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
201From India, Bangalore
Accepted judicial fact, but it is not just about the notice but he shall have to pay the compensation as agreed by both the parties during the contract.....
He may leave when ever he wants leave, but he can not breach the contract... so he shall do whatever mentioned in the agreement under the clause which speaks about leaving the company.....
And again, Art. 19 is subjected to the reasonable restriction, not an absolute right given under the Constitution of India......
From India, Bangalore
He may leave when ever he wants leave, but he can not breach the contract... so he shall do whatever mentioned in the agreement under the clause which speaks about leaving the company.....
And again, Art. 19 is subjected to the reasonable restriction, not an absolute right given under the Constitution of India......
From India, Bangalore
I agree, as said above, must have thought well before taking a decision to quit the job or to continue..... But there are many companies who provide the training in theory, hardcore responsibilities would indicate the good training,........
........ but also may be interpreted that the employer want to completely utilise the candidate without giving to status of the employee, these are also the tricks of many companies who fail to invest on HR, and who utilise the students for such jobs to be done..... keeping this apart,...... how can a company entrust the core responsibilities to a person who is not even an employee of the company ?? is this because you may escape from personal liabilities if something goes wrong and you can put such losses on a trainee?? or you may escape from saying that the trainee was not employee of the company at all????
These kind of cases are plenty in India and such kind of exploitations (these are the manipulation activities)...... there are companies of that sort all over India...........
From India, Bangalore
........ but also may be interpreted that the employer want to completely utilise the candidate without giving to status of the employee, these are also the tricks of many companies who fail to invest on HR, and who utilise the students for such jobs to be done..... keeping this apart,...... how can a company entrust the core responsibilities to a person who is not even an employee of the company ?? is this because you may escape from personal liabilities if something goes wrong and you can put such losses on a trainee?? or you may escape from saying that the trainee was not employee of the company at all????
These kind of cases are plenty in India and such kind of exploitations (these are the manipulation activities)...... there are companies of that sort all over India...........
From India, Bangalore
Hello BSSV,
I am totally with you in your statements.
But, at the same time, there are always TWO sides to a coin.
W.r.t. your remarks as below....
"But there are many companies who provide the training in theory, hardcore responsibilities would indicate the good training,................ but also may be interpreted that the employer want to completely utilise the candidate without giving to status of the employee, these are also the tricks of many companies who fail to invest on HR......."
I do agree to what you mention...BUT LET'S NOT GENERALIZE.
If we go by the so many Postings in CiteHR of those who want to jump the Bond/Agreement & 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[actually have seen some companies take advantage of even experienced employees who didn't have a choice], so too would there 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 & 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 & 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 in such a wide-scale until about 15-20 yrs 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 eyeopener.
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 & ethics in-general, & 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 go the same way without any qualms--given that the very function of a 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 want to completely utilise 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 learnt in 16 months [when he got a better opportunity], what the company presumed would happen in 36 months [3 yrs Bond period]--which points to the sort of support he got from his seniors/peers in this company, APART from his own efforts.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
I am totally with you in your statements.
But, at the same time, there are always TWO sides to a coin.
W.r.t. your remarks as below....
"But there are many companies who provide the training in theory, hardcore responsibilities would indicate the good training,................ but also may be interpreted that the employer want to completely utilise the candidate without giving to status of the employee, these are also the tricks of many companies who fail to invest on HR......."
I do agree to what you mention...BUT LET'S NOT GENERALIZE.
If we go by the so many Postings in CiteHR of those who want to jump the Bond/Agreement & 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[actually have seen some companies take advantage of even experienced employees who didn't have a choice], so too would there 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 & 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 & 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 in such a wide-scale until about 15-20 yrs 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 eyeopener.
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 & ethics in-general, & 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 go the same way without any qualms--given that the very function of a 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 want to completely utilise 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 learnt in 16 months [when he got a better opportunity], what the company presumed would happen in 36 months [3 yrs Bond period]--which points to the sort of support he got from his seniors/peers in this company, APART from his own efforts.
Rgds,
TS
From India, Hyderabad
Hello Babu,
I am agree with TajSateesh,you must have taken your job as granted,although being a person we always look for our betterment.But rules and regulations are organised for our betterment only ,what if you have completed three years according to your bond and then you would have left this job with vast experience and seniority.
Well,we can only see the situation what you are saying but may be something is not true at the other side and you are forced to leave that place.
Further,try to analyse your own mistake and learn from it.
Regards,
Anila George.
From Pakistan, Karachi
I am agree with TajSateesh,you must have taken your job as granted,although being a person we always look for our betterment.But rules and regulations are organised for our betterment only ,what if you have completed three years according to your bond and then you would have left this job with vast experience and seniority.
Well,we can only see the situation what you are saying but may be something is not true at the other side and you are forced to leave that place.
Further,try to analyse your own mistake and learn from it.
Regards,
Anila George.
From Pakistan, Karachi
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 string word against any company which I never use, I request take the as usual meaning of my sentences.......
Thirdly, I am bothered about any company or any other person, because each issue has its own values and differences.....
You might have missed my previous replies, 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 a HR point of you, because, if it is in HR point of you, as you and every one 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 hearty respect them..... Also thank for the message.....
Have a nice day.......
From India, Bangalore
And crooked is the string word against any company which I never use, I request take the as usual meaning of my sentences.......
