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)
212From 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)Engage with peers to discuss and resolve work and business challenges collaboratively - share and document your knowledge. Our AI-powered platform, features real-time fact-checking, peer reviews, and an extensive historical knowledge base. - Join & Be Part Of Our Community.
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