Employer claim expense for on-the-job training of 5 Lacs given for the use of tools & instruments to perform service & get results. Clear terms mentioned in the appointment letter are "employment bond" & bond of service. And not, contract of service, employment agreement, indemnity bond, etc.
My Ex-Employer Summoned me by the lower court in Delhi to Pay for the above training cost plus 2 Lacs of Loss suffered due to my leaving. In total, Ex-Employer asked me to pay them 7.11 Lacs for breaching 3 years of an employment bond where my salary was 1.9Lacs PA. I resigned without a Notice period of 30 days after 2 years 5 months while 7 months were remaining to finish the bond. I was not given a confirmation letter after 2 months of probation.
My Appointment Letter stated I cannot join another company nor solicit clients of this company for 2 years after I don't work here. Can they Penalize me or my new company, or can I do it as being self-employed?
My hearing is on 17-Oct-2015. I stay in Goa.
Please advise me on the best way to make my defense.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)
Amend(0)
My Ex-Employer Summoned me by the lower court in Delhi to Pay for the above training cost plus 2 Lacs of Loss suffered due to my leaving. In total, Ex-Employer asked me to pay them 7.11 Lacs for breaching 3 years of an employment bond where my salary was 1.9Lacs PA. I resigned without a Notice period of 30 days after 2 years 5 months while 7 months were remaining to finish the bond. I was not given a confirmation letter after 2 months of probation.
My Appointment Letter stated I cannot join another company nor solicit clients of this company for 2 years after I don't work here. Can they Penalize me or my new company, or can I do it as being self-employed?
My hearing is on 17-Oct-2015. I stay in Goa.
Please advise me on the best way to make my defense.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Hitendra, In principle, Employment/Service Bonds that are a result of ANY provable Training ARE legal. Pl wait for the legal eagles in this Forum to respond with more details. Rgds, TS
From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
1700From India, Hyderabad
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
This case can be handled by a professional advocate as you will need to defend yourself in court. Points which can go in your favour:
The company cannot simply say Rs5L for training on the job - they will have to quantify the expenditure. Was there any production output as a result of OJT? Loss of 2 L by your leaving cannot, in general, be recovered from you. These losses are remote consequences, and quantification is difficult. How have they worked out 2L and attributed it to your exit? Only 7 months were left for completion of the bond period anyway. If probation was not revoked, then what terms are there for a person on probation to exit? Many such defenses can come up. Consult a good lawyer in Delhi and fix up terms of retainership, payment, etc. Collate all papers regarding your previous employment. While a legal proceeding is always a troublesome matter, be bold and defend yourself taking proper legal advice. The company is also in a weak point in some places as I can see from your post.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
The company cannot simply say Rs5L for training on the job - they will have to quantify the expenditure. Was there any production output as a result of OJT? Loss of 2 L by your leaving cannot, in general, be recovered from you. These losses are remote consequences, and quantification is difficult. How have they worked out 2L and attributed it to your exit? Only 7 months were left for completion of the bond period anyway. If probation was not revoked, then what terms are there for a person on probation to exit? Many such defenses can come up. Consult a good lawyer in Delhi and fix up terms of retainership, payment, etc. Collate all papers regarding your previous employment. While a legal proceeding is always a troublesome matter, be bold and defend yourself taking proper legal advice. The company is also in a weak point in some places as I can see from your post.
From India, Pune
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hitendra,
Now, saying that the organization is demanding 7 lakhs is incorrect. You have seen and accepted the appointment letter, which had this clause, and you had the option to refuse this and not join the company. You also say you didn't serve the required notice period, which is also wrong, and you knew you have a one-month notice period. Now, the question is the amount of liquidated damages. The organization has the power to file a case, whether legal or illegal, that the court will decide. But do you have time to attend court, hire a lawyer, and spend money? I suggest you request your employer, saying out of the required 3 years of service, you have served the majority of the part. Hence, they should waive it off. If they do not agree, ask them to proportionately charge. In any case, you have to pay for the one-month notice. Also, negotiate and request to waive it off. This is a better way to part with any employer. In the future, there will be past reference checks, and if you need a good reference, it's better to do this. Otherwise, if you don't agree, fighting in court may lead to spending the same amount of money on lawyers, which is an utter waste. Mutual settlement is the best way out in such cases. Next time, read your appointment letter properly before signing and accepting the offer. Good luck!
