Hi I am a fresher, and I signed a contract for 2 years, but now I am finding it challenging to work because I want a permanent government job. But i can't say that for my resignation they will say i need to think before signing the contract and asks me for 6 months salary which i worked for. So as suggested by my family i told that i am going for higher studies but they want me to show the admission letter and all, the notice period is 2 months. So, please suggest how to leave the company without paying the money.
From India, Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
If you are sure that you will get a government job, and that you will never come back to private work, then just ignore the demands by the employer. Submit your resignation, work for a maximum of one month and then just handover the duties and leave the company. These employers make contract to work for two years etc just because they know that people fear background verification. Naturally, if you leave before the contract period, they will not give any positive feedback when a background verification comes abount you by any future employers. But this background verification will be just toilet papers if you have decided to join government service or PSUs. Moreover, compelling an employee to work with an employer is bad in law and creating bond for that is equal to bonded labour which is illegal.
From India, Kannur
4249From India, Kannur
Dear Madhu T K sir,
need your guidance in same case
1. For Fresher
applicability of Bond for Fresher
as for fresher , company giving training so the Bond applicable?
2. For Experience Candidate
is bond applicable such as if you leave within say 1 year you have to pay X Rs.
when no special training given to him or sent some special training which incurred cost. Does Bond Applicable ?
Thanks in advance
From India, Mumbai
need your guidance in same case
1. For Fresher
applicability of Bond for Fresher
as for fresher , company giving training so the Bond applicable?
2. For Experience Candidate
is bond applicable such as if you leave within say 1 year you have to pay X Rs.
when no special training given to him or sent some special training which incurred cost. Does Bond Applicable ?
Thanks in advance
From India, Mumbai
Serving the notice period as per the terms of your employment contract is indeed the most straightforward and ethical course of action. It's essential to honor your legal obligations and fulfill the terms of the agreement you've entered into with your employer and ALWAYS REMEMBER before signing any document, especially one related to employment or a contract, should never be done hastily. It's crucial to thoroughly review and understand the implications of what you're agreeing to.
Bond is anyway illegal, and nobody should be compelled to work with any employer/ organisation. It applies to freshers as well as experienced persons. In the case of fresher appointed as trainee, all the labour laws are applicable. These laws are exempted only in respect of apprentices appointed following Apprentice Act 1961 or interns who are undergoing some academic program and are undergoing internship as part of their curriculum. The term intern is used to replace the word training now a days. When intern is appointed after the course is over, and not as per the request from the Principal of the Institution, then he will not come under the exempted category of intern but he will acquire the status of Trainee who is just like an employee in all respect.
An apprentice is engaged for a certain period. The Contract of Apprenticeship will say the manner in which apprenticeship can be terminated. But in that also the compensation will be limited to an amount equal to three months' stipend.
If the employer has offered a training to the employee, whether fresher or experienced, the cost of that training in real terms shall be collected back by the employer if the employee does not continue with him for certain period as prescribed. But in order to enforce it, there should be quantifiable record of costs that it is spent exclusively for the employee concerned. Without giving any training and spending any cost for the trainee, you cannot enforce any bond. The employer may send notices but no employer has ever initiated any action beyond that nor has won the case.
From India, Kannur
An apprentice is engaged for a certain period. The Contract of Apprenticeship will say the manner in which apprenticeship can be terminated. But in that also the compensation will be limited to an amount equal to three months' stipend.
If the employer has offered a training to the employee, whether fresher or experienced, the cost of that training in real terms shall be collected back by the employer if the employee does not continue with him for certain period as prescribed. But in order to enforce it, there should be quantifiable record of costs that it is spent exclusively for the employee concerned. Without giving any training and spending any cost for the trainee, you cannot enforce any bond. The employer may send notices but no employer has ever initiated any action beyond that nor has won the case.
From India, Kannur
@DIPTI SRIVASTAVA 83 True we have to respect the contract and the terms of contract, but if the terms of the contract are not in consistent with the laws of the land, we should challenge it. We know that notice period is a common condition of service no a days. Under Indian law, an employer is liable to pay one month notice if he wants to terminate an employee. In the case of factories, mones etc where there are 100 or more workers employed, it shall extend to three months. But under no law it is mentioned that an employee should also give that notice to the employer is he wants to leave. But what is the scenario? In most of the companies, especially IT companies which is not a factory and by employing 100 or more employees it will not come under the scope of Chapter VB of the Industrial Disputes Act, the stipulated notice period is three months! It is true that IT companies are industry coming under the scope of ID Act but the employees can not be asked to serve 90 days notice. The employees, at the time of joining, are clueless about the culture of the organisation, the career scope prevailing etc and when they find that this is not their cup of coffee, they should leave. It is true that the employee has agreed with the terms and conditions of employment before he joined. At the same time, the employee should also have offered so many promises by the recruitment team, and many of which should have gone in water. Then it is also a call of the employee, and then he will seek what is the law and if he really liable to pay notice pay or service such a long notice period.
From India, Kannur
From India, Kannur
Under Indian law, employee bond agreements are legally enforceable if they are reasonable and do not violate the principles of freedom of employment. The Indian Contract Act, 1872, governs the legality of these agreements, and courts have upheld the validity of employee bond agreements in certain circumstances. the Supreme Court of India ruled in favor of the employer, upholding the validity of the employee bond agreement. The court held that the bond period and the compensation amount were reasonable, and employee was obligated to honor the agreement.
@Madhu T.K. Ultimately, it's a matter of fairness and balance. While contracts are important, they should not unfairly burden employees or contradict legal requirements. It's essential for both employers and employees to understand their rights and responsibilities under the law and work towards a mutually beneficial resolution.
I don't find any judgment justifying a bond to work for the employer. True, there are instances that an employer can recover the costs of training given to an employee, and as such a bond to recover training cost in real term only is enforceable. I request our valued member Dipti to post a citation of the Supreme Court which held that bond is maintainable for our academic interest.
Again, I will not say that the employee should run away from employment without knowing the situation in which the employer would be put in once he just leave the organisation without notice. But I will say that a notice period of 90 days is highly unfair, and if the employer insists that the employee who comes under the scope of ID Act should serve it, then I would say that an employee is not bound to give even a single day notice to leave. Many employers take it for granted that they can put three months' notice to all employees. That should not be allowed.
From India, Kannur
Again, I will not say that the employee should run away from employment without knowing the situation in which the employer would be put in once he just leave the organisation without notice. But I will say that a notice period of 90 days is highly unfair, and if the employer insists that the employee who comes under the scope of ID Act should serve it, then I would say that an employee is not bound to give even a single day notice to leave. Many employers take it for granted that they can put three months' notice to all employees. That should not be allowed.
From India, Kannur
Community Support and Knowledge-base on business, career and organisational prospects and issues - Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query, download formats and be part of a fostered community of professionals.
Kami Export - Negative Covenant in Contract of Employment.pdf (1).pdf