One employee was hired as a sales engineer; He was awarded a three-year contract, but left the company after only 14 months of service. In this case, it was found that it was not necessary for the employer to demonstrate injury separately after the offence. It should be noted that the worker concerned received a particular benefit, concession or training at the employer`s expense and cost, in whole or in part, and that the worker violated the loan. The violation is an offence to the employer. The High Court also clarified that the statutory exemption would not affect the mitigation of the amount of damages. The employment requirement is considered appropriate because it is necessary to protect the interests of the employer. However, the restrictions placed on the worker in the contract should be „reasonable“ and „necessary“ to protect the employer`s interests, or the validity of the obligations is under consideration. The implementation of the employment obligation cannot compel the worker to work for an employer. In the event of a worker`s default, the employer`s only recourse is to obtain a reasonable amount of compensation. The question here is whether such a method of recruiting workers is effective, acceptable and applicable under the law. This article discusses the applicability of employment obligations and the rights available to employers and workers under the agreement, in light of various court decisions.

Example: Sicpa India Limited v Shri Manas Pratim Deb, the applicant had charged INR 67.595 for teaching the defendant. For the same thing, a employment loan was executed, following which the defendant had agreed to serve the complainant company for a period of three years or to pay 200,000 INR. The employee left the job within two years and, in order to implement the agreement, the employer went to court, which awarded the employer 22,532 INR as compensation for breach of contract. It is important to note that, although the loan provides for a payment of 200,000 INR as a severance payment, the judge took into account the total cost of the employer and the length of service of the worker in deciding the amount of compensation. Given that the respondent had already completed two years of service under the agreed three-year period, the judge divided in three equal parts the total expenses of 67,595 INR incurred by the applicant for a period of three years and granted an amount of 22,532 INR as appropriate compensation for termination of employment one year before the agreed deadline.

219total visits,6visits today