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Now, saying that the organization is demanding 7 lakhs is incorrect. You have seen and accepted the appointment letter, which had this clause, and you had the option to refuse this and not join the company. You also say you didn't serve the required notice period, which is also wrong, and you knew you have a one-month notice period. Now, the question is the amount of liquidated damages. The organization has the power to file a case, whether legal or illegal, that the court will decide. But do you have time to attend court, hire a lawyer, and spend money? I suggest you request your employer, saying out of the required 3 years of service, you have served the majority of the part. Hence, they should waive it off. If they do not agree, ask them to proportionately charge. In any case, you have to pay for the one-month notice. Also, negotiate and request to waive it off. This is a better way to part with any employer. In the future, there will be past reference checks, and if you need a good reference, it's better to do this. Otherwise, if you don't agree, fighting in court may lead to spending the same amount of money on lawyers, which is an utter waste. Mutual settlement is the best way out in such cases. Next time, read your appointment letter properly before signing and accepting the offer. Good luck!
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Hello Hitendra,
Can you share your original appointment letter/employment contract and any other indemnity letter/agreement letter that you would have been issued (specify which of them have been acknowledged by you)? It's only fair to comment on the case by reviewing the document. You may mail it as a PDF to
with your contact number to enable me to talk to you in case of queries.
Cheers,
A.B.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Can you share your original appointment letter/employment contract and any other indemnity letter/agreement letter that you would have been issued (specify which of them have been acknowledged by you)? It's only fair to comment on the case by reviewing the document. You may mail it as a PDF to
Cheers,
A.B.
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Kanvij, Nathrao Sir,
Thank you very much for your kind reply.
I worked here and got the exact case -
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/90682699/
The company did provide direct instructions under a supervisor so that I could deliver the exact contents from the training manuals to the clients of the company. Thus, this was the core job role of being a trainer. The imparting of training to its clients is the job role, and the supervisor was to assign the job to me and also ensure the quality of service.
The said Induction or Internal Training provided by the Supervisor was to ensure the quality of service while I delivered the same instructions to clients. It didn't help in my cognitive development, and neither could it be applied outside the predefined environment of the company. I never worked in real-time application of the concepts of instructional manuals. Hence, no production output came out of the said direct instructions. The only responsibility was the delivery of training instructions from the said manuals to clients.
The Supervisor acknowledged multiple times that "following instructions from the manual and getting the same result in the predefined environment doesn't require any skills. Even a 3-year-old daughter, if she could read English, can do the same thing." Hence, for the same job, special privileges or special training were not required. Until the last day with the company, I never had the required certificates as qualification standards maintained by Microsoft to impart training. As I was jobless for the last 4 months before joining and financially not sound, I had no bargaining power in negotiation for any ready formats of a bond.
Thus, all expenses are only towards salary. This is a business consideration and is already worked into Admin Expenses in supervisors' and my salary. The purchase of training manuals was not for employees; they were for clients, and we were provided access only to deliver the exact instructions from the manual and get the same results. Hence, the products that the company is supposed to sell by means of imparting service, I stood as a workman in performing the service, which also contradicts my position as a Trainee. According to the Apprentice Act, Trainee and Apprentice have the same meaning, and an Apprentice is not an Employee. But here, I was on the payroll of the company.
How can the company ask for money for the job instructions and job role they provided under the pretext of the wrong interpretation of the word training, which is the business of the company?
Regarding the above case number, can you defend my case in the same district court, or if not, can you please provide a reference to a lawyer who can help me willingly?
Please reply soon, as we are currently in Delhi searching for a helpful lawyer.
With Best Regards,
Hitendra, Mob-08983009085
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Thank you very much for your kind reply.
I worked here and got the exact case -
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/90682699/
The company did provide direct instructions under a supervisor so that I could deliver the exact contents from the training manuals to the clients of the company. Thus, this was the core job role of being a trainer. The imparting of training to its clients is the job role, and the supervisor was to assign the job to me and also ensure the quality of service.
The said Induction or Internal Training provided by the Supervisor was to ensure the quality of service while I delivered the same instructions to clients. It didn't help in my cognitive development, and neither could it be applied outside the predefined environment of the company. I never worked in real-time application of the concepts of instructional manuals. Hence, no production output came out of the said direct instructions. The only responsibility was the delivery of training instructions from the said manuals to clients.
The Supervisor acknowledged multiple times that "following instructions from the manual and getting the same result in the predefined environment doesn't require any skills. Even a 3-year-old daughter, if she could read English, can do the same thing." Hence, for the same job, special privileges or special training were not required. Until the last day with the company, I never had the required certificates as qualification standards maintained by Microsoft to impart training. As I was jobless for the last 4 months before joining and financially not sound, I had no bargaining power in negotiation for any ready formats of a bond.