Thirdly, I am bothered about any company or any other person, because each issue has its own values and differences.....
You might have missed my previous replies, 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 a HR point of you, because, if it is in HR point of you, as you and every one 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 hearty respect them..... Also thank for the message.....
Have a nice day.......
From India, Bangalore
I am not at all surprised that so many H.R. "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 which 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 a 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. And 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 to the equivalent of the expenditure they have incurrred, if the person does not serve for a reasonable time after the training. Of course, the definition of "reasonalbe 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 of almost all Indian comanies is that the trainee gets a completely minimal "training", and there is virtually no expenditure iddentifiable 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 labour - 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 labour with no right to leave their jobs till 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 againt this abhorrent and archaic practice!
Raghav Rao
Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Unfortunately, I am unable to cite actual Court decisions, not being a 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. And 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 to the equivalent of the expenditure they have incurrred, if the person does not serve for a reasonable time after the training. Of course, the definition of "reasonalbe 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 of almost all Indian comanies is that the trainee gets a completely minimal "training", and there is virtually no expenditure iddentifiable 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 labour - 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 labour with no right to leave their jobs till 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 againt this abhorrent and archaic practice!
Raghav Rao
Hyderabad
From India, Hyderabad
Yes Mr. Raghav,
It is not possible to state anything unless we peruse the document. And void abinitio, can not be applied unless and untill we go through the document able to prove it.....
Yes, many companies do withhold the certificates, but only for the specific period of time....
And, regarding, bond with a specific "reasonable period" , is legal because, it has to provide justice to the investor also, in this case the companies investment on trainee... (also depends on the kind of training companies provide, so it will not call for absolute application of the rule....)
And, regarding the expenditure on training, we can not assure this benefit untill we know what kind of agreement he has signed and what are the other clauses in the agreement which may support this.......
This is the never ending discussion, only we may enjoy arguing, but the person who has put forth the query has neither attached any doc, not sent by mail, or even putting his efforts to provide the needed........ so no point in keep writing the sentences excluding the party.... :-) ;-)
From India, Bangalore
It is not possible to state anything unless we peruse the document. And void abinitio, can not be applied unless and untill we go through the document able to prove it.....
Yes, many companies do withhold the certificates, but only for the specific period of time....
And, regarding, bond with a specific "reasonable period" , is legal because, it has to provide justice to the investor also, in this case the companies investment on trainee... (also depends on the kind of training companies provide, so it will not call for absolute application of the rule....)
And, regarding the expenditure on training, we can not assure this benefit untill we know what kind of agreement he has signed and what are the other clauses in the agreement which may support this.......
This is the never ending discussion, only we may enjoy arguing, but the person who has put forth the query has neither attached any doc, not sent by mail, or even putting his efforts to provide the needed........ so no point in keep writing the sentences excluding the party.... :-) ;-)
From India, Bangalore
Much appreciated,
'No point' also has points:
1. It is basically a conflict between Employer's perspective vis-a-vis employee's perspective and the attitude. It is about maturity of mutual understanding. The race remains a continuous race, never won by anyone. Morale lost once is lost forever. Rs. 75000.00 penalty imposed does not really boost employer's earning. It is a clash of feeling of gratefulness. Employer never creates jobs to remain vacant. They never employ to retrench, they have right to expect employee to remain in long term, other wise it is never a win-win.
2. The pain is both sided
3. Compromising, accepting the reality are the answers; unless both the parties have no other business than to continue such never ending legal proceedings.
Best regards
db
From India, Pune
'No point' also has points:
1. It is basically a conflict between Employer's perspective vis-a-vis employee's perspective and the attitude. It is about maturity of mutual understanding. The race remains a continuous race, never won by anyone. Morale lost once is lost forever. Rs. 75000.00 penalty imposed does not really boost employer's earning. It is a clash of feeling of gratefulness. Employer never creates jobs to remain vacant. They never employ to retrench, they have right to expect employee to remain in long term, other wise it is never a win-win.
2. The pain is both sided
3. Compromising, accepting the reality are the answers; unless both the parties have no other business than to continue such never ending legal proceedings.
Best regards
db
From India, Pune
Dear Mehrunisa,
Please do not misguide anybody by saying that the 'In India the bond is illegal because it is very much legal and believe me i have got 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 curtails the rightful right of an employer to recover the money spend on the training of an employee.
I also agree that most of the employer 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 claiming the wrong money and not because the bonds are illegal per se. Do not get confused between Article 19 and legality of bond. In the instant case the bond may be illegal because the quester mentioned in his query that he has not been given any training.
The Legality of bond can only be determined by seeing the bond. Please send the copy of bond and after seeing that i will be in a position to Opine on this.
From India, New Delhi
Please do not misguide anybody by saying that the 'In India the bond is illegal because it is very much legal and believe me i have got 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 curtails the rightful right of an employer to recover the money spend on the training of an employee.
I also agree that most of the employer 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 claiming the wrong money and not because the bonds are illegal per se. Do not get confused between Article 19 and legality of bond. In the instant case the bond may be illegal because the quester mentioned in his query that he has not been given any training.
The Legality of bond can only be determined by seeing the bond. Please send the copy of bond and after seeing that i will be in a position to Opine on this.
From India, New Delhi
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.
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