It is true........ only party can not take the advantage of the other party under the shelter of precedents, because issues differ and the rule any such case apply to only such issues....
Actual damage to the employment of the individuals, and actual hindrance to the opportunities, yes agreed when the employee is no more connected with the company anymore and has dispatched his liabilities towards having towards the other party as agreed under the contract in accordance with the law........, but when he is connect with the company, and also has the liabilities towards the same in accordance with law, he is bound by the agreement.....
For example, A student who would complete his graduation in the very next year, Mr. Apple, join the company
Mrs. Orange which provides opportunity to work with it but on a condition that he must not leave Mrs. Orange for 3 years, is this an invalid, or against law ??
2) the same Mr. Apple gets apprenticeship for an year and and assurance of job opportunity on a condition that he would not leave Mrs. Orange for 3 years, is this illegal??
3) Mr. Mango, who is not a student, get employment opportunity with Mrs. Pumpkin, on a condition that he shall not leave Mrs. Pumpkin for 5 years, in which an year a training period, 6 months probation and upon satisfaction the employment...
4) The same, Mr. Mango get another employment "offer" with Mrs. Carrot, but on a condition that he shall not leave the company for 10years.....
5) Mr. chimp gets and employment 'offer', on a condition that he shall not leave the company for 15 years in which 3 years will be training, and 1 year for probation......
6) Mr. Chimp get another Offer on a condition that after working for 5 years as per the agreement with Mrs. Monkey, he shall not join any another company of a same sector for 2 years....
7) Mr. chimp get other offer on a condition that after leaving the company he shall not join 'any other company' for 1 year........
So, if you can identify which are the above are legal and difference between reasonable and unreasonable you would get the solution for the issue in question.........
From India, Bangalore
12Actual damage to the employment of the individuals, and actual hindrance to the opportunities, yes agreed when the employee is no more connected with the company anymore and has dispatched his liabilities towards having towards the other party as agreed under the contract in accordance with the law........, but when he is connect with the company, and also has the liabilities towards the same in accordance with law, he is bound by the agreement.....
For example, A student who would complete his graduation in the very next year, Mr. Apple, join the company
Mrs. Orange which provides opportunity to work with it but on a condition that he must not leave Mrs. Orange for 3 years, is this an invalid, or against law ??
2) the same Mr. Apple gets apprenticeship for an year and and assurance of job opportunity on a condition that he would not leave Mrs. Orange for 3 years, is this illegal??
3) Mr. Mango, who is not a student, get employment opportunity with Mrs. Pumpkin, on a condition that he shall not leave Mrs. Pumpkin for 5 years, in which an year a training period, 6 months probation and upon satisfaction the employment...
4) The same, Mr. Mango get another employment "offer" with Mrs. Carrot, but on a condition that he shall not leave the company for 10years.....
5) Mr. chimp gets and employment 'offer', on a condition that he shall not leave the company for 15 years in which 3 years will be training, and 1 year for probation......
6) Mr. Chimp get another Offer on a condition that after working for 5 years as per the agreement with Mrs. Monkey, he shall not join any another company of a same sector for 2 years....
7) Mr. chimp get other offer on a condition that after leaving the company he shall not join 'any other company' for 1 year........
So, if you can identify which are the above are legal and difference between reasonable and unreasonable you would get the solution for the issue in question.........
From India, Bangalore
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
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
Dear all,
All my friends in this discussion should understand that I am not here to disprove some one or prove myself. I am posting my view and others can post their views. All the judgments quoted above relates to the service bond only and it supports my view.Those who are opposing my view may please give 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
All my friends in this discussion should understand that I am not here to disprove some one or prove myself. I am posting my view and others can post their views. All the judgments quoted above relates to the service bond only and it supports my view.Those who are opposing my view may please give 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
In such case all the service bonds do relate to the judgements dealt regarding the employment bonds!!!! (...any employee filing a case against his employer regarding his rights and liabilities may refer the cases quoted above!!) Whether the matter in question or the issue relates????????
I don't really think any one would ask for a judgement when it comes to the common knowledge of common people.....
Infact, you being completed Law, no offense, you must be knowing that the term "reasonability" or "reasonable" has got NO specific definition, but the Apex court of India has clearly said that the reasonable, which is something that is accepted and acceptable by every normal person in normal circumstances as reasonable and acceptable...which is considered as fair... one which is "morally due" ; "to a fairly sufficient extent" ; "which does not prejudice the rights of others" ; "legally due" ; these are some of the words used by the courts interpreting the word.....
If you have access to manupatra, or any site which provides access to precedents, just type the word for search, you get n number cases....
And regarding Art. 19, the provision it self explains reasonable restriction, which does not make necessary to open the judgements.....
(Just because the leaves are green all trees does not fetch the same fruit..., so the issue/fact in question is important not all the related facts and dealt issues under one head... that is why Legal process has gained that prominence...)
From India, Bangalore
I don't really think any one would ask for a judgement when it comes to the common knowledge of common people.....
Infact, you being completed Law, no offense, you must be knowing that the term "reasonability" or "reasonable" has got NO specific definition, but the Apex court of India has clearly said that the reasonable, which is something that is accepted and acceptable by every normal person in normal circumstances as reasonable and acceptable...which is considered as fair... one which is "morally due" ; "to a fairly sufficient extent" ; "which does not prejudice the rights of others" ; "legally due" ; these are some of the words used by the courts interpreting the word.....
If you have access to manupatra, or any site which provides access to precedents, just type the word for search, you get n number cases....
And regarding Art. 19, the provision it self explains reasonable restriction, which does not make necessary to open the judgements.....
(Just because the leaves are green all trees does not fetch the same fruit..., so the issue/fact in question is important not all the related facts and dealt issues under one head... that is why Legal process has gained that prominence...)
From India, Bangalore
One fact shall also to be considered that, here Mr. Babu, is not yet an employee of the company at all....... So, there is necessity to look at the agreement/bond so that we may come up with some legal back up if he needs .....
From India, Bangalore
From India, Bangalore
Dear Mehrunisa
Being an advocate i can tell you that reading only 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 judgements and the real situation at hand. We in out day in and out deal with such situations on daily basis, where some judgment seems to be good enough but later it proves to be worthless in those given circumstances.
From India, New Delhi
Being an advocate i can tell you that reading only 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 judgements and the real situation at hand. We in out day in and out deal with such situations on daily basis, where some judgment seems to be good enough but later it proves to be worthless in those given circumstances.
From India, New Delhi
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
From India, Narsapur
I think a bond with an employer to serve him for a particular period after getting training at the expense of employer is legally valid.But agreement forbidding the employee from joining any particular class of companies(say competitors )is not legally valid as it is against art;19 o
f the constitution.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
f the constitution.
Varghese Mathew
From India, Thiruvananthapuram
Today regarding a case between the Nurses association and hospital management in Supreme court ( case relating to nurses strike in Kerala) the Indian Government has filed a affidavit that the the direction has been issued to all the state government that the bond system should not be enforced in Hospitals. If in hospitals bond system cannot be made then why not in other establishments. I will update regarding the same as soon as I receive the further information.
From India, Kochi
From India, Kochi
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