Madhu.T.K
Industrial Relations And Labour Laws
Hussain Zulfikar
Hris Implementation, Payroll, Recruitment,
1962shrikant
Head - Ir/hr
Loginmiracle
Consultant & G.m.
+2 Others

Thread Started by #rakesh044440

Hi, I worked in a leading X mnc company as a software engineer. I joined as a fresher. But due to some reasons I absconded from the company. Now its three months that i left the company having worked for 3 months before. I got 3 months salary even without working.
Now they are asking me to come to the company again, but I am not interested to go. I signed a bond agreement of 1 lakh to work for one year. Even I got training initially.
What are the consequences if I dont go. I dont want to continue, even I dont have the money to pay either. I dont want any experience letter. Do they blacklist me, if so at the company level or in NSC ?
Please assist.
2nd March 2012 From India, Hyderabad
Though employment bond is illegal, you are bound to compensate the company for the amount they spent on your training (as you said you got training). Similarly, if you have received salary for three months 'without working' in the company why can't you compromise? Since you admit that you have absconded why don't you pay the actual amount back to the company and settle the issue? Now, being an engineer should you fall down to the attitude of a worker? These are the general questions asked when you raise it as a dispute. Nothing may happen if you do not respond to the letters sent by the company asking you to pay the bond amount of Rs 1 lakh. Similarly, nothing may happen in the very near future if they blacklist you. But think about long run and decide.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
2nd March 2012 From India, Kannur
my doubt is, why employment bond is illegal? In order to retain employee during training period and after training period, employer needs to hold the employee. Most of the industries are getting agreement signed by the emloyee or to retain their originals till the completion of their tenure. In certain cases, employee is resigned from the company without relieving order ( breach of agreement), employer has taken legal action against breach of contract and collected the entire amount through court. In this case, employee must be in a position to pay the fees of employer also.
Other points, I agree with Mr. Madhu,
Regards,
RekhaBhanu
3rd March 2012 From India, Madras
Dear Rakesh,
There are two sides of it - One is legal and other is ethics and one more is right to choose. Probably you got a better offer and without notice you stopped. You may escape from bond but legally you are still an absconder not having resigned the job. Because of this you R keeping a chance of criminal case open ( what happens if they file an FIR against you saying you R absconding taking away company's money, documents etc.). I don't think you would decide to go back to them. May be you should resign quoting some valid reason like you R seriously ill or your great grand father died and you have to take care of his heirs etc. and your last working day should be treated as your relieving date. ( Incidentally how you came to know they want you back ?)
kumar.s.
3rd March 2012 From India, Bangalore
Rekha Babu,

I agree that there are employees who abscond without even letting the employer know any thing or without a proper handing over. But what I have said is that employment bond is illegal as per law and I am not the law making authority but it is the law made just to avoid bonded labour system which had lots of drawbacks and due to which even the second generations of the indebted persons are forced to work. The matter is very serious in agriculture sector in many parts of India especially in the areas where human rights are not well known among the labour class. Perhaps the system is not in place in Kerala because of the awareness about their rights. Of course, it has put in its own drawbacks in Kerala which is considered to be the cradle of Trade Unions and collective bargaining.

It is right that the employer will always think that his employees should work with him always. But when the employer fails to keep up the promises given to the candidate at the time of his entry, why don't the employee think of leaving him? Is it proper that when an employee decides to leave the employer can retain the certificates and spoil his career. If any employer is doing so, I must say that that is wrong and that will be deemed as BONDED labour. Even collecting the certificates as a precaution is a bad sign. Why should we collect it, because we are in fear that the employee will leave when he gets a "better" opportunity. Why don't we ourselves give him that "better" opportunity. We know that we can not retain labour and the labour knows that we will lose the job any time.

Now in a highly skilled jobs, will any employer demand that the employee(rather professional) should surrender his certificates and should sign a bond for three years or pay such a high amounts? No, because there the demand is from the employer side and in the supply side there is scarcity. That means only where supply is plenty and demand is less the employers will force for bond and it is that phenomena which compels one to sign bond.

Therefore, a generalisation is not possible and we should not blindly say that we can go ahead with collecting certificates and signing employment bonds. Labour Laws are made to benefit the poor employees and we are supposed to follow it. The Laws are made to protect their interests.

Regards,

Madhu.T.K
4th March 2012 From India, Kannur
@Rakesh : I don’t know what could be the circumstances for you to abscond from your commitment. This incident shows your ethical standards.
@login Miracle: your suggestion is in poor taste.
@Madhu TK : Can there be a possibility that, Agreement bond would be specifically related to training cost. Many a times company make employee sign a training bond agreement to serve company for number of months or years or pay training cost.
5th March 2012 From Kuwait, Salmiya
I appreciate Madhu TK’s point of view on employment bonds and its misuse by employers. At the same time, there has to be a another POV towards urban professionals and investment of firms on their employee. Least an employer expects from employee is a decent notice period which can be politely negotiated as per mutual agreement between the parties. This cases and issues are discussed empteen times on this forum.
The acceptable advise given by most of seniors are : To adhere to company policy and leave employers on a good note by following procedure of exit.
5th March 2012 From Kuwait, Salmiya
A contract to reimburse training cost is always valid. Therefore, an employer can very well recover any cost incurred by him towards training given to the employee. That does not mean that the employee should work with the employer for such a long period until the cost is fully recovered but the employee can leave the employer by paying the actual cost incurred by the employer.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
5th March 2012 From India, Kannur
Dear Madhu,
i am agree with Rekhas opinion The contract of Employment is a legal document, before signing it everybody should think throughly, once you sign, the terms and condition is applicable to you.
In this case he violated the contract of employment hence he is eligible for fine whatever is mentioned in his Contract of Employment.
Employer is offering job keeping faith on his document and spending money for Training and after gaining experiance from exiting company the candidates are leaving the organisation saying fake reasons.
after all we have to obey the manners and ethics of business.
14th March 2012 From India, Mumbai
I am not against the practice of demanding training cost. (please read the post carefully) But the law of the land says that a contract which forces one to continue with an employer is bad in law. There may be some genuine cases but at the same time there are companies which compel the employees to stay by violating all the laws and not keeping up the promises given to the employees at the time of their joining. Many often the bonds are one sided, fabricated from the side of the employer only and the employee is forced to sign it due to high elasticity of supply of labour. At the same time, wherever the labour is scare no bond will be effective.
Regards,
Madhu.T.K
14th March 2012 From India, Kannur
Dear Madhu, i am agree with your opinion but we are discussing the live case of absconding not others,please.
15th March 2012 From India, Mumbai
Hi Madhu
I agree with your POV, that employers also misuse binding laws to exploit employees. But with changing times, and demand supply dynamics of labor market, there has to be a review in law. I don’t support the idea of enslaving bond, but their has to be obligation on employer and employee both to honor terms and conditions on signing employment contract.
Increasingly employees are becoming spoilt and low tolerance levels towards employer’s efforts. Absconding has become norm and acceptable practice. Companies are finding many absconders in the market, that they have to lower their requirement for relieving letter and accept the employee in spite of bad previous employment records. Further fueling acceptability of this unethical act.
15th March 2012 From Kuwait, Salmiya
Reply (Add What You Know) Start New Discussion

Cite.Co - is a repository of information created by your industry peers and experienced seniors. Register Here and help by adding your inputs to this topic/query page.
Prime Sponsor: TALENTEDGE - Certification Courses for career growth from top institutes like IIM / XLRI direct to device (online digital learning)





About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service



All rights reserved @ 2019 Cite.Co™