Is termination clause in appointment letter is invalid?
Answer is YES as per order of Hon'ble Supreme Court's in 1986.
Read below link to get further clarity: -
https://www.facebook.com/shailendra....85949377735826
Regards,
Shailendra M. Deshpande
V & S Associates, Pune.
HR Consultant
Contact on: -
From India, Pune
39Answer is YES as per order of Hon'ble Supreme Court's in 1986.
Read below link to get further clarity: -
https://www.facebook.com/shailendra....85949377735826
Regards,
Shailendra M. Deshpande
V & S Associates, Pune.
HR Consultant
Contact on: -
From India, Pune
If you read the judgement properly it is not a full blanket ban on such clause. Also the validity has to be tested on grounds of reasonablility and there is no fixed benchmark for that. So it changes case to case. Read the below given links to now what can be held as invalid clause in appointment letter.
From India, Kolkata
From India, Kolkata
Dear Friend (Labour Law Index),
Please refer the judgement once again. My opinion is firmly based on reading the judgement & its analysis and only after discussions with seniors. Hence the wording used by you in your review seems to be quite arrogant to me.
Also refer my interpretation is once again based on facts & what is being held. I have clearly mentioned the remarks of Hon'ble SC in this case only and the learning from management point of view. Any employee who is terminated on some or other grounds, will certainly take benefit of this clause for his/her benefit. I have never mentioned in my interpretation about putting blanket ban on this clause.
Certainly the order/precedents are based on facts & circumstances of the case. But this case is landmark judgement in history of employment contracts.
In your blog, you have mentioned cases from Contract 1, wherein S. 27 is void in restrain of trade, but it is not applicable in case of Niranjan Shankar Vs. Century Mfg. Co. Hence it depends on evidences bought in front of court.
Appreciate your efforts put in your blog.
From India, Pune
Please refer the judgement once again. My opinion is firmly based on reading the judgement & its analysis and only after discussions with seniors. Hence the wording used by you in your review seems to be quite arrogant to me.
Also refer my interpretation is once again based on facts & what is being held. I have clearly mentioned the remarks of Hon'ble SC in this case only and the learning from management point of view. Any employee who is terminated on some or other grounds, will certainly take benefit of this clause for his/her benefit. I have never mentioned in my interpretation about putting blanket ban on this clause.
Certainly the order/precedents are based on facts & circumstances of the case. But this case is landmark judgement in history of employment contracts.
In your blog, you have mentioned cases from Contract 1, wherein S. 27 is void in restrain of trade, but it is not applicable in case of Niranjan Shankar Vs. Century Mfg. Co. Hence it depends on evidences bought in front of court.
Appreciate your efforts put in your blog.
From India, Pune
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.
Non-compete clause in service contracts.pdf
Non-compete Clause of Infy.jpg