As already clarified by respected elders, this is not a contract appointment. A condition that in case the candidate leaves before a period of two years then one has to pay Rs. 1 lakh cannot be stated to be an unconscionable term of employment as such a condition is neither prohibited by law nor is against public policy. Similar clauses exist in other organisations too, probably with a view to make the new employee commit oneself to a long career ahead. The employment contract was offered to you and you could either accept or reject, so it cannot be viewed as opposed to the provisions of Contract Act 1872. The post of Sr Manager/HR is a key post in any organisation and hence to impose such conditions is very critical for long term prospect of the organisation. But they could have made this condition clear beforehand, at least to a Senior HR professional.
From India, Mumbai
1422From India, Mumbai
KK,
I will disagree with you.
Any condition of forcing the employee to work for a certain minimum period of time in a particular organistation is illegal unless the company has spent money in training the person by way of a formal course (not on job training).
This being a law confirmed by the Supreme Court of India, you can not override it by putting it in the appointment letter or by putting it in any contract. The contract will be in any case invalid and null and void ab initio to the extent of requiring the employee to stay for a certain period or compensate for leaving early.
If the company wants someone to work for a longer period, they need to ensure the work environment is attractive and the pay is remunerative enough to keep the employee with the organisation
From India, Mumbai
I will disagree with you.
Any condition of forcing the employee to work for a certain minimum period of time in a particular organistation is illegal unless the company has spent money in training the person by way of a formal course (not on job training).
This being a law confirmed by the Supreme Court of India, you can not override it by putting it in the appointment letter or by putting it in any contract. The contract will be in any case invalid and null and void ab initio to the extent of requiring the employee to stay for a certain period or compensate for leaving early.
If the company wants someone to work for a longer period, they need to ensure the work environment is attractive and the pay is remunerative enough to keep the employee with the organisation
From India, Mumbai
Thanks experts.
I have understood the conditions required for the employer to enforce any contract on employees.
But my case was not under any of these conditions.
It was a private firm and there was no off job training as well.
The only reason for them to enforce contract was the un-stability of employees.
On top of that they don't even tell such conditions before releasing offers.
Hence such contracts are always illegal.
From India, Noida
I have understood the conditions required for the employer to enforce any contract on employees.
But my case was not under any of these conditions.
It was a private firm and there was no off job training as well.
The only reason for them to enforce contract was the un-stability of employees.
On top of that they don't even tell such conditions before releasing offers.
Hence such contracts are always illegal.
From India, Noida
Swati
I think we are all talking of the same thing from different points of view.
The 'bond' or 'condition' for paying the penalty for leaving before completion of 2 years is illegal in your case.
Therefore, since it is illegal, you need not bother with it. You could continue working and if you wanted to leave, you could do it because they have no way to enforce the agreement.
On the other hand, your decision not to join because you can not force this condition on new employees is probably a valid moral decision. Whether the moral decision at the cost of a job makes sense depends on each individual. If i was in your place, i would probably join and look for another job and then leave once i got it, rather than be unemployed. But then again, it depends on whether you desperately needed the money from the job. Not everyone can can afford to refuse like you.
Regards
Saswata Banerjee
From India, Mumbai
I think we are all talking of the same thing from different points of view.
The 'bond' or 'condition' for paying the penalty for leaving before completion of 2 years is illegal in your case.
Therefore, since it is illegal, you need not bother with it. You could continue working and if you wanted to leave, you could do it because they have no way to enforce the agreement.
On the other hand, your decision not to join because you can not force this condition on new employees is probably a valid moral decision. Whether the moral decision at the cost of a job makes sense depends on each individual. If i was in your place, i would probably join and look for another job and then leave once i got it, rather than be unemployed. But then again, it depends on whether you desperately needed the money from the job. Not everyone can can afford to refuse like you.
Regards
Saswata Banerjee
From India, Mumbai
Find answers from people who have previously dealt with business and work issues similar to yours - Please Register and Log In to CiteHR and post your query.
Company Profile.ppt
Company Profile Letter - Global Risk Management Services.pdf