The judgment shows that lockout agreements may be acceptable if they are justified, balanced and reasonable. If a worker violates the agreement, he must pay compensation to the employer. In return, the employer may not be considered to be able to terminate the employment relationship during the prohibition period. According to the above, your fixed-term employment contract, with a fixed term and a restraining period, is valid and binding for you, provided you are voluntarily and voluntarily agreed to it. They are therefore required to respect their disposition in good faith. A violation of one of the provisions of the treaty is an offence that may make you liable for the damage. This is not considered unfair, even if it turns out that the conditions have become unfavorable to you. Can employers reach an agreement with workers to prevent them from resigning for a certain period of time (banning period)? Many companies are facing this problem. Recruitment and training are costly and the loss of important skills is a problem. On the other hand, workers must be able to choose their employer and they must be able to resign freely from their position. This update highlights some of the rules for blocking periods by commenting on a recent Supreme Court ruling. The lock-in clause is the specific clause of the employment contract that sets a certain period in which the employment contract cannot be terminated by either or both parties to the employment contract. If a party does not comply with this clause, such a violation is considered a breach of the contract/contract and, in accordance with the law of the party to the infringement, it pays an amount which, as a rule, is a serious amount set in the agreement to the aggrieved party.
The employer also includes a penalty clause in the employment contract in order to recover the training or qualification costs of the worker. Although the inclusion of such clauses helps to control the rates of wear and tear of workers within the organization of the company, these clauses are often considered offensive by the Indian justice system. As a general rule, the amount of damage set out in the employment contract is at odds with the worker`s income, for which the worker is forced to serve the employer for a long period of time. In these circumstances, a specific provision of the Indian Contract Act 1872 is invoked to protect the interests of the worker, that is, section 27 of that Act, which provides that any agreement by which a person is deterred from practising a legal profession, a business of any kind, or, in this respect, not applicable.