Gil Sperling

video, stage and music

Employee Bond Agreement In India Is Legal

April 9, 2021 by gilsperling

Dear Sir, please help, My company made the loan of 4 years, during which they said, when I leave the company 4 years ago, I have to pay 1.5 Lakh Rupees, they have already been signed check check. I worked in the company for 2 years and 3 months, during which they did incrementally only once, did not even give a train to me (by which they spent money for my training) Now, if I go away without notice, they say they will deposit this check of 1.5 lakh. Please help me. The above analysis shows that the restrictions imposed during the period for which the worker is willing to serve are generally not akin to a trade restriction. This implies a reservation that alliances are not one-sided, do not impose unreasonable chains and are not oppressive. However, post-termination restrictions would be considered invalid and would be contrary to Section 27 of the Indian Contracts Act, 1872. In addition, in calculating the damages of liquidation awarded in the event of non-compliance with a employment loan, the Tribunal would take due account of the above guidelines and would have little chance of granting some performance of the contract. In addition, the links would also be valid for the trainees if the employer proves that he suffered a violation of the law as a result of the break of the loan by the trainee. The courts have recognized that an appropriate and balanced loan between a company and an apprentice is valid. An example is the subhir Ghosh v.

Indian Iron and Steel Company, in which a contract requiring the apprentice to accept a job offer if he was filed by the company at the end of his training was validated. Moreover, the contract must not be too one-sided, so it loses the character of a commercial promotion contract and acquires the character of a trade agreement. The cases of Jet Airways (I) Ltd v Jan Peter Ravi Karnik and Lalbhai Dalpatbhai – Co v Chittaranjan Chandulal Pandya explain this recognized legal principle. In the first case, the accused resigned within six months of the end of the training, in violation of the employment obligation.

Posted in Uncategorized |

Comments are closed.