Is the termination clause in the appointment letter invalid?
The answer is YES as per the order of the Honorable Supreme Court in 1986.
For further clarity, please refer to the link below: - https://www.facebook.com/shailendra....85949377735826
Regards,
Shailendra M. Deshpande
V & S Associates, Pune
HR Consultant
Contact at: -
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
39The answer is YES as per the order of the Honorable Supreme Court in 1986.
For further clarity, please refer to the link below: - https://www.facebook.com/shailendra....85949377735826
Regards,
Shailendra M. Deshpande
V & S Associates, Pune
HR Consultant
Contact at: -
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
If you read the judgment properly, it is not a full blanket ban on such a clause. Also, the validity has to be tested on grounds of reasonableness, and there is no fixed benchmark for that. So, it changes from case to case. Read the links below to know what can be held as an invalid clause in an appointment letter.
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
From India, Kolkata
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Dear Friend (Labour Law Index),
Please refer to the judgment once again. My opinion is firmly based on reading the judgment and its analysis, and only after discussions with seniors. Hence, the wording used by you in your review seems quite arrogant to me.
Also, please refer to my interpretation once again, which is based on facts and what is being held. I have clearly mentioned the remarks of the Honorable Supreme Court in this case only and the learnings from a management point of view. Any employee who is terminated on some grounds will certainly benefit from this clause for his/her benefit. I have never mentioned in my interpretation about putting a blanket ban on this clause.
Certainly, the orders and precedents are based on facts and circumstances of the case. However, this case is a landmark judgment in the history of employment contracts.
In your blog, you have mentioned cases from Contract 1, wherein Section 27 is void in restraint of trade, but it is not applicable in the case of Niranjan Shankar Vs. Century Mfg. Co. Hence, it depends on the evidence brought in front of the court.
I appreciate the efforts you put into your blog.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Please refer to the judgment once again. My opinion is firmly based on reading the judgment and its analysis, and only after discussions with seniors. Hence, the wording used by you in your review seems quite arrogant to me.
Also, please refer to my interpretation once again, which is based on facts and what is being held. I have clearly mentioned the remarks of the Honorable Supreme Court in this case only and the learnings from a management point of view. Any employee who is terminated on some grounds will certainly benefit from this clause for his/her benefit. I have never mentioned in my interpretation about putting a blanket ban on this clause.
Certainly, the orders and precedents are based on facts and circumstances of the case. However, this case is a landmark judgment in the history of employment contracts.
In your blog, you have mentioned cases from Contract 1, wherein Section 27 is void in restraint of trade, but it is not applicable in the case of Niranjan Shankar Vs. Century Mfg. Co. Hence, it depends on the evidence brought in front of the court.
I appreciate the efforts you put into your blog.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)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.
Legal Clarification on Non-Performer Termination, Project Based Appointment Letter, Setting UP .pdf
Appointment letter-format.d oc