Thus, all expenses are only towards salary. This is a business consideration and is already worked into Admin Expenses in supervisors' and my salary. The purchase of training manuals was not for employees; they were for clients, and we were provided access only to deliver the exact instructions from the manual and get the same results. Hence, the products that the company is supposed to sell by means of imparting service, I stood as a workman in performing the service, which also contradicts my position as a Trainee. According to the Apprentice Act, Trainee and Apprentice have the same meaning, and an Apprentice is not an Employee. But here, I was on the payroll of the company.
How can the company ask for money for the job instructions and job role they provided under the pretext of the wrong interpretation of the word training, which is the business of the company?
Regarding the above case number, can you defend my case in the same district court, or if not, can you please provide a reference to a lawyer who can help me willingly?
Please reply soon, as we are currently in Delhi searching for a helpful lawyer.
With Best Regards,
Hitendra, Mob-08983009085
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
Sir, thank you very much for your kind reply.
I was working here, and the exact case is -
Cs no. 38/13/13 Koenig Solution v/ Kuldeep Singh on 17-9-14 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/90682699/
The company did provide direct instructions under supervision so that I could deliver the exact contents from the training manuals to the clients. This was my core job role as a trainer. Imparting training to clients was my job role, and the supervisor was responsible for assigning tasks to me and ensuring the quality of service.
It was not for my cognitive development, and it could not be applied outside the predefined environment of the company. I never worked on real-time application of concepts from instructional manuals. My only responsibility was the delivery of training instructions from the manuals to clients.
The supervisor acknowledged multiple times that "following instructions from the manual and achieving the same results in the predefined environment does not require any special skills. Even a 3-year-old daughter who can read English can do the same thing." So, no special skills were required to follow instructions from manuals and demonstrate the same results in the predefined environment.
Thus, all expenses are only towards salary. This is a business consideration and has already been accounted for in the administrative expenses for supervisors and my salary. The purchase of training manuals was not for employees but for clients, and we were provided access only to deliver the exact instructions from the manual and achieve the same results.
How can the company ask for money for the job instructions and job role they provided under the pretext of a wrong interpretation of the word "training"? Moreover, I was employed as a trainee with the same responsibilities as other permanent employees. According to the Apprenticeship Act, a trainee cannot be considered a workman.
Regarding the above case, can anyone defend my case in the same district court, or if not, can you please provide a reference to a lawyer who is willing to help me here?
Please reply soon, as we are currently in Delhi searching for a helpful lawyer.
With Best Regards, Hitendra, Mob-08983009085
From India, Mumbai
Acknowledge(0)Amend(0)
I was working here, and the exact case is -
Cs no. 38/13/13 Koenig Solution v/ Kuldeep Singh on 17-9-14 http://indiankanoon.org/doc/90682699/
The company did provide direct instructions under supervision so that I could deliver the exact contents from the training manuals to the clients. This was my core job role as a trainer. Imparting training to clients was my job role, and the supervisor was responsible for assigning tasks to me and ensuring the quality of service.
It was not for my cognitive development, and it could not be applied outside the predefined environment of the company. I never worked on real-time application of concepts from instructional manuals. My only responsibility was the delivery of training instructions from the manuals to clients.
The supervisor acknowledged multiple times that "following instructions from the manual and achieving the same results in the predefined environment does not require any special skills. Even a 3-year-old daughter who can read English can do the same thing." So, no special skills were required to follow instructions from manuals and demonstrate the same results in the predefined environment.
Thus, all expenses are only towards salary. This is a business consideration and has already been accounted for in the administrative expenses for supervisors and my salary. The purchase of training manuals was not for employees but for clients, and we were provided access only to deliver the exact instructions from the manual and achieve the same results.
How can the company ask for money for the job instructions and job role they provided under the pretext of a wrong interpretation of the word "training"? Moreover, I was employed as a trainee with the same responsibilities as other permanent employees. According to the Apprenticeship Act, a trainee cannot be considered a workman.
Regarding the above case, can anyone defend my case in the same district court, or if not, can you please provide a reference to a lawyer who is willing to help me here?
Please reply soon, as we are currently in Delhi searching for a helpful lawyer.
With Best Regards, Hitendra, Mob-08983009085
From India, Mumbai
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-employ ee_866.jpg
Employer-PF-res trict to wages of Rs 6500.pdf