocate panel for legal correspondence. They have collected a good amount of money from me, and they negotiated with the advocate of the employer as well. The advocate of the employer side does not agree to anything, and Vakalat has been filed from my side. Finally, our panel of advocates came to me narrating the reason that there is a Supreme Court order for payment of breach of contract to the employer, and the advocates are helpless in this case. I have no other options left. This leads to severe mental agony, high cost, and time spending for taking a file to advocate again and again is merely futile.
I paid the amount inclusive of employer advocate fees also. All these proceedings were guided by a very Senior IR Manager who has retired from the same company. Finally, everything was a waste, and in these circumstances, WHERE DO YOU STAND ON SAYING THIS BOND IS ONE-SIDED AND ILLEGAL?
One more question also put forth: Having known the Judgment of the Supreme Court for similar cases, why are the advocates accepting cases like mine and creating mental depression at last without favoring anything? Are they not aware of similar cases before accepting the case? If they are very much aware of the SC Judgment, the advocates can counsel the client in a direct route to settle the amount.
I am also a regular visitor of Cite HR and I am also affected. Please share your further views on the above subject so that it is easy for me to implement new ideas in the existing company.
Regards,
RB
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
In India, signing an agreement for 2 years for abroad training and to retain the employees, management is insisting new employees to sign an agreement. I had a similar experience in signing an agreement for abroad training for 5 years and to continue the service for 4 years. Even now, a very famous organization in Chennai is insisting employees to sign an agreement for every 4 years even after completing 20 years of service. This is happening till now.
I left the company after serving 3 years of the contract period and the management has sent a letter towards due to the company for non-completion of agreement terms. Due to medical grounds, I have sent a requisition letter to management to be relieved from service. Finally, they sent a legal notice to me, the doctors concerned, and a new employer also. This matter was taken to the Senior Advocate panel for legal correspondence. They have collected a good amount of money from me, and they negotiated with the advocate of the employer as well. The advocate of the employer side does not agree to anything, and Vakalat has been filed from my side. Finally, our panel of advocates came to me narrating the reason that there is a Supreme Court order for payment of breach of contract to the employer, and the advocates are helpless in this case. I have no other options left. This leads to severe mental agony, high cost, and time spending for taking a file to advocate again and again is merely futile.
I paid the amount inclusive of employer advocate fees also. All these proceedings were guided by a very Senior IR Manager who has retired from the same company. Finally, everything was a waste, and in these circumstances, WHERE DO YOU STAND ON SAYING THIS BOND IS ONE-SIDED AND ILLEGAL?
One more question also put forth: Having known the Judgment of the Supreme Court for similar cases, why are the advocates accepting cases like mine and creating mental depression at last without favoring anything? Are they not aware of similar cases before accepting the case? If they are very much aware of the SC Judgment, the advocates can counsel the client in a direct route to settle the amount.
I am also a regular visitor of Cite HR and I am also affected. Please share your further views on the above subject so that it is easy for me to implement new ideas in the existing company.
Regards,
RB
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello RB,
You do have a point—and a very true one at that—about some advocates taking advantage of the lack of legal knowledge of many who approach them with legal problems.
Frankly, this profession is no different from others—there will always be some black sheep among all professions. I too had similar experiences with some advocates—the standard line, IRRESPECTIVE of the strength of the case, quite often seems to be: 'let's file a case in the court'.
One lesson I have learned due to such experiences is this: always think 10 times when someone takes an 'extreme' stand on any issue WITHOUT much thought/discussion—be it an advocate or anyone in any field. I have also seen some advocates double-crossing their clients—by getting into 'deals' with the other party—however, that is NOT to be generalized with the whole advocate fraternity.
If you notice this same thread, you will find members who give such an extreme opinion [Bonds are 'not' legal in India, etc without so much as a simple substantiation], as if it's they who wrote the Constitution of India... sometimes feel like laughing & sometimes get wild too @ their lack of concern about the consequences of their advice/guidance/suggestions in such a public forum.
However, This Forum also helps & adds value to such discussions with able, realistic & well-informed members like Kamal Kant Tyagi.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
You do have a point—and a very true one at that—about some advocates taking advantage of the lack of legal knowledge of many who approach them with legal problems.
Frankly, this profession is no different from others—there will always be some black sheep among all professions. I too had similar experiences with some advocates—the standard line, IRRESPECTIVE of the strength of the case, quite often seems to be: 'let's file a case in the court'.
One lesson I have learned due to such experiences is this: always think 10 times when someone takes an 'extreme' stand on any issue WITHOUT much thought/discussion—be it an advocate or anyone in any field. I have also seen some advocates double-crossing their clients—by getting into 'deals' with the other party—however, that is NOT to be generalized with the whole advocate fraternity.
If you notice this same thread, you will find members who give such an extreme opinion [Bonds are 'not' legal in India, etc without so much as a simple substantiation], as if it's they who wrote the Constitution of India... sometimes feel like laughing & sometimes get wild too @ their lack of concern about the consequences of their advice/guidance/suggestions in such a public forum.
However, This Forum also helps & adds value to such discussions with able, realistic & well-informed members like Kamal Kant Tyagi.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Sir,
Thank you for spending your valuable time on the above subject, and it is easy for our other forum members to make any decision on this bond issue. To conclude this, signing an agreement for industrial training in India and abroad still exists, and it has its own effect, and nobody can escape from this. This was clearly evident.
Regards,
RB
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for spending your valuable time on the above subject, and it is easy for our other forum members to make any decision on this bond issue. To conclude this, signing an agreement for industrial training in India and abroad still exists, and it has its own effect, and nobody can escape from this. This was clearly evident.
Regards,
RB
From India, Madras
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Do not get confused with the provision of General Laws of Contract with Special laws, when there are special laws the general laws are not applicable exclusively, they must have to be read with special laws, and some times general laws are not applied at all..... Special laws overtake them, so employment contracts have there own provision under its special law..... on an outline it seems to be applicable but, employment laws will be dealt under employment laws, provisions may be similar and seem to apply but not the same...
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Bangalore
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello everyone, I am in a mess. Can you all please guide me? Can you please look into this link https://www.citehr.com/536751-can-em...e-leaving.html and impart your advice and suggestions? I have gone through your posts. Please help.
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, undefined
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
Thank you for your support, but at this time, I am very confused because employees are joining and leaving the company within two to three months or after one year, causing losses for the company.
Kindly provide the employee agreement format, as employees should not be allowed to leave the job without a notice period. The company provides training to the employees, but they receive the training and then leave to join a competitor.
Therefore, please provide the Technical Bond Agreement. If an employee joins another company, they should pay the cost of the training provided by our company.
Thank you,
Rajesh Paswan
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you for your support, but at this time, I am very confused because employees are joining and leaving the company within two to three months or after one year, causing losses for the company.
Kindly provide the employee agreement format, as employees should not be allowed to leave the job without a notice period. The company provides training to the employees, but they receive the training and then leave to join a competitor.
Therefore, please provide the Technical Bond Agreement. If an employee joins another company, they should pay the cost of the training provided by our company.
Thank you,
Rajesh Paswan
From India
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All ++++++++++++++ Thanks for your inputs. Wish a happy and prosperous festival of lights, DIWALI +++++++++++++
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, New Delhi
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear All,
All the posts have lost sight of the practical aspect. Let us assume that taking a bond is illegal. Under Indian law, it can be challenged either by the employee approaching a court of law or as a defense in an action initiated by the employer. However, in both scenarios, the employee will incur legal costs. Furthermore, the enforcement of the bond by the employer will be through arbitration, with the venue for arbitration being the location of the employer's corporate office. All of this will involve both time and money. Therefore, while it may be easy to say that it is illegal, the ethical considerations should not be overlooked.
It is advisable to seek legal advice in every case before making a decision.
V. Sounder Rajan
Advocate & HR Legal Consultant
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
All the posts have lost sight of the practical aspect. Let us assume that taking a bond is illegal. Under Indian law, it can be challenged either by the employee approaching a court of law or as a defense in an action initiated by the employer. However, in both scenarios, the employee will incur legal costs. Furthermore, the enforcement of the bond by the employer will be through arbitration, with the venue for arbitration being the location of the employer's corporate office. All of this will involve both time and money. Therefore, while it may be easy to say that it is illegal, the ethical considerations should not be overlooked.
It is advisable to seek legal advice in every case before making a decision.
V. Sounder Rajan
Advocate & HR Legal Consultant
From India, Chennai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)Gathering data for an AI comment.... Sending emails to relevant members...
Looking for something specific? - Join & Be Part Of Our Community and get connected with the right people who can help. Our AI-powered platform provides real-time fact-checking, peer-reviewed insights, and a vast historical knowledge base to support your search.
Employer suit for breaking service bond within 3 yrs - Delhi HC 5.9.2014.pdf
Death while in service letter for pf death claim.